Responses to 2020 Survey
- Group name: Administrative Planning and Budget Team
- Goup chairs: Pam Grey
- Discussion date: July 28
Members participating: Pam Grey, Co-Chair; Sally Gore, Co-Chair; Teri Gerard, College Fiscal Services Staff; Martin Varela, Administrator; Naoko Harada, Administrator; Hyon Chu Yi-Baker, Faculty Representative; Sushini Chand, Classified Representative; Marivic Burdick, Classified Representative; Grace Lim, 2019-2021 DASB Chair of Finance; Jeffrey Kasprow 2020-2021 DASB Senator
Guests participating: Patrick Gannon; Arushi Sharma, 2019-2020 DASB; Senator Pippa Gibson
Questions and Responses
Question 1: What do you believe works well about the current governance system? Please list.
Response
The current governance system creates opportunities to meet and work with colleagues to promote success for all students. Designed to provide knowledge and opportunities for discussion to the variety of constituent voices on campus. Shared governance itself is the promise of sharing information to assist with campus decisions and funding allocations. The PBT’s (planning and budget teams) provide a format for the understanding and discussion of campus resources and includes budget education for decision making. Opportunity to exchange updates and discuss the matters relevant to each program.We Recent addition to have a mentor to support student representative(s)
Additional Comments
Based on previous campus accreditation team visits, shared governance provides a methodology for areas of responsibility to review and discuss decisions impacting the campus. The inclusion of constituent voices allows input from students, faculty, staff and administrators as it relates to student success. Some sort of participatory governance is necessary for accreditation.
Question 2: What do you believe does not work well about the current governance system? Please list.
Response
Our current governance system may not provide the necessary knowledge and time needed by individual groups to review and discuss information prior to voting. Many governance meetings are poorly attended. Student representation is typically strong at the beginning of a term. However, overall representation seems to decline during the fiscal year. With each reduction in campus staffing, fewer colleagues are able to volunteer for a seat on these committees. Absence of DASB Report Out, Public Comments in agendas Minimal to no way for members to pass down resources to incoming members We may like to have even wider range of representatives. Often the same people serve on multiple committees/governance system. There are inequities with representation, of voices, and our governance systems are not representative of our student population, especially our underrepresented campus committees. Shared governance is often fighting fires and want to make decisions quickly. We need the time to digest information so that we can make better decisions. We should be able to schedule our governance meeting well in advance, at least a term in advance and advertise to our general population when our meetings are being held. Maybe we can advertise our public meetings during Senior Staff meetings. Difficulty in having classified staff participation as they do not get released from their duties and workloads are extremely high due to continuous staffing reductions. Reps do not take the time to prepare for upcoming meetings. Often have not read the notes or agenda items. Reps can feel like decisions are being made for them, but at meetings do not participate in discussions. General view that the co-chairs of meetings are tasked with constant outreach, following up, sending reminders, etc. Rather than the intended structure where reps and constituent groups are responsible for attending meetings, communication and being prepared. The gov websites are public, available 24/7, are constantly being updated and contain a vast amount of information. Although the structure is set up for each rep to report back and gather info for agenda items many reps do not engage with their constituency groups. This leads to the sense that decisions are being made in a vacuum, opinions are not asked for, and voices are not being heard. Too many meetings and only one that looks at campuswide decisions. Too silo-ed. VP areas need to talk to each other all the time not just occasionally in a special joint meeting. Present structure allows for those with the loudest voices / most comfortable speaking in a group setting to dominate meetings. If we want equity we have to make sure those who are less comfortable speaking up feel they have the time and the "space" to do so. Such reps may include classified staff and students. Faculty, due to their job, are much more likely to be comfortable speaking in front of groups. Many of the same reps serve year after year which can make for few highly specialized individuals focused on a narrower (dept level) view rather than a broader campus view. Meetings can be combative, confrontational and intimidating. A safe shared space where mutual respect for each other's thoughts and opinions is critical. Reps will not contribute if they feel intimidated.
Additional Comments
Meeting overload. There are way too many gov / stakeholder / which make the whole structure far to time and labor intensive. At DA there are 6 x gov teams; 3 x stakeholders; 4 x advisory groups; 4 bargaining units (not shared gov but takes time). At the district there many many other groups such as district budget; ETAC; Audit Finance; BoT; PGA; Chancellor's staff; Technology Bond projects; the new Bond......There is not enough time in the day for all these meetings. It's clearly to complicated and cumbersome. Will zoom we have a great opportunity to streamline the structure, have more representation and be more transparent.
Question 3: Ideally, how would governance groups and processes be structured at De Anza? How would this work in practice? Please provide a summary.
Response
Fewer groups. One PBT. Reps from each VP area. Clarification of roles and responsibilities of reps = communication with constituents; preparation, etc. Time between meeting to consult and discuss with constituent groups. Meeting once a month. Zoom meeting so anyone can attend but only have comments routed trough committee members. Release time for classified staff. Mutual respect. Allow for less vocal/self assured reps to speak in a safe environment. No recording or capturing of chat in zoom meetings. This is very intimidating and can be used in a negative manner to 'call out' those who have differing opinions. This would also be available to the public to be viewed and critiqued for ever. No Brown Act. Very intimidating and would not support the goal of equity.
Question 4: In the ideal structure you suggested above, how would members of the governance groups be selected? Please provide a summary.
Response
By their constituent groups & by relation to their job duties.
Question 5: All other recommendations and comments
Response
(None submitted)