October 20, 2020

IPBT Meeting – October 20, 2020

Tri-chairs: Christina G. Espinosa-Pieb, Mary Pape, Heidi King

Administrative reps: Sam Bliss, Randy Bryant, Alicia Cortez, Christina Espinosa-Pieb, Anita Mythyala-Kandula, Lorrie Ranck, Thomas Ray

Classified reps: Thomas Bailey, Dana Kennedy, Lorna Maynard, Heidi King

Faculty reps:  Cheryl Balm, Mayra Cruz, Terrence Mullens, Mary Pape, Danny Solomon, Erik Woodbury

Student reps: Grace Lim, Arushi Sharma, Esha Dadbhawala, Luiza Eloy

Affinity Group Representatives:

Black Faculty, Staff and Administrators Network Representative (BFSA): Melinda Hughes, Pauline Wethington

The Asian Pacific American Staff Association Representative (APASA): Christine Chai, Khoa Nguyen

De Anza Latinx Association Representative (DALA): Eric Mendoza, Felisa Vilaubi

Guests: Scott Olsen, Tim Shively, Jeffrey Kasprow, Anthony Nguyen, Karen Chow, Sarah Lisha, Vins Chacko, Mary Donahue, Lisa Markus, Dawn Lee Tu, Rick Maynard, Moaty Fayek, Francesca Caparas, Daniel Smith, Edmundo Norte, Elvin Ramos, Britney Tran, So Kam Lee, Eugene Tolentino, Pete Vernazza, Sarah Wallace, Isabella Scotti, Diana Piper, Susan Ho, Tejhasvi Jaikumar, Jacqueline Martinez, Lisa Kirk, Felicia Mulyadi, Kimberly Lam, Ran Ji, Chris White, Sienna Segura, Margarita Hawthorn, Cristina Phan, Kulwant Singh, Mariam Touni, Nicole Howard, Mallory Newell, Patricia Del Rio

Approval of Minutes – Notes of October 13, 2020 were approved with edits.

DASB report: 

Last week, DASB voted to renew the VTA Smartpass contract. They also briefly discussed the possibility of hosting a Town Hall this quarter for students to share their needs and concerns. 

The students shared that they had discussed the budget reduction proposal with the student representatives of other PBTs and with the students who have been very vocal in Board meetings. Their collective concerns centered on lack of transparency and lack of student input. The reduction proposal line items lacked details and it is not possible to conclude how the proposed possible reductions might negatively impact students. Due to an error, students did not have the opportunity to attend the initial joint PBT presentations. Questions including why the amount decreased from $12.5 to $4.5 million and why any budget reductions have not been answered completely. Students are concerned because a cut to 1320 funds would translate into fewer sections offered. Students worry that cutting fund 400 would have a negative impact on the student housing campaign; that there was no clarity in what areas would be cut in Fund 15; and, that cuts to “B” Budget would negatively impact equity initiative. 

The students understand that sometimes, we do need to make difficult decisions. However, student representatives fail to see how pushing for such a proposal that could harm students would be in their best interest. 

Strong Workforce Program (SWP) and Perkins Funds – Introduction of funds & Allocation process [link to presentation]

Strong Workforce Program Goal: More and Better Career Technical Education to Increase Social Mobility and Fuel Regional Economies with Skilled Workers

Perkins Fund Goal: Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act

Randy Bryant presented a PowerPoint with the break down of the amounts that De Anza College received from the Strong Workforce and Perkins programs over the last 5 years.  These are funds that can be spent on Career Technical Education programs only. Strong Workforce monies are divided into Local Funds given to the individual college and Regional funds given to the Region. De Anza usually receives the Local funds in August and then in November, funds that will not be spent by the Region, are disbursed to the individual colleges.

SWP funds are now at spending round 5, but we have $250K from round 3 to spend by 12/31/2020. Any amount we do not spend is returned for disbursement to all colleges in  the following year. 

Perkins V is the latest Perkins allocation. Randy notified IPBT that $100K of Perkins IV was returned back to Federal Government due to COVID-19 campus closure and not being able to receive deliveries.

The resource requests for each Division have already been approved by IPBT. Bryant will be seeking approval to spend the remaining $250K on remaining requests approved as critical. His office will be working with the deans. Each dean will be requested to review resource request spreadsheet for his or her Division and make any needed revisions necessitated by COVID-19.

For 2020 the Program Review due date was moved earlier to meet deadlines for spending these funds. Rounds 1 – 4 allowed 30 months for spending the fund; round 5, the timeline is only 24 months.

If the members have any questions/concerns, Randy invited everyone to CTE office hour held every Wednesday at 1:00 PM.

Last week Lorrie Ranck sent the team the Funding Request and Outcome workbook to read and get familiar with. Last spring, the IPBT approved resource allocations for requests that were critical for Summer 2020 and Fall 2020. At that time members agreed that they would need to revisit allocation again in the fall.

Lorrie explained that the master workbook has a tab for each Division containing that division’s request. Each request is classified as critical or needed or desirable. In Spring 2020, funds from SWP and Lottery needed to support programs through Fall were approved for allocation. Then allocation was presented to and approved by College Council.

Strong Workforce program will be brought back to IPBT next meeting with the updates from each division. IPBT will be asked to move forward with $250K spending.

Budget Reduction Proposal - Budget Presentation

De Anza Student Body’s biggest concern was on section reductions. For this reason students have been very vocal about not being in support of cutting out 1320 part-time funding reduction. DASB was also concerned about fund 400 (would it affect affordable housing project), Fund 15 (would it affect scholarships) and “B” budgets (would it effect equity initiative).

Pape shared Academic Senate vote outcome: “Academic Senate strongly recommends to all IPBT voting faculty representatives to vote against a budget reduction proposal that includes a reduction in 1320 funds.”

Tim Shively stated that there was no reason for amount of $9M. The amount is not based on current data. It is a relic of the May revise.  Secondly, the date of November 1 was originally set to plan for March 15^th notices to full-time faculty. This date could now be moved to January since there will be no permanent cuts to full-time faculty. Third, there was absolutely no input from Shared Governance groups in creation of this reduction plan. A plan stating that there is no impact on personnel is needed.

Espinosa-Pieb reminded everyone that the College President is responsible to the Board and to the Chancellor. President Holmes has to present a proposal. The final decision on the proposal itself is his. As a Shared Governance group, the team gives advice on the proposal. She said that the committee could vote to remove 1320 line of the budget proposal. She explained that that line is there because of a history of declining enrollment.

Another concern was raised that if the 1320 fund line was removed, the amount would be absorbed by allowing more classified positions to remain unfilled. Comparing the number of classified professionals at De Anza College to number employed at colleges of similar size, we are already stretched thin.

The members expressed that since nothing has been changed after giving their feedback, they feel that their voices haven’t been heard.

The senior staff is willing to consider plan B, which zeros out 1320 and distributes the dollars to Fund 400 ($200K) and the rest of the amount to unfilled positions.

Two plans were set. Plan A - the proposed original plan and Plan B - removing 1320

25 voting members voted: Plan A - 10 yes; 13 no; 2 abstentions Plan B - 24 no; 1 yes; no abstention

Neither motion passed. Currently IPBT has no official recommendation to College Council.

Some concerns were raised: What’s the desire of this group? What’s our solution? What’s our plan to bring forward a solution?

Christina Espinosa-Pieb asked the members to get into constituency groups and talk about what they want to propose.

If your constituency group comes up with a plan, we can propose it next week.

This agenda item will be brought back next week for more consideration and we will be voting again.