April 16, 2024

Voting Members: Tim Shively, Rob Mieso, Erik Woodbury, Mallory Newell, Debbie Lee, Adam Contreras, Andre Meggerson, Tina Lockwood, Melinda Hughes, Chia Wen, Daniel Solomon, Debbie Lee, Alicia De Toro, Eric Mendoza, Kate Wang, Daniel Solomon, Benjamin Furgganan, Lydia Hearn, Michelle Hernandez

Reviewed Agenda

Timeline – Mallory reviewed timeline for rest of year

• • Martin shared the allocated and unallocated funds for resource requests.
    • Library: $441k/186k
    • Lottery: $3.3M/1.06M
    • Inst Equip: $1.5M/1.12M

Need to get report on contingency funds and refill as needed

RAPP will review the new hiring prioritization that starts soon. All requests are due by April 30^th.

Discussion of Program Review feedback

• • Need to complete questions tab for Deans
  • What do we do for programs with no FT faculty that did not complete a program review?
  • Can we highlight commendations/good examples?
  • Tina appreciates time we took to align questions on PR to questions on feedback form
  • Debbie: Guided pathways engagement section may need more clarity. Is there more work to also be done by Guided Pathways to build engagement. Include link to 4 pillars of guided pathways (beyond just villages)
  • Training on developing mission/goal setting for programs needed
  • What warrants full committee attention. Need criteria?
  • Goals and resource requests: does everything need to be linked to a goal? Option for “general operations” or some such
  • Consistency and value of feedback
  • Are groups too small
  • Ability of constituents to give feedback
  • Do groups need more time?
  • Keep changing groups up for new mixes
  • Develop a rubric for the PR. Include strategies for reviewing materials
  • Lack of congruence between department goals and mission
  • How can we connect CAS and Instructional PR? Can we compare/contrast to find best common practices?
  • Should we consider having staggered cycles for different programs to spread out work

Program Consultation Committee – Erik

• • • Shared with Academic Senate already
    • The idea is the lifespan of a committee, have early discussions before time is invested in it.
    • Debbie asked about the role of the committee reviewing courses, Erik indicated the purpose is for faculty to know early on thoughts on scheduling or be able to offer a particular course and the challenges and opportunities. Focused on new course and program development, prior to going in a new direction or expanding on a direction.
    • The committee discussed how the PCC could be formed and what it might do.
    • Outline in more detail how this committee is situated and who they would work with or influence.
    • A potential function could be to speak with Foothill about duplication of efforts. As well as duplication of efforts internally.
    • The next step is to share the proposal with constituency groups for input on the committee and their charge.
    • There was discussion that a committee somewhat similar to this that existed under IPBT was the program viability.

Emergency Request

Anita (BHES) joined us to present an emergency request for a faculty hire in ES.

• Anita read a prepared statement.
• There are 2 FT faculty in ES/ESci
• Can break out data for specific courses
• FTT hire no likely to succeed
• PT faculty overworked already and cannot carry rest of workload
• Some documentation about CTE requirement for specific expertise