February 20, 2024

Attendance: Rob Mieso, Mallory Newell, Erik Woodbury, Michelle Hernandez, Eric Mendoza, Thomas Ray, Alicia Del Toro, Adam Contreras, Adrienne Hypolite, Alicia De Toro, Benjamin Furagganan, Bidya Subedi, Christina G. Espinosa-Pieb, Daniel Solomon, Debbie Lee, Dr. Robert Alexander, Eric Mendoza, Erik Aragon, Gabriela Nocito, Hieu Nguyen, Ian Ang, Kristin Skager, Lydia Hearn, Martin Varela, Mehrdad Khosravi, Melinda Hughes, Pam Grey, Patty Guitron, Thomas Ray, Tim Shively, Tina Lockwood, Vins Chacko, Andre Meggerson, Nicholas Turangan, Izat Rasyad, Kate Wang, Sam Bliss

Approval of Minutes: Approval of minutes from February 13. 

Update on Available Funding and Report Out from College Council: Erik shares updates: Recommendation brought to College Council last Thursday including Bucket 1 ($1.3 Million and the associated costs). Bucket 2 was also forwarded and the positions that we had not finished discussing. Upon review, RAPP tri-chairs discovered that when we discussed vacancy reports, this included 3 positions that have become vacant since we closed the window. It raised a question if we should allocate a position for something that becomes vacant, if the department doesn't have the opportunity to apply for this round. Rob adds that when we decided which positions to be considered in this round, we said only vacancies up to Summer. And then after Summer, it would be part of Spring Applications. 

Andre asks question re: faculty retirements and if salary would return. Erik explains if he resigns tomorrow, and we have that funding from his appointment, we could assign it to one of the positions we have ranked. Next year, if Chemistry wanted to apply to fill it, Chemistry would need to apply for funding from another position. Andre asks if we shouldn’t be using the future funding. Tim also asks question about the positions on the document showing who will be retiring and Erik confirms the retirements have been approved by the board. Rob said that we should not be using the funding from these positions to use for this round. We can use it for Spring but we can’t use it for this round. This will reduce the amount available for this round. Tina clarified if instead of 9 positions we have, because of cut-off dates, we only have 6? Erik says the new total is 1 million, 21K, which is not enough to fund both buckets. Erik M. asks if it is only for FT faculty and Mallory says yes. Mallory explains that for Classified, if she resigned for example, there is funding available to refill the position. Mallory outlines two points of discussion:

Discussion About 3 Positions: Per website, in this round (2), we are picking up leftover positions that became vacant. We say in the timeline, that round 2 vacancies are through September. Are we in agreement that these 3 positions should not be part of the budget we are working for in this round? And should it be in Round 1 in Spring? 

Thomas says he has an objection as of right now. We didn’t really establish timelines very clearly prior to this. We all expected the positions we sent forward to be approved. It would  be better to establish clear guidelines as to when funding does or does not count, rather than “reverse engineer.” Mallory replies that a timeline is available (but does not include dates). Personnel hiring Round 1 takes place in March with the 2nd in October of the following year to capture vacancies between April and September. Thomas says that’s to capture requests but not specific to the funding. Mallory asks his proposal and Thomas says he just wants to clarify that once something went to the board, funding was available.

Tim says one of the problems w/ using the funding for positions approved by the board, is that  between now and June there could be rescinded retirements. If we use this money and they are reinstated, we are in the hole. That’s the main reason we shouldn’t use the money for these positions in the Spring. Thomas says he appreciates Tim’s concern but wants to have clear guidelines on when a resignation comes in, when can it be used? Rob says an email went out to all managers for this round that we’re considering. In that email, it was clear that requests could only be submitted that were part of the previous requests or any new positions that became available over Summer.

For Classified: Tina (speaking for self) says she was surprised to see as many positions available to be filled and never thought we would have 2 buckets. Thinks we should let it go. It doesn’t make sense to fill a position if the person is still currently employed. 

For APASA, Erik A.asks if we are reducing 3 positions, how would we decide and would it be based on the voting? Mallory responds that this will be the 2nd discussion.  For DALA, Eric M. has the same question as Erik A. 

For EAC, Michelle asks if we’re going to take those 3 out, do we know the dates in which those came in, and if they fit in the request dates? It sounds like we are having 2 discussions about dates for requisitions and we sound unclear on the positions and when they came in. Refers to the Classified group’s argument  that these are all seated positions and we should wait until they are vacant. However, we do need clarity on how the funding works. She also adds re: what we send forward, she had some thoughts she shared at College Council that she can share here when the conversation comes up. 

Erik W. says re: the intention of how we set up the cycle w/ evaluations in Spring, and in Fall, we would only talk about what happened over Summer. For him, there is a clear connection. It’s important not to spend the money for basic fairness for programs losing faculty members. Tim says it would be unwise to use the money in the even it’s been rescinded.  Students reply they are okay with this. 

There seems to be consensus towards excluding the positions and moving towards Spring. Erik W. asks if anyone is objecting. No objections and we will exclude those 3 positions moving forward. 

Discussion on Buckets Moving Forward :

Totals - New Total Available for Allocation: $1,020,990, Bucket 1: $633,593, Bucket 2: $410,957

Mallory says for the 1st bucket, we didn't know how much we had. We can leave Bucket 1 as is and have conversations today about Bucket 2 because last week we did know how much money we had, but this may change how we look at it. Erik W. says there is some disagreement. He thinks we did have the numbers. Tim asks if we have to at least take one position from Bucket 2? Erik W. says we don’t have to remove anything. We can keep it the sameCollege Council will make the final decision. 

Bidya clarifies if Bucket 2 is the 4 positions we talked about last week? Mallory says we forwarded them on Thursday knowing we would bring it back to RAPP and College Council sent both buckets back to have further discussion. Tina asks if College Council sent the 1st Bucket back because the amount of funding we were working with was not correct. College Council felt that since we did the original ranking and things changed, they wanted us to make sure we’re still comfortable. Vins said he thinks Erik W. explained well and also commented on College Council meeting. 

Tri-chairs decided to bring back to RAPP to have a full discussion and forward a recommendation to CC that we all support. Do we want to go back and look at the totality (both buckets) of positions OR do we just want to look at bucket 2? If we decide we want to look at both, or just 2nd, we have to work with the funding we have to make some decisions. Mallory will go to each constituency group for discussion: 

Administrators: Debbie says she’s listening to this and asking how many of us have had a chance to go back to our constituency and ask about their thoughts on the new parameters we’re working with. College Council meets Thursday and today is already Tuesday. Mallory mentions these are the same positions that were vetted through the constituency and that we’re acting as informed delegates. Bidya also talks about checking in with our groups - this feels uncomfortable because we are going back to both buckets. Thomas says he also supports what Debbie said. As administrators, they didn’t rank 1-9 so if we are going to remove something from the list, we need an opportunity to discuss. 

Classified: Tina says they felt Bucket 1 was fine and discussed and they were okay with that. Bucket 2 does warrant a conversation with the group. 

Students: Feel fine about Bucket 1 and brought it back to the constituency group multiple times and they were okay. There should be a focus on conversation for Bucket 2. Even in RAPP, it felt like in Bucket 2 we could fall behind schedule. 

Affinity Groups: For BFSA, Melinda clarifies that BFSA doesn’t meet until tomorrow evening. Melinda said she’s okay with Bucket 1 as is. Thinks we should focus on Bucket 2. For DALA, they are okay with Bucket 1, but need discussion so would appreciate one check in with the group. If the 4th position doesn’t have enough funding, would it be considered for the next round? Mallory says that anything that doesn't make the list would need to wait until Spring for the new batch from retirements this year. And then in Fall, we pick up anything that didn’t make it in or vacated over the Summer. DALA Is okay with Bucket 1 as is but okay with more time to go back. Erick A. says APASA is the same - needs to discuss with the group. 

EAC: Michelle H. states when we put together Buckets 1 and 2, we said these are the strategic priorities and to sent forward 9 positions. The budget changed, but do our priorities change? For EAC, the lens is how are we being equitable with how we’re doing the buckets? If we’re talking about strategically, it shouldn't matter the budget amount. Are we about strategy or are we doing the budget allocation? Additionally, if we are going to open up Bucket 2 for review but not Bucket 1 simply because we have the funding amount, then we need to open up Bucket 1 as well. Because we have new information. Some positions (CETH) keep coming up but now it’s in a 3 way tie. For Bucket 1, we didn't have a financial conversation, and now Bucket 2 is predicated on how much money we have. Our suggestions should be based on the best interest of the institution re:enrollment management and supporting students. 

We should be strategic and send all 9 to College Council to make the final determination OR we need to open up all buckets based on new information. Mallory summarizes discussions so far -- there are some who want to leave Bucket 1 as is and open up Bucket 2. There’s some concern about waiting and bringing it back to constituency groups. There’s one group that wants to open up both buckets. 

Faculty: Rob A. doesn't have comments or questions. Tim concurs with Michelle H’s assessment. In dealing with Bucket 1, concerns about there being only 1 instructional faculty in that bucket. Is concerned about reducing from the Bucket 2, in re: to the 50% law. This may be a crucial moment re: the 50% law. Erik W. says his concern is that he’s certain there will be a conversation about funding and what's in the buckets. Agrees broadly with Michelle's points. Do we want to be part of the more detailed discussion or should we make our general views clear? If we do want to get into it, we do have to look at both buckets. Strong support for the Faculty Equity Director but we need to look at Bucket 1. In Bucket 1, only 1 position only brings in enrollment. Our last report put us at .1 percent over 51 percent. We’re proposing to move from instructional to non instructional positions.

Mallory says we have gone through one round and reviews all opinions that were shared. Asked where we should go from here. Rob says some people want to go back to their constituency and suggests going to constituencies and then coming back. Tim asks about possibly presenting one big bucket to College Council. Tina asks if we are “beating a dead horse” by talking about this again and again and ultimately it's not our decision - we feel good about Bucket 1. Why can’t we just present our selections. Student agrees with Tina -- we agreed on Bucket 1, unless someone has something pressing to change. Doesn’t see the point in scrutinizing. Says we knew Bucket 1 would be funded anyway and doesn’t think the new information really changes Bucket 1 - would put more time into looking at Bucket 2. 

Mallory calls 25 minutes left. Right now there’s an option to take the positions back to the constituency groups and to be ready next Tuesday where we are on buckets and if they shift, what positions we would want. Tim asks if we could at least look at them, have discussion and then take back to groups? Erik W. says we should have some expectations about communication with constituency groups. If we open up both, we don't have time. We have a lot of work we are behind on. Feels okay to look at the rest of the positions. We did a lot of work on this and is not certain we will change. Mallory shares documents showing both buckets and then at the bottom, we have leftover positions. Debbie asks clarifying questions re: the new information on funding. Are we now adding in to our consideration of how we are looking at the buckets, the funding amount? 

If we forward 5 to the district that don’t generate apportionment and several others that have low class sizes that don't generate much, is that just something for the district to determine or College Council or RAPP? Is that a new criteria for us to look at? Mallroy responds that when Racquel came, she did not give instructions to look at that without that information and doesn't think we are informed enough to make that decision-- its something the district would handle. 

Melinda asks Mallory, when she goes to BFSA with the buckets, what should be the discussion? Mallory responds that when RAPP made these decisions, (Bucket 1 we put forward 5 and we didn't know how much funding we had). Then the following week, we discussed Bucket 2 knowing that we would have enough funding to support these positions plus 1. Now we don’t have as much funding, so  does Bucket 2 and Bucket 2 still stand as is? Does it change? Tim adds he doesn’t know if when we did Bucket 1, we knew the cost of the positions. And is looking at the Grounds Supervisor position and wondering if it was removed, we would do all 4 in Bucket 2 and maybe 1 more. Erik W. asks if people want to go back to their constituencies and do we want to open up buckets? Students asked if Bucket 2 is done, are we are planning on doing a Bucket 3? Erik W. says yes we planned to do a 3rd Bucket. Thomas expressed concern. We have new information. That new information would have significantly impacted how we made decisions. College Council sent it back to reconsider. It would be irresponsible if we don’t consider the new information and move forward if there is information on how we would change those positions. Thomas supports re-evaluating all positions. 

Students confirm and ask what the new information is - are we referring to the funding? Erik says yes, we are referring to the cost of the positions. Students say they thought we were not planning on looking at the amounts for the positions. Erik W. says he questions if we can do it without the information on funding. The issue now is we had the funding information for only half of the discussion. Andre asks confirming question - checks that based on our process and previous discussions, Bucket 1 would go through regardless of funding information. As we are not getting what we want in Bucket 2, are we now thinking of looking at the second bucket? Erik W. says that is one possibility. 

Rob says when we made the recommendation to College Council, we had all the info that is on the screen. We had the numbers when we made the recommendation to College Council - it's just a different amount we have to work with. Tim says that last meeting, there was contention about what would move forward. Tim said he doesn't think we should acquiesce and let College Council make the decisions. Michelle H. asked when we put this forward to College Council, was there an addendum that would have given them the summary for each position or did they get them at face value? Erik says we didn't provide it to them. Mallory proposes that we leave Bucket 1 as is and then on Tues, we can have conversations around Bucket 2. If you disagree, please raise your hand. There is disagreement.  Proposes that on Tuesday, we will open up both buckets for discussion including the unranked positions. If you disagree, please raise your hand. There is disagreement. The next proposal is that we don’t open up any buckets and we just move forward. There is disagreement. 

Review of current three options:  

1) Leave Bucket 1 intact and only open Bucket 2

2) Open both buckets for discussion including unranked positions

3) Leave bucket 1 and 2 intact and have discussion about what bucket 3 would look like

Tim says we should do this as a vote? Erik W. says he prefers consensus. Tim says that developing a 3rd bucket could still be an option for the other 2. Thomas asks why we're opening a 3rd bucket if we don't even have enough funding for the 1st 2. Erik says College Council may not choose our buckets so we’re giving them flexibility. Tina is struggling with this re: efficiency. Wasn't it implied that everything leftover was in Bucket 3? Adam adds that a lot of our decisions are made because we see the budget. Mallory discusses if  the charge of RAPP is to do strategic prioritization or the budget piece of the prioritization? Erik says we’re not that specific. So it's both. Adam says if we open both buckets, we would have progression. We already did talk about a lot 

At this time, group agrees to go to constituency groups and choose option and be prepared for conservation next meeting:  

1) Leave bucket 1 intact and only open bucket 2

2) Open both buckets for discussion including unranked positions

3) Leave bucket 1 and 2 intact and have discussion about what bucket 3 would look like

Meeting adjourned.