College Council

January 10, 2019 DRAFT Notes

Welcome & Purpose

Espinosa-Pieb welcomed the three Planning and Budget Teams and College Council members to the joint meeting. She reminded the group that the purpose of the meeting was to finalize the college’s 2018-19 budget reductions. The Board of Trustees’ directive was that De Anza must reduce its ongoing budget by a total of $8.8 million over two years. Tier I ($2.5 million) was finalized in 2017-18 with the effective date of July 1, 2018. Tier II ($6.3 million) for the 2018-19 year, with the effective date of July 1, 2019, must to be finalized by the next day -- January 11, 2019 -- for submission to Chancellor's Cabinet prior to Board review and approval.

Review & Approve Final Budget Reductions effective July 1, 2019

Espinosa-Pieb reminded the members that the PBTs had posted the approved budget reductions to their respective websites. These reductions were the result of months of review and analysis in which each department and governance group had the opportunity to participate. Espinosa-Pieb displayed each PBT’s reductions and highlighted the main decisions. She reminded attendees that the college's Tier II target had not yet been met. Toward that end, she had secured agreement from the district, in fall quarter, to use $500,000 in savings through not filling the positions of some classified professionals who opt to take the Supplementary Retirement Plan (SRP). Espinosa-Pieb then displayed the list of 28 classified staff members who will be taking the SRP, noting that only general fund positions could be considered for elimination, as categorical and self-sustaining positions could not contribute to the budget reductions. Given the tight timeline, she said senior staff had discussed each position in detail, working to find the best possible options. She emphasized it is always preferable to eliminate vacant positions rather than those that are occupied. She further emphasized that the entire budget reduction process is being completed without the layoff of a single classified professional.

Espinosa-Pieb asked the members to review the list and share their thoughts, comments and suggestions, with the end result being the final approval of this list, or a revised list. Although everyone was permitted to speak to the agenda item, only the members of the PBTs and College Council would vote. Ultimately, the president makes the final decision.

During a robust discussion, members offered many comments, observations and suggested. This included faculty co-director of the Student Success Center (SSC), Diana Alves de Lima, observing that four classified professionals were retiring in the area and that eliminating one position would significantly impact student success. Two students spoke in support of the program. Alves de Lima voiced her opposition to eliminating one of the positions and said another position should be chosen. Espinosa-Pieb pointed out the opportunity for reorganization in the area and noted once again that the elimination of a vacant position means that a classified professional in a filled position would not be eliminated. She inquired what position Alves de Lima would instead suggest. The interim dean of Physical Education and Athletics responded, to Alves de Lima’s later suggestion of eliminating a PE facilities and equipment position, that the programs could not operate without it.

Dean of Counseling Sheila White Daniels voiced her opposition to the elimination of her own position and that of the retiring academic advisor, saying those actions and the reorganization of Student Services areas would not be successful.

Espinosa-Pieb pointed out that the elimination of the testing technician was a result of the state's AB 705 bill regarding assessment. The elimination of the grounds supervisor allows for a vacant grounds position to be filled rather than be eliminated. She expressed hope that DASB may decide to fund the student activity specialist position being eliminated.

Suggestions for fundraising and voluntary salary reductions had been considered during previous budget reductions, but neither of these avenues are sufficient or feasible. It was also noted that the district's enrollment is still declining, and this portends likely additional budget reductions.

ACE President Chris White reminded the members that under Article 11 of the contract, no one can perform overtime to perform the work of an eliminated employee; some of the work can be redistributed to other classified members, but work must be reorganized as members already have a 40-hour work week. No one outside of ACE can do the work after the position is eliminated. This means that work from eliminated positions cannot be performed by students or temporary employees.

Academic Senate President Karen Chow summarized the Guided Pathways initiative and shared that it may present the college with opportunities to reorganize and more closely align with the goals of this program.

Espinosa-Pieb closed the discussion by thanking the members for their diligence and hard work in making very hard decisions. She also acknowledging that every affected department provides key services to students and that any reductions will impact students. Unfortunately, such decisions still have to be made. 

Espinosa-Pieb requested a show of hands from voting members on recommending the proposed reductions, which were approved. Alves de Lima, LeBleu-Burns and White Daniels opposed.

Present: Alves de Lima, Avila, Booye, Bliss, Bryant, Caceres, Chow, Cortez, Donahue, Englen, Espinosa-Pieb, Fayek, Galoyan, Glapion, Grey, Grozeda, Harada, Kahler, Kennedy, Kirkpatrick, Khanna, Lee Tu, LeBleu-Burns, Pape, Mandy, Markus, L. Maynard, R. Maynard, Mieso, Muthyala-Kandula, Newell, Ranck, Ray, Shannakian, Shively, K. Singh, S. Singh, Smith, Spatafore, Swanson, Robles, Varela, Wethington, White-Daniels, Woodbury, Yi-Baker, Students: Madison
Back to Top