De Anza College

IPBT Notes - January 15, 2010—8:00 AM – 5:00 PM

Co-Chairs:

Christina Espinosa-Pieb

Cynthia Lee-Klawender

 

Present:  Anderson, Bradshaw, Bryant, Cadge-Moore, Espinosa-Pieb, Hearn, Irvin,  Knittel,      

               Kubo, Lee-Klawender, Mowrey, Pereida, Schroeder, Singh, Tomaneng

Visitors:  Anne Argyiou, Mary Kay Englen, Rich Hansen, Wendy Low, Fran Frazier

 

I.    Creative Arts:  Handout #1.  Nancy Canter, Division Dean, reported on her area.

The following questions were addressed.

Questions:

•  Who participated in decisions as to what is "Core?” What was the process that you used, and who was involved?
• Specifically, which classes are going to be cut and what is the average enrollment for each of those sections?
• If eliminating any IA’s required for safety, the assumption is that a program would be eliminating program-- is there a way to "suspend" it?
• Could the dean spell out details of phase 2 and 3? If this is not possible because it requires listing specific classified positions needed for Hazmat regulations and the possible elimination of key arts programs and positions, the dean could then list the costs and productivity of each area at this point for comparative analysis as some other divisions have done.

II.     International and Intercultural Studies: Duane Kubo, Division Dean, reported on the courses that he proposes to eliminate and suspended. No classified or IA’s to be eliminated. Refer to handout #2 and #3. Concurrent languages are typically run together and are taught together at the higher levels of courses. Possible mandate coming from the state to eliminate this concurrent scheduling. Office of Diversity has been moved under this division.

Questions:

• Who participated in decisions as to what is "Core?” What was the process that you used, and who was involved?
• Comment--Courses listed does NOT mean total elimination, could be offer less often
• With the cross-listed courses, were the other departments consulted?
•  Does the IIS division have any IAs?  Could any of the IA's hours be reduced, possibly by restructuring the language labs?
• Why are all ICS courses listed simply  under tier (phase) 4 and not open to cuts of sections when multiple sections of some are offered every quarter and that some are only electives and not required for major prep transfer? Has dean researched or considered some courses listed on tier two are required for transfer prep in programs housed outside of IIS (I.E. Art History)? It seems like the language programs have taken the major cuts rather than a careful analysis of enrollment, productivity, and needs for transfer, etc. of all courses housed in IIS.
• Need more details on the ICS courses, even though they are listed as priority 4.
•  Is it at all workable to combine levels 4-5-6 of language classes?
• Has the division become too small to maintain as a separate division? Could it be reorganized into Social Studies and Language Arts?
• Which of the courses listed are offered together? (i.e. do you offer Viet 5 and 6 as one class like we do with our swimming classes)

III.      Physical Education: Rich Schroeder, Division Dean, and Kulwant Singh, Athletic Director, presented a Title IX explanation and addressed the following questions. See handouts #4 & #5.

Questions:

• Who participated in decisions as to what is "Core?” What was the process that you used, and who was involved?
•  If eliminating Men's & Women's Swimming & Diving teams, wouldn't the Title IX requirements still be OK? (since still keeping the "balance")?
•  Half a coordinator's salary + night fill-in person equals only $40,000?
• Given the IPBT discussion on Title IX and the small cost savings of cutting the Badminton team, I would ask the Dean to consider removing this cut from plan.
• Title IX explanation--I know this is already planned.
• It does not seem fair that some programs have proposed their phase three cuts, while others have yet to bring this information forward. It would be helpful to see the full extent of how deep we are really going here and what the true impact of all these cuts will have upon classified staff and part time faculty. Can you give us an idea of what a phase 3 reduction would look like?
• In order to maintain compliance with Title IX, can PE offer a cut to a men's team to balance out the cut to the women's badminton team?

 

IV. Academic Services/Learning Resources: Lydia Hearn, Interim Associate Vice President of

 Instruction, reported and answered questions. Refer to handout #6. 

Questions:

• Who participated in decisions as to what is "Core?” What was the process that you used, and who was involved?
• Need detail on positions lost with Readiness being eliminated, in both priority one and two.
• It is not really clear how $350K will be saved by a reorganization of the Student Success Center. How much money is being spent here? Especially in light of the fact that an additional $150K is their second priority.      
• Phase one and two make sense considering changes in state-mandated policies, but I question the value of 3 – elimination of weekend (now evening) library position. For the small cost savings, this will have negative ramifications across campus. Is there any B budget or other cost savings to be found to prevent this?

 

V. Business/Computer Systems: Cynthia Lee-Klawenger, CIS Coordinator, Linda West, and Mark Sherby, both instructors from CAOS, reported from their division. It was voiced that there were discrepancies from the process and the final budget reduction results prepared were not those as initially presented from the department meetings. No handouts.

Questions:

• Who participated in decisions as to what is "Core?” What was the process that you used, and who was involved?
•  Were all faculty in each department part of the "what is core" discussions and decisions?
• Were all faculty involved with the computer labs consulted about the reorganization of the computer labs?
• Could all CAOS classes be converted from self-paced to face-to face classes so three IA's could be eliminated? College would lost a lot of money. Pilot testing a hybrid with Distance Learning.   
• What is the actual FTES amount in CAOS now? (not number of students, but FTES)
• What is the success rate of students in CAOS recently (first time)?
•  Both Priority 1 and 2:  What is the difference between the Instructional Associate and Instructional Coordinator positions? Impact seems the same. How many of these positions exist?
• The Division does not specify non-core sections to be dropped in either phase. My main concern is whether or not these “non-core” classes may be core or required in other certificates, programs, transfers on campus. Has this been checked by the dean?
• How realistic is lab remodel? What is the potential time frame for this? Can any consolidation be done without it being remodeled?
• Which classes/sections are proposed for elimination?  If there is support documentation, can we see this? (Can it be summarized in a spreadsheet?)

 

VI. Physical Sciences/Math/Engineering: Jerry Rosenberg, Division Dean, responded to the

following questions: Refer to handout #7. 

Questions:

• Who participated in decisions as to what is "Core?” What was the process that you used, and who was involved?
• Was the Engineering department consulted about the Engineering course reductions?
• How much FTES would be lost from cutting evening Chemistry? Looking at options of the Chemistry Program.   
• Mostly this plan seems logical, but I question the placement of "Reduction of Physics Technical Support to 1/2 time" under priority 3 given other cuts across campus. This seems like a logical place to cut. I do also wonder if an evening section of Chemistry is not possible without the hish costs of tech, student tech, etc. Of course, Haz-mat costs, etc are needed but can't they offer just a few evening sections to help the few students that would be affected?
• I am concerned about elimination of evening Chemistry program, not sure it is even slightly realistic to do this. Is there space to run afternoon classes? Have students been surveyed or otherwise consulted as to whether this will meet needs? If 14 classes are moved to afternoon how much WSCH is lost from the ones going away?
• The PSME proposal suggests reductions to a number of classified professionals, all of who provide direct assistance to students.  On the other hand, the Instructional Tech Coordinator position in the PSME office is not even discussed.  Could you please explain this apparent anomaly?
• Specifically, which classes are going to be cut and what is the average enrollment for each of those sections?

 

VI. Biological, Health, and Environmental Sciences: Stephanie Sherman, Division Dean,

described their division’s reduction plan. Refer to handouts, #8, and #9.

       Questions:

• Who participated in decisions as to what is "Core?” What was the process that you used, and who was involved?
• How much FTES is lost with cutting COOP?
• Is the amount of savings given for COOP for salary only?
• Priority 2-- The complete elimination of COOP seems too large of loss for the success of our students (and priority 3 is even more devastating…) Has the Division planned possible reduction scenarios combining both areas (COOP and Learning Resource Centers) rather than complete elimination of COOP as priority 2? Stephanie mentions the appalling B budget reductions her Division has faced, but she doesn’t specify any ^{instructional} associate or lab positions as some other Divisions list – can any of these be reduced?
• Priority 3 needs more details. For example, how many positions, full-time or part time, are impacted. Would the labs completely close or be truncated? Which programs will be most heavily impacted?  Specifically, which classes are going to be cut and what is the average enrollment for each of those sections? 

 

V. Social Sciences and Humanities: Carolyn Wilkins-Green, Division Dean, answered the

questions below.  Refer to handout #10.

Questions:

• Who participated in decisions as to what is "Core?” What was the process that you used, and who was involved?
•  PGSP (now Palo Alto University) -- why is this a SSH division program?  Are SSH resources used in this program?  Why would the SSH division be "credited" for any "profit" made from Palo Alto University?
• Can we have more information about the instructional associate’s role in classes and how they help to increase productivity.
• Why not offer 2 separate sections instead of a double section and 3 separate sections instead of a triple section so IA’s would not be needed?
•  Specifically, which classes are going to be cut and what is the average enrollment for each of those sections?

VI.     Language Arts:  Questions were answered by Rowena Tomaneng, Interim Division Dean. Refer to handout #11. 

Questions:

• Who participated in decisions as to what is "Core?” What was the process that you used, and who was involved?
•  How many students use the evening English lab (track hours)?
•  What are the evening English lab hours?
•  What does the English lab & publication assistant do?
• Specifically, which classes are going to be cut and what is the average enrollment for each of those sections?
• You have listed a release time reduction as part of your savings. Is this in addition to reduced release time we will be working on later this year? I wouldn't want her to come back later and say they have already reduced release time and can't reduce further.
• It does not seem fair that some programs have proposed their phase three cuts, while others have yet to bring this information forward. It would be helpful to see the full extent of how deep we are really going here and what the true impact of all these cuts will have upon classified staff and part time faculty. Can you give us an idea of what a phase 3 reduction would look like?

 

VII.    Deliberations:

Christina Espinosa-Pieb, Vice President of Instruction, gave some directions, as the deliberations were to begin. Reference was made to the handout #12, dated: 17 Nov 09; title: DAC 2009-10 Phase 2 Budget Planning Worksheet, Funds 14 & Categorical Budgets & Reductions. She spoke to the impact on people’s lives that could be affected by the decisions made. For example, she stated that impact to adjunct faculty—if assignment falls below 38%--will exclude medical benefits. All shared the magnitude of difficulty of the assignment, and the members were cautioned to be sensitive and receptive to the dialogue that would take place while deliberations are in progress.

It was noted that De Anza takes 79% of the $3.2 million cuts, and under Option 1 and Option 2, Instruction is facing a $1,734,028 portion.

 

 

Notes on the Following Divisions’ Deliberations:

 

Academic Services/Learning Resources

$49,6606---Option 2.  So many people will be affected by the proposals.

Dialogue about the effect on students—if programs are cancelled. Look at possible merging of some programs—to become more effective.

 

Applied Technology

Targets hit—S. Sherman taking on AT—contribution from that division. Dean volunteered retirement. --$108,192  Admin Assistant retired.

 

Biological, Health, and Environmental Sciences

COOP and labs discussion.  Unique structure.

 

Business/Computer Information Systems

Questioned the process that was used.

Agreement on one (1) IA being eliminated from Accounting.

Where do we go with the reductions?  We need a plan that has positions identified. Consider reductions in this area. Concern about cutting all of the evening classes. Something needs to be identified right now.  Number of classified? 8—one has already been eliminated. Give up two positions @$80,000—and “B”—if the division wants to--then let the new dean work on developing a possible reorganization.

 

Creative Arts

Consideration of not offering everything every quarter.

535 is the magic number—every point means a $1,000,000.  The committee looked at courses with low seat counts. 2,219 generates $98,000 –about $85,000 a savings approximately.  Enrollment management—deciding when the course should be offered when. $10,892 with seat count of 25?;  $21,785 seat count of 50.

 

IIS

Class offering—enrollment management.  Take out ones with low enrollment.

Cut $140,000; savings of $85,000.

 

Language Arts

Commitment to the ESL and Basic Skills paramount.

Too many ESL 5 classes scheduled. ESL 6--not many classes are being offered. Department recommended to let go ESL 6.

Respect what the divisions have offered up; however, IPBT has the charge to look at the effects on the entire campus.

Some sections can be reduced.

Four speech classes per year reduction?  $6,000 per class reduction savings.

Elit first choice; journalism; 17-1/2sections. Phase 3

 

Phase 1—17-1/2 classes, release time ($39,375) and B Budget

Phase 2-- ½ of a position.

Phase 3—all lab and publications assistance.

 

6 in twrit

4 journalism

3.5 elit

2 transfer level comp  creative writing

2 speech

 

$155,125 total

 

PE

Eliminate #5, #6 and #8—cannot remove unless both women and men are released.

Taken Open faculty positions off

Keep #1, #2, #3, #4, #9 (program elimination); men and women’s swimming and diving

Wellness Center—self sustaining

#10 men’s side and women’s side. ½ position (#10 and #12 same—1/2 position)

#14 full time position—supports athletics.

½ men’s position on the table--bring into compliance.

Baseball--the choice if a position needs to be taken.

Position or a team.

 

$82,160

 

PSME

Check the Engineering Program—eliminate some of the courses.  Down-size and re-vamp.

$71,500.

 

Shifting the aide from PSME to Fund 15—Caron Blinick

Chemistry—not to touch for evening classes.

Physics Lab person—look into?  Possible reduce. ½ position

 

$123,500

 

Social Sciences/Humanities

Phase 1—not acceptable

Phase 2 –classes are highly enrolled

Phase 3—IA’s—a presentation from one of the IA’s serving on the committee.

 

C. Espinosa-Pieb thanked the team members for their hard work, dedication and commitment to the shared governance process—the work that they have been engaged in. She continued by saying that each team member’s insight, thoughtfulness and genuine respect and appreciation for the campus community are what she is counting on to make the recommendations that will best serve the students. The “next steps” were described on recommendations/calculations--using the score sheet—to type in the dollar amount reduction for each phase for each division, and to email this document to the Office of Instruction by Sunday, 1/18/10.