October 27, 2020

IPBT Meeting – October 27, 2020

Tri-chairs: Christina G. Espinosa-Pieb, Mary Pape, Heidi King

Administrative reps: Sam Bliss, Randy Bryant, Alicia Cortez, Christina Espinosa-Pieb, Anita Mythyala-Kandula, Lorrie Ranck, Thomas Ray

Classified reps: Thomas Bailey, Lorna Maynard, Heidi King

Faculty reps: Cheryl Balm, Mayra Cruz, Terrence Mullens, Mary Pape, Danny Solomon, Erik Woodbury

Student reps: Grace Lim, Arushi Sharma, Esha Dadbhawala, Luiza Eloy

Affinity Group Representatives:

Black Faculty, Staff and Administrators Network Representative (BFSA): Melinda Hughes, Pauline Wethington

The Asian Pacific American Staff Association Representative (APASA): Christine Chai, Khoa Nguyen

De Anza Latinx Association Representative (DALA): Eric Mendoza, Felisa Vilaubi

Present: Pippa Gibson, Mallory Newell, Daniel Smith, Eric Mendoza, Mary Donahue, Lisa Markus, Susan Ho, Dawn Lee Tu, Anthony Nguyen, Pete Vernazza, Amy Leonard, So Kam Lee, Jeffrey Kasprow, Ananya Bapat (DASB), Sarah Wallace, Fiza Syed, Francesca Caparas, Todd Gutmann, Ishmael Tarikh, Elvin Ramos, Tim Shively, Vins Chacko, Ananya Bapat (DASB), Moaty Fayek, Kulwant Singh, Rick Maynard, Karen Chow, Edmundo Norte

Approval of Minutes – Notes of October 13, 2020 were approved.

DASB Report: Given by Lim, Dadbhawala, Eloy and Sharma in that order. Students wished for guarantee that any decision today in scenario for Reduction Proposal will be non-binding regarding the accounts and amounts. The students had a meeting with President Holmes. Some remarks he stated in that meeting seemed to the students to be contradictory to what they were hearing in IPBT meetings.  They requested that IPBT meeting (of 10/27/2020) be recorded to avoid misunderstandings. Regarding request to record meeting (of 10/27/2020) and future meetings, Christina stated that to change the format to recorded meetings would need discussion and agreement among all members of IPBT and that would necessitate that the matter be on the agenda. The written notes will serve as documentation for decision(s) made in today's meeting.

Allocation of SWP Funds: Lorrie Ranck reminded all that last Spring IPBT had approved the resources requested by departments in their 2019-20 Program Review. These are shown in summary workbook [link to document]. IPBT recommended to College Council and College Council approved the funding of all requests needed for Summer session and Fall 2020. At this time, the remaining amount of approximately $250K needs to be spent by December 31, 2020. Lorrie moved and Cruz seconded that the IPBT approve the spending of these SWP funds using the resource request list approved by IPBT during Spring 2020. There was no discussion except for one bark. The motion passed with 23 yes's, 0 no's, and 0 abstained.

Budget Reduction Proposal: Christina spoke to the document, "What does the vote mean", hoping it would address the concerns of IPBT. Unlike what was supplied for discussion of the scenarios which are merely listing collateral, when and if there is an actual budget reduction, data will be provided and consequences discussed. She thanked all for their time and realizes all are part of IPBT because they truly care. Balm requested recording since she worries that a "Yes" vote could be held against us if wish to change the line items. The "What does the vote mean" document was then shared on the screen. President Holmes is beginning the process of restructuring shared governance groups so there cannot be guarantee of what PBTs will look like but there is the assurance that any actual cuts would involve conversation with background details. Shively encouraged all to look favorably on the decision being asked for today pointing out that the 1320 monies have been removed from the scenario. Giving credit for the 1320 funds being removed and recognizing that the scenario does not affect personnel, Shively advocated passing scenario B alias draft #2. Balm emphasized, that more than 1320 monies, the concern is around transparency. Christina underscored the fluidity of the accounts in the scenarios saying1320 fund would not be touched unless enrollment declined. We could start with the scenario or scratch the entire scenario and start over. Continuing discussion included recount of how this ask came about and further assurance that it is non-binding.  The document "What a yes vote means" and "What a yes vote does not mean" was further reviewed. Lorna Maynard moved and Randy seconded a vote on draft #2 as designated on the presentation from Grey where "A yes vote means that you are voting to affirm De Anza College has identified several broad funding sources in a response to the District's request. A yes vote does not mean these exact funds will be used in the way currently represented. Again, all amounts are subject to change and some sources could be eliminated altogether in the event that a budget reduction is actually required." The motion passed (21 yes votes, 0 no votes, and 2 abstained).

Christina agreed to set up a meeting between the students and Dr. Holmes so that they could be assured that both Dr. Holmes and she meant the same thing about the budgets been malleable, flexible and unbinding.  While the exact words were not used by each of them, Christina agreed that it was important for the students to hear this directly from Dr. Holmes.