May 7, 2024

Attendance, Voting Members:

Robert Alexander, Alicia De Toro, Michelle Hernandez, Melinda Hughes, Michele LeBleu-Burns, Debbie Lee, Andre Meggerson, Eric Mendoza, Rob Mieso, Mallory Newell, Izat Rasyad, Daniel Solomon, Aditya Sharma, Tim Shively, Bidya Subedi, Kate Wang, Chia Wen, Erik Woodbury

---

Welcome

Rob Mieso welcomed everyone to the meeting.

Pippa Gibson, Executive Assistant, VP, came to RAPP to give a brief statement. She expressed her thanks and appreciation to Erik Woodbury for his efforts and speech at the 5/6/2024 Board of Trustees meeting. Erik graciously accepted the praises yet admitted that he stood on the shoulders of many others. She commented on his elegant speech and forceful delivery of the Joint Statement by the De Anza community to the FHDA Board of Trustees on the allocation of the Measure G bond funds. The board decided to re-allocate $55 million unrestricted funds to De Anza from the $75 million originally budgeted for the Event Center/Mega project.

Tim Shively and others seconded Pippa’s comments on Erik’s speech and the board decision. However, Tim expressed concerns about the board’s potential plans to tap into the $200 million allocated to affordable housing should any emergencies arise specifically with respect to infrastructure. Housing was a major promise made to the voters on Measure G.

---

Agenda and Minutes Review 

Rob Mieso reviewed the agenda and 4/30/24 minutes 

Mallory Newel gave an update to the minutes. They received a request from the Learning Communities to wait until the fall instead of in 2 weeks to give their presentation. The tri-chairs discussed and agreed on the proposed change.

No changes or corrections to the agenda or minutes.  Approved.

---

Program Consultation Committee Proposal

Erik Woodbury brought back the proposal for discussion and to address questions and comments.

Debbie Lee has put some comments to the document. She asked specifically about the process as well as the criteria for reviews. She pointed out how people may feel intimidated over being called to the Program Consultation Committee for questioning and program review. 

Erik Woodbury: people were always scared of going to the viability committee under IPBT. They wanted this committee to be much less threatening, more collaborative, and more consultative. The current proposal has the committee looking at new courses and programs. As Rob pointed out last week, the programs do not have to be instructional. They could be student services programs.

Erik related his frustration as curriculum chair when he saw faculty spent much work to develop courses that were never offered. This would move the conversation to the beginning, to identify needs and provide support for success.  

Tim: This committee requires clear criteria for program review. At Foothill, if a program is in jeopardy, they move the program to the top of the list to investigate its problem and provide the necessary resources. If the consultation and review work in tandem, then the message is not punitive or elimination. The goal is to address the struggle before getting to viability.

Michelle Hernandez: Would this committee also review grant opportunities before we pursue them?

That is something to consider and could be integrated into the process.

Daniel Solomon brought up viability and how to help people before they get to that threatening point.

Erik: The vision for PCC represents a much more holistic approach to new programs, from proposal through program review, development and support, to discontinuance if necessary. It can identify the opportunities, provide support to address challenges early on instead of at the end. It is comparable to prevention instead of a cure, when the program ends up in a viability situation 

The Academic Senate has reviewed and discussed the proposal. 

Melinda Hughes: BFSA discussed it in their last meeting . They thought this type of committee would be a good idea.

Michelle Hernandez: EAC also had a conversation about the proposal. There was a general consensus among the group as something to pursue.

There's still much to be fleshed out. But the direction is good. The composition of PCC should not be a mirror image of RAPP or CC. Otherwise the programs will be reviewed by the same people in 3 different capacities. Aim for more diverse perspectives and get more people involved across campus.

People should put additional comments in the document.

---

Comprehensive Program Review Process and Forms

Mallory has created a Survey to get feedback on the program review process. She will send the survey to deans and managers in student services, administrative services, and academic services. The purpose was to get continuous feedback to improve the process and to better understand how people engaged with program review.

The survey is predominantly for those who were writers or collaborators on the program review. She demonstrated how the form branches off with different questions for different areas. The data could be part of the annual shared governance assessment survey.

The form is clear, concise, and easy to navigate.

Mallory plans to send out the form to deans and managers next Wednesday. Please send her suggestions and feedback to be incorporated into the survey by the next meeting on Tuesday.

Personnel Requests Review, Criteria Review and Group Assignments

All the personnel requests are in the Spring 2024 RAPP folder. 

There are 4 review groups. They decided on fewer groups with more people in each group because of the feedback from the last round of reviews. Some people felt that they did not get to give input on different positions. Larger groups will have more balance. Fewer groups also means more positions for review per group. Each position will be reviewed by more people.

There are 22 new requests, 7 previously high ranked positions rolled over from the fall as well as the moderate and low positions. There is 1 resubmission that was incomplete in the last round.

The tri-chairs decided to separate the positions into 3 categories: instructional, non-instructional, classified/administration. In the requests, there are 7 instructional faculty, 7 non-instructional faculty, and 8 classified/administration.

In round one, this round, the groups are just ranking. High, moderate, low in each category. Divisions may rank their positions in column B in the form. Senior staff ranking from an institutional perspective is in column C.

Mallory included the estimated salary and benefits for each position. Some of the estimates are based on 10-months, 11-months, or 12-months, particularly for classified and administration positions.

Column J, a resignation indicates a vacant position with available funding.

There were discussions, comments, and concerns over compliance with the 50% rule. Also, comments on future fundings, enrollment.

Final instructions and reminder before breaking into groups.

The criteria posted in the website is public. That provides transparency and will be updated accordingly. The personnel prioritization process outlines the steps for the process and the timeline.

In their folders is a blank position form that they duplicate for each position they will review. Mallory went over how they should complete the form, the review, and ranking. There will be a reconciliation in the large group. Then, they will make adjustments after the reconciliation.

Each group was assigned 12 positions. Each position will be reviewed by at least 2 groups. The tri-chairs tried to make sure that no one is directly reviewing their own area. If anyone has a position in their area, they should recuse themselves from that particular discussion.

The groups started their work to create files in their folders. For the next two meetings, RAPP will meet remotely to facilitate group work in separate rooms.

---

Meeting adjourned at 11:20 am.