January 23, 2024

Attendance:  

Rob Mieso, Pam Grey, Thomas Ray, Debbie Lee, Michele LeBleu-Burns, Mallory Newell, Adam Contreras, Andre Meggerson, Tina Lockwood, Bidya Subedi, Erick Aragon, Melinda Hughes, Eric Mendoza, Elvin Ramos, Erik Woodbury, Tim Shively, Daniel Solomon, Alicia De Toro, Nicholas Turangan, Lydia Hearn, Benjamin Furagganan, Kate Wang, Adrienne Hypolite, Anita Mathyala-Kandula, Christine Espinosa-Pieb, Hieu Nguyen, Kristin Skager, Gabrielle Nocito, Manny DaSilva, Manisha Karia, Martin Varela, Michelle Hernandez, Nazy Galoyan, Patty Guitron, Pippa Gibson, Sam Bliss, Thomas Bailey, Vins Chacko, Thomas Bailey, Mehrdad Khosravi

Welcome and Introductions  

Approval of Minutes from January 16 Meeting:

Andre M. asked if there were any numbering of positions. Erik W. says we don’t have a number yet. Minutes approved. 

CTE Funding SWP Funds:  

Vins C. states that this is not necessarily a funding request. It's for RAPP to look at resource allocation. All the items are on different tabs. This resource allocation was submitted by the department for the program review. For RAPP, this is preliminary. They are asking if RAPP can approve for CTE so they can use Strong Workforce and Perkins funds that RAPP and College Council already approved. Vins wants to work with the department to purchase items. When they give RAPP the finalized version, they will update and remove items they’ve purchased. 

Erik W. clarifies that Vins wants RAPP to approve things that are Strong Workforce or Perkins funds. Vins states that if you go to the first tab, you can see there is over 1 million dollars that needs to be spent by June 20. If you go to Perkins, you can see there’s another 500K. There is a timeline to spend by June 30 and it can only be purchased if RAPP and College Council approve these items. By the middle of April, the purchasing department will close all buying. If RAPP can approve they can take it to College Council this week to get approved so they can start buying stuff. Erik W. states that this wasn't on the agenda originally so this is unusual but given the CTE work we have done in RAPP, he thought it would be okay. Asks if anyone needs time to look at it and review.  

Elvin states he doesn't have opposition but just needs a few minutes. Andre M. asks about possible scheduling issues if it doesn't get approved this meeting. Erik W. responds that College Council is scheduled this week, but we can ask for a special meeting if it doesn’t go through today. Elvin says he's good. No other comments or questions.

Request is approved and will be forwarded to College Council. 

Discussion of Positions: 

Erik W. says we will move on to discussion of hiring requests. RAPP Tri-Chairs did request that people send particular positions to discuss but they did not receive any. We will read through them and see if people have anything else they want to discuss. Last time, we left off w/ Office of Equity. Erik W. reads off the list of positions: Sociology, Humanities, Anthropology, Chemistry, Physics Lab Tech, CETH, CIS, Visual Arts and Design, Auto Tech, Enrollment Services Specialist. Erik states that finalized the “High” areas at a total of 16 positions on this sheet. 

Erik states we will now go over criteria for today for sorting into buckets. Our goal is to take the high positions and sort them into 3 buckets to sort into High, Medium, and Low. Not ranking 1-16 but instead creating 3 buckets and forwarding to College Council. Erik mentions the reason we are not doing 1-16 is that it’s difficult to do and is the old way we used to rank positions. Once it gets to position 11 vs 12, it can get very “squishy.” Instead of a strictly numbered list, we will send blocks of priorities.  

Debbie L states she understands that – especially if there’s 8 positions. However, the situation can get “sticky” and she doesn't feel comfortable in just giving a bucket of the “next top 5.” She asks how we determine which 3 of that bucket of 5 in the second bucket gets forwarded. States that it makes more sense if we know how many positions we have. If we have 7 positions, then we do the bucket of 7. It becomes tricky when we do it in increments of 5. Erik states we can do increments of 5 and says that College Council changed RAPP’s recommendation last time. RAPP is not the final say. 

Tina W. states that it is the #6-10 that is the sticky situation and asks if it is possible to rank those or maybe do smaller buckets. Erik states that we can do that. However, 5 vs 6 vs 7 gets tight and at that point, we’re not sure how meaningful that is. We can but his suggestion is that we don’t.   

Thomas R. states that this would be a dramatic change for the work we are doing. It is meaningful if president chooses something we don't see as a priority. We are not expressing our choice this way – this is different from what we have done in the past. The president can accept or reject our choices. For the second group, we have no real recommendation  – we are letting Lloyd choose.  

Tim S. asks when College Council is. Erik W. responds this week. Tim S. asks if College Council will know how many positions are available. If there is not a complete bucket, can the second bucket come back to us for ranking? Erik W responds that if we’re not comfortable sending something to College Council, we shouldn't send it until we’re done. If this committee doesn't like the buckets, we don't have to use them. 

Rob states that since we don't have the funding amount and number of positions, and we have 16 positions in the high ranking, ideally if we had all the money it will all go forward. However, we don't know how much funding we have and we likely won't have enough. Suggests that we do the first 5, forward to College Council, wait until we get the funding amount, and then when we have the number of positions, we can work on it. Then, we more or less have all the info we need and people are more comfortable. We don't have to rush it today but likely we can do the first 5.  

Andre mentioned that last year we submitted to College Council and they came back to us – then we submitted the same thing and it was approved. Erik responded that they took additional above what we recommended. When it was originally submitted, there was a lot of discussion about how complete the process was. RAPP wanted to take more time. It came back to RAPP and Erik couldn't remember what shifted exactly, but there was a few more weeks of discussion before we sent to College Council and they ultimately took our recommendation and then some - and then made their own decision.  

Erik states we will now discuss criteria we will use. Mallory states that the Tri-Chairs decided we will not establish new criteria. We have the 300 word summaries that are in the spreadsheet that Erik has shared – the ones we used initially to come up with high, moderate and low, in addition to the group reviews. This should inform the process for how to rank.  

Debbie responds that she hears what they are saying about the criteria and would like to introduce something different. We already used the criteria to rank high, moderate and low, and now we have 16 that are high. Debbie stated that for her, we are just using the same criteria to say these are “high high,” “medium high,” and “low highs.” We need a further description of criteria to develop 3 new buckets.  Debbie says she talked about this with another constituent group yesterday. She mentions criteria such as - Are these positions absolutely necessary for issues of safety or college operations? If we don't approve certain positions, are we putting the college at risk. If this doesn't get approved, then is that putting that department with no full-timers? Would they be able to operate? These are absolute necessities for the college.  

Michelle L. adds that as part of our discussion with our constituency groups focused on what puts the college at risk. Would we not be able to meet regulatory requirements? Would we be able to not maintain a program that has good enrollment and that contributes to enrollment and funding of the college? These are some of the things she brought to her group and she agrees wholeheartedly that these are important ways to sort out what's most critical. Provided an example given the last meeting of someone who had a heart attack because they didn’t have the proper support. That’s serious. 

Tim S. supports Debbie’s comments that the positions should be structural, functional and necessary. For example, the Leadership Development position should not be funded by DASG – we should step up and take responsibility. The Physics Lab Tech is needed in the lab for safety issues. We can talk about the other things and the solvency of programs.  

Mallory responds that she does appreciate this conversation, but we do have a process for emergency approval for positions. We have done that twice – we did that for the Articulation Officer this year. If a department can not function, there is a separate process. Mallory says to refer back to our current criteria – some of those criteria mentioned are outlined in Area C in the established criteria. We do have that listed as part of the outline: https://www.deanza.edu/gov/rapp/personnel_prioritization_process.html

Tina mentioned that Mallory has a good point. Much of it is in place. The points Debbie brought up regarding safety are right. PSME has not had lab tech for 8 years. Their store room is in a constant state of collapse. It should have been handled but we know how to “do without” around here. We are used to it. It should have been filled but we’re all really good at “doing without” to keep the ship sailing.  

Michelle states that one position that meets the critical criteria is the Enrollment Services Specialist – there has been a serious set of circumstances dealing with enrollment fraud and that kind of position is critically needed to address this. It is a regulatory issue that we’re not preventing fraud. It can severely impact our enrollment when those fraud causes are determined – it can crowd out our legitimate students due to the fraudulent enrollment.  

Erik points out that we are having two talks now – one about criteria and one about advocacy for positions. There is a conflation of 2 discussions happening. Our original intent is to say what criteria we will use. We have two things happening. Let's focus on criteria. Lydia says she thinks part of what is happening is that the criteria is already there in broad strokes. We’re comparing apples and oranges. Of the criteria for which is established, is there an order for the criteria? If anything changes, people have already gone to constituents with existing criteria, so would we need to defer or delay?  

Debbie thanks Mallory for highlighting criteria that she highlighted is already there. There are no new criteria that can be used to help us sort out the really high needs in this bucket. Debbie says her comments then can be construed to say these are the criteria that the constituency group highlights in terms of how we would rank top 5 and then next top 5.  

Rob says we are all thinking all along the same lines. Thanks Mallory for reminding us of the emergency hire process. If we have the resources, then this would all be a go. But we don't have enough for all of them. We have the criteria already and it's great that everyone talked to their constituents. The criteria that we used was sufficient enough to use and make the current recommendations. Rob says that based on what he is hearing, we can pull out of the current criteria, to look at college wide impact, and we can pull out the highlights as well. So we’re keeping an eye on that as we make the votes. That may help us move forward with the 5 positions today. Then there is more work later. Rob says he is basically suggesting we have a list of 5-7 key points regarding what has been mentioned from the criteria.  

Tim clarifies that we are asking if we should rank the criteria. He doesn’t think we need to do so in a complete manner – but there are some criteria that takes priority. Erik says it sounds like we want to highlight if it’s a necessity or there is a safety issue. Rob says he wants to highlight collegewide impact. Erik says he’s hearing advocacy for lots of positions but now hearing collegewide impact. So we’re talking about giving more weight to collegewide impact. Erik says all this money is coming from faculty salaries and will not be comfortable if the top 5 are non-faculty. What number of positions do we have going to faculty vs non faculty?

Debbie states she’s uncomfortable with Erik call them “faculty funds.” States that we reformed this committee to look at the totality of resource requests. She understands there are other issues involved around faculty funding, but we redesigned the committee so we can take into consideration all personnel requests, just not faculty. She states the second thing she heard was that safety is a concern, but also collegewide impact. How do we define that? This means it impacts every department/division on this campus. Example: Is there anyone to clean up the classrooms? Is anyone checking for fraudulent students? That impacts every classroom.  

Mallory says she is hearing that people are moving to establishing new criteria. She is hesitant at this point. She wants to redirect and maybe we can rank the current criteria. (Asks Erik to share the screen.) Directs group to the link in chat where they can see criteria listed A-D. Says we can ask if positions are aligned to initiatives. Mallory reads the statements (A-D). Mallory asks for those proposing new criteria, do they already fit here and can we can rank them? Link: https://www.deanza.edu/gov/rapp/personnel_prioritization_process.htmlShe understands that in the Spring, we can establish a ranking process for working in small groups. For now, does this criteria work where we can establish rankings between A-D? 

Erik states that we established this new process to look at things more holistically. Whether you call it faculty funds or not, it does come from faculty. If it comes to 5 non-faculty positions, notes that faculty positions will disappear while admin and classified rollover. Asks for thoughts or comments. Should we try to rank the positions? 

Tina L states that a lot of things we want to keep in mind are already in this criteria. Thinks we should do a ranking of the criteria.  Erik reads criteria and says that based on the discussion we’ve heard today, it sounds like we rank C the highest. Tina says that if we ran out of Math faculty one day, you need them in order to support ongoing student success. In that situation, C would be our first priority. We can't function without this position. Erik points out that we want to find the broadest positions, which will disadvantage small programs, and we have a number of those on our highly ranked list.  

Tim proposes we start on the bucket. As we begin to work, the criteria will begin to modulate. Proposes to start on the first bucket. Rob agrees and states that it's good to reflect on the criteria - now let's focus on the more immediate task so we can choose the first 5.  Debbie agrees we should move forward. Says she would like to call out some positions for the first bucket. Erik responds that we'll rank and then see where people add up. Debbie asks clarification if we’ll all vote now and then talk. Erik confirms we will do polling.

Review of Rank Choice Voting and Poll for Top 5 Positions: 

Erik states that we’ll do Rank Choice Voting (RCV) and goes to the first poll. It will not be a vote, but we are using this to put together a discussion. Does that sound like where we want to go? Asks who is unfamiliar with RCV. Says that as a refresher, in a standard voting situation, if you have 3 options, the most votes wines. In RCV, you rank the top 3 with 1, 2, and 3. It allows people to vote for the top choice with backups and all votes will count.

Erik explains we will rank Marvel superheroes as a test. Explains the link and screen shares so people can see how to use the system to submit votes. Tim asks if we have the same confirmation code. Asks if we are ranking all 16 even though we are just looking for our top 5. 

(Everyone does practice voting using link.) 

Debbie suggests we vote for the top 5 to send to CC rather than ranking the top 16. Erik demonstrates how round by round votes get reshuffled. Erik says he is updating the agenda and adding the link to the new ballot.  Erik shares the poll for the real poll using the positions. Erik also mentions you can choose not to vote for something as well. States that there are 24 voting members. Tim states he has to leave in 2 minutes and asks if Erik can post the results.  

Erik says he thinks we have 21 voting members. Asks if people need more time and states we have 23 votes. Asks if anyone is still voting. Closes ballot. Reads off that round one is: Enrollment Services Specialist, Student Development and Leadership, Physics Lab Tech, Music, Comparative Ethnic Studies, Environmental Science, Anthropology, and then Visual Arts and Design.  

Thomas states that when we move forward, we should be actually ranking - in the Spring, that needs to happen. If this committee prefers to do a rank list rather than buckets that's fine.  

Erik states we have a top 5 and we have RCV for the ones left. This is a poll, not a vote. We can discuss what we want to recommend – we have 2-3 minutes. What do people want to do at this point? Andre proposes we should discuss and delay sending to College Council. 

Tina asks when the next CC is. Erik responds it is in 2 days and then on 2/20. Tina asks what this does to our overall timeline. Erik says it will delay it by a month – we can request to meet earlier but we can’t be sure they can. Andre says the next College Council meeting is 2/15. 

Erik states there are no requests for approval. Here’s our next round and we’ll talk next week about where to go. 

Meeting adjourned.