February 9, 2021

IPBT meeting – February 9, 2021

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

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

Classified reps: Thomas Bailey, Christiana Kaleialii, Heidi King, Lorna Maynard

Faculty reps: Mayra Cruz, DuJuan Green, Salvador Guerrero, Terrence Mullens, Mary Pape, Daniel Solomon, Erik Woodbury

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

Affinity Group Representatives:

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

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

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

Absent: Anita Muthyala-Kandula

Guests: Diana Alves de Lima, Karen Chow, Lisa Markus, Sarah Wallace, Vins Chacko, Rick Maynard, Daniel Smith, Susan Ho, Francesca Caparas, Lisa Ly, Elvin Ramos, Kulwant Singh, Dawn Lee Tu, Edmundo Norte

Notes of February 2, 2021 were approved by consensus with a correction and an addition. 

DASB: Report given by Esha Dadbhawala DASB voted to change the name from De Anza Student Body (DASB) to De Anza Student Government (DASG) passed. Esha Dadbhawala and Luiza Eloy, both previously IPBT interns, were affirmed as DASB Senators. Budget deliberations will begin Wednesday so program budgeteers should attend. Lorrie Ranck asked a question clarifying that the change from DASB to DASG will take place after Constitution and Bylaws are approved by all students in the General Election.

Discussion Participatory Governance Workshop with CCLC President Larry Galizio and ASCCC President Dolores Davison presented by College Council on 1/28/2021

Christina requested input on whether this presentation arranged by Co-Chairs President Holmes and Karen Chow was helpful and if there were questions.

Representing the Classified Senate, Heidi K stated they have been in conversation with President Holmes concerning the fact that Classified Senate was invited to be present but not to participate in the real-time dialog. They did not feel the Workshop was a collective participatory governance presentation which was their expectation.

Khoa Nguyen has had conversation with members of APASA and they request more of a deep dive into investigation of the current shared governance framework.

Mayra Cruz stated that the Workshop provided excellent knowledge of Shared Governance and AB 1725, but there was an expectation that aspects of shared governance related to each of the constituency groups were going to be discussed. Mayra asked that in the future before we bring speakers into a meeting, state what the outcomes are to be.

Answering questions in chat surrounding if the College Council meeting had been recorded, Christina stated the meeting was not recorded based on the vote by majority of College Council members earlier in the academic year not to record the meetings.

Erik Woodbury felt the meeting was a good introduction based on the survey taken of the campus by the presenters before the meeting, but had anticipated a focus on De Anza strong and weak points in regards to shared governance. He would appreciate distribution of the responses to that survey before future meetings to discuss shared governance. He suggested reconsideration of recording meetings where the entire campus is invited.

Elvin Ramos also anticipated that the meeting was going to pertain directly to what is now happening on the De Anza campus and does look forward to follow-up meetings where we discuss: 1. What is the role of bringing in affinity groups; 2. Relevancy of change; and, 3. Student voices are not always heard in shared governance.

Karen thanked all for the input. For the next presentation she does hope for vetting of the presentation plan beforehand.

Decision Making Process Considerations

Christina expressed desire to change shared governance decision making processes. We know that they are broken because the equity gap is not closing.

The process we have been using in IPBT used metrics that seemed fair, but what if when positions (manager, classified, faculty) come up, 50% must go to our core equity goals. This would provide finances for the instructional associates, instructional designers in online education, custodians, the counselor for Umoja, and so on. Our process works for prioritizing instructional positions, but a different process needs to be established for other positions.

Lisa Markus brought to the attention of all that there are many resulting consequences to consider in eliminating a faculty position. Lisa questioned how eliminating a faculty position which is a line item in the budget would be handled. Christina did concur such a decision would need to be brought in front of the Board. Christina felt that making this change would be possible since De Anza College is 55 faculty over “Faculty Obligation Number” and the Board also has adopted DEI goals.

When we wish to transform shared governance groups, Mayra underscored the importance of guiding principles such as.

· Affirm a “student-centered” approach that ensures our colleges values-integrity, innovation, equity, developing human capacities for all students, institutional core competencies, civic engagement, and social justice. OR Budget preparation, budget reductions and investments should follow a “student-centered” approach to ensure our college values are represented in the allocation of resources.

· Use data to inform decision making, applying an equity-minded lens and requiring measuring outcomes through data systems and practices to inform potential budget reductions and the best use of funds.

· Manage all resource allocations or funding reductions systematically to maximize student equity and success.

Alicia Cortez pointed out that data shows equity gaps diminish when instruction and support services are combined.

Christina gave a brief description of the process we have been using. All positions in one pool. Departments provided a one-page justification for why their department needs another faculty member. This combined with quantitative data on enrollment, percentage of full-time faculty, etc. was used to prioritize the positions. Thomas stated that departments/divisions that served many students benefited from our old system. A more qualitative rubric could be used for other areas that do not have large numbers or that are more unique in their needs.

Grace Lim suggested placing students in some positions, thus potentially saving money.

Melinda appreciated suggestion to do things differently. She reminded everyone of Night of Magic where the funds raised went to support specific areas.

Erik suggested that we always look at the results of a decision-making process and ask if it is equitable.

This discussion including perhaps developing some guiding principles will be continued at next week’s meeting.