June 6, 2023

Rapp meeting minutes 6/6/23

Membership attendance:

In Person: Jason Sousa, Thomas Ray, Rob Mieso, Randy Bryant, Moaty Fayek, Justin Fry, Debbie Lee, Erik Woodbury, Nicholas Turangan, Izat Rasyad, Kate Wang, Adam Contreras

 Remote: Eric Mendoza, Erick Aragon, Julie Hughes, Michele Lebleu-Burns, Felisa Vilaubi, Alicia Mullens, Melinda Hughes, Salvador Guerrero, Javier Gomez-Tagle, Bidya Subedi, Martin Varela, Tina Lockwood, Andrea Meggerson

Absent: Pam Grey, Mallory Newell

10:02am - Start: Welcome Agenda & Minutes

The agenda and meeting minutes from 5/30/23 were approved.

10:05am - Perkins IC 2023-2024

Vins – the 2023-2024 budget that starts from July 1^st, 2023, to June 30 2024. This is collected applications from all the CTE departments. The CTE committee met and reviewed this document and made some changes. Needs to be voted on so Vin’s can submit this to the chancellor office before June 15^th.

Rob - made a motion to approve this and Moaty second. With no objections the motion passes.

10:10am - Update from Budget Advisory Committee: Additional Funds and Allocations for Personnel Hiring.    

Martin put the link in the chat -

https://foothilldeanza.sharepoint.com/:x:/s/DeAnzaFinancialReports/EZYTBjZFFctDspZDwdXHBWQBytUAs5YGyEfvF0YeyOkT1Q?e=qepJak&CID=854ff1b8-b51d-ee72-f8c0-832d3b50021a

Erik – 6 total positions, the allocations shown in the link is due to something that went through IPBT and College Council last year. The Dean of Online ED Learning Resources, one time money was spent from the HERF funding and future funding would come from retirements, resignations, or other instructional dollars. The need for this money is now the new person starts next month.

Erik asked - For the final number of how much is going to be allocated for the Dean position $214.858.54.

Lisa in chat - For future years, is it possible to bring “agreed to be funded” positions to RAPP earlier in the allocation process? Erik answered yes.

Andrea in chat - Why do we have position numbers and req numbers yet not both for transparency purposes? I ask to aid in alleviating this confusion.  Erik responded - We can look to solving this in the future.

10:22 - Discussion and Approval of Personnel Prioritization 

Erik – Thanking everyone for the hard work that they had to put into this. We have 2.26 million dollars to allocate that would cover everything in the High and several things in the moderate as there currently laid out. Do we feel comfortable allocating all of the money? some of the money? None of the money?

Tina – will we give guidance on why positions are not aligned when we send them back? Erik responded - Yes, we should provide feedback.

Mehrdad – had a concern that there was a lack of guidance when it comes to filling the forms to avoid a position from not being accepted.

Thomas – we have a couple of options, we can approve what we have funding for, approve a certain amount, or we revisit the whole process in the fall.

Michele in chat - If there was consensus between the groups that completed the ratings and rated positions high, I think those should go forward now. If there are questions for the other positions that were moderate or low, then those should be reviewed again if there are questions.

Lisa - Since all the “high” have been looked at and recommended by 2 groups, it might be a good idea to approve the “high” for hiring.

Erik put link in chat - https://foothilldeanza-my.sharepoint.com/:x:/g/personal/20033656_fhda_edu/ETu2ux3-0P5BgkWtkSU0fFABVLZEHr3qFHViezOgtqjB8w?e=FYwq68

Salvador asked – Could we approve all the high priority positions in the first round, then revisit everything else in the fall.

Rob – there is room for improvement at least 5 people have looked at each high ranked positions we should move forward with the high-ranking positions. In the fall we can revisit low ranked positions.

Michele in chat - I don’t agree, the positions ranked before and high after reconciliation should be considered equally high. What I mean is, I don’t agree with only forwarding high positions before reconciliation.

Salvador – Will the remaining positions be able to revise their forms? Rob replied - case by case basis.

Andre in chat - Are there notes about the reconciliation shifts? I would love to know what was the ‘high’ before reconciliation and that cost ($$$), then the remainder post reconciliation and that cost ($$$). I am looking for the ‘why’.

Erik - said no but we should have a slot for changes.

Daniel in chat - If we have enough funds to finance the High rankings why not do so now? There are only a few High/High positions.

Tina in chat- Will there be a workshop offered to all managers, walking them through the forms?

Moaty - Made a Motion to fund the High/High positions that was in the first-round before reconciliation. Salvador second the motion.

Andre in chat- If we are going to be transparent, and holistic ‘why’ needs to be known (my opinion). If we use history that we may or may not agree with was not like the now as the template decision making, we are only doing more of the same of old which is the ‘like we have always done’ which I do not support the ‘because we have always done it this way’ is not the way (my opinion).

Total number for High/High positions is $888,719.13.

Michele – made Motion to amend approve the positions that had a final ranking of High (after reconciliation), Alicia second the motion. Vote 11 to 10 passes vote on everything in the High bucket.

Eric A.- Some of it was not fair for everybody, referring to groups that had RAPP members that were reviewing their own area (for feedback reasons).

Erik - we don’t have to approve anything today we can discuss more about what is unfair.

Felisa commented – Feels uncomfortable with how she navigated the positions that were able to get questions answered and the positions that were not able to get questions answered. It would have changed her viewpoint if she was able to get some of her questions answered for all the positions, only some questions got answered based of who was in the breakout room advocating for certain positions.

Eric in chat - I think in the future that no RAPP member should be evaluating their own area/dept.

Erik – made a Motion to amend and remove 6 positions since there were questions of impartiality. Rob seconded the amendment. Does not pass.

There are a lot of concerns about the process and if it is a conflict of interest when people are evaluating positions within their department. But some think that information about positions from people that did request them would be helpful for this process.

Voting to approve everything in the High bucket 1,938,038.01. 11/5 the motion passes Erik will send to College Council for consideration.

11:30am – End of meeting