March 19, 2024

Attendance: Denica Kelly, Erik Woodbury, Mallory Newell, Rob Mieso, Michelle Hernandez, Daniel Solomon, Adam Contreras, Andre Meggerson, Benjamin Furagganan, Bidya Subedi, Chia Wen, Debbie Lee, Dr. Alicia De Toro, Dr. Robert Alexander, Eric Mendoza, Erick Aragon, Ian Ang, Lydia Hearn, Manisha Karia, Manny DaSilva,  Mehrdad Khosravi, Michele LeBleu-Burns, Nicholas Turangan, Pam Grey, Sma Bliss, Tina Lockwood 

Approval of Minutes from 3/12/24: Approved. 

Emergency Requests Criteria: Mallory shows 3 criteria that were discussed last week:

1. Required by law or accreditation - No one had issues around this one. 
2. Position is 100% non-tenure track temporary, 1-year position would not work, or has been in place already for a year - There was some discussion about this last time.
3. Part-time faculty cannot temporarily meet the department needs and student demand. 

Michelle H. asked if the criteria would be either 1, 2, or 3. Mallory clarifies it can meet any of the 3 criteria. Debbie comments she is only comfortable with the first one being used as an emergency request criteria, as there is too much subjectivity for the third one. Part of that is going into the part time pool and doing due diligence to look into Part-Time Faculty teaching classes. Makes a proposal that we update --- If this person is the only full-time faculty member in a department. That would lessen subjectivity. 

Mallory confirms that Debbie’s suggestion is a stand-alone bullet that would show there is only one Full-Time Faculty member. Debbie confirms and also adds that the Faculty member would be leaving. Full-time faculty also includes duties like program review, scheduling, etc. So that means a Part-Time Faculty may not be able to meet those demands. There would only be one and it would be to replace that one person. Lydia comments re: Debbie’s comment, there are several departments that don’t even have one Full-Time Faculty. So not sure if that can be a criteria. Adds that to clarify, not sure it can be any one of these -- rather, it would be either #1 or #2 AND #3. 

Erik W. Comments that in re: to the suggested criteria of there being only 1 Full-Time Faculty, that makes it complicated because some departments do not have one; others are structured to have multiple that are essential. (Ex: F/TV having an Animation faculty or other sub-specialites.) When evaluating hiring requests, there is subjectivity. Would like some flexibility so people can have space for conversation. Mallory adds that the criteria are used to start conversation in RAPP to determine if they meet the emergency request criteria. If not, it will go through the normal hiring process. Mallory summarizes discussed options: 

• Using only Option #1 
• Either Option #1 or #2 AND #3  
• Idea of Option #1 and then Option #2 being 1 Part-Time Faculty member in the pool who is not available 

Rob comments that Option #1 and Option #2 seems clear. But with Option #3 it could be more specific. Could it be specified that Part-Time Faculty can not meet specific department needs? There are some functions that Part-Time Faculty can not fulfill. When we say department needs/demand, this feels vague and may be an issue. 

Andre M. asks in chat if someone can provide scenarios around Option #2 and #3. Tina L. asks who would decide if someone meets the criteria. Erik asks administrator to give an example of options. Lydia provides examples: 

• Option #2 - You can take a Part-Time Faculty member who’s interested in teaching 100% or you can hire someone who does not currently teach at De Anza and have them teach 100%. In some cases, as it’s not tenure track and you’re hiring externally, we may not find someone for various reasons. For Part-Time Faculty, they may be working other jobs. That’s one reason #2 may not work. 
• Option #3 - There may be Part-Time Faculty who are in the department but are maxed out on load and they can’t do more hours without becoming Full-Time. OR They can’t find enough Part-Time Faculty because it’s an area that is not high in Part-Time Faculty pools. 

Lydia responds to Tina’s question. We’d make a decision through RAPP similarly to what we do for permanent positions. It’s subjective, but we do our best to make an objective decision. Mallory calls time for this agenda item. Erik W. says we discussed but didn’t hear much from everyone on the committee. Asks if we’re able to approve this agenda item, at least for this cycle to answer outstanding questions. Members vote virtually. Erik asks Debbie about her vote and she clarifies she would like to reach out to her constituency before she can approve. Lydia adds that the emergency request process would not be a free-for-all, but there would be a process.

Erik W. says we will approve this criteria based on the support. Will bring it back on the agenda in Spring. We will use this criteria for the next month. 

Personnel Requests Round 1: “High” requests from Fall?: Erik W. leads the next item on how we want to move forward with positions that we’ve evaluated. What happens to them in the next cycle? We ended up 2-3 positions on the moderate/low lists and 7-8 on the high list. 

Chairs have a proposal: That people be given the opportunity to re-submit but the default would be that it carries over to the following year. With the understanding that once new positions get sorted, there would be re-norming as we move forward to the next College Council recommendation. Other Options: Reset everything to “zero” and re-evaluate again or there my be other options we haven't thought of yet. 

Michelle H. asks if we have feedback on College Council an what we’re moving forward on  as an institution? Erik W. responds College Council approved the first two buckets and they will proceed with hiring both. Lydia confirms that Christina confirms with managers to form committees and Lydia will send email today. 

Daniel S. responds that re: leftover high requests, there has been discussion on what to do with this for years at IPBT. Erik W. adds that the initial idea is that we did a lot of work to prioritize these positions, we would leave everything in one big high bucket. Then prioritization would happen if the need arises. Historically there has been a reset. Other ideas also included that whatever is leftover is automatically at the top. Anything new would be below. 

Rob states the process proposed by the chairs acknowledges work the body has already done in terms or rankings. Because we didn't have enough funding, we prioritized positions. Since the work is already done, there’s no reason to do it again. New requests will come in and then we rank them to be added. The previous positions from this cycle  will be ranked as they are now. Then we will address the funding issue. But the positions would remain ranked as they are from this cycle. 

Tina L asks clarifying question: Are we saying that we will only review the new requests coming up? Erik responds that is the current proposal. New proposals would be reviewed and then sorted into High, Medium, or Low. And then we would rank as needed based on resources. Debbie asks if someone wanted to be re-ranked, would they re-submit and we would re-read? Erik W says yes that would be an option. 

Mallory reminds people of Round 1 Timeline beginning in Spring. Personnel forms for Round 1 will be due 4/30 and then we’ll have May to review the ones that come in. Wouldn’t need to have a final decision but we need to get them into High,Moderate or Low before end of the quarter. Rob adds it allows people to get feedback from constituency groups.

Reminder on Program Review Feedback process: Mallory shares reminders about Program Review Feedback process - 

• Finalize forms by the end of the quarter so we can review them and make sure they’re complete and send them out to department chairs. 
• If you have questions for the deans, put them in the Excel sheet. 
• If your program review needs to be reviewed by the whole RAPP committee, add that on the Excel sheet. In the 1st or 2nd meeting in Spring, these request will be addressed. 

Group dismissed to small group work.