Meeting Notes - November 17, 2009
De Anza College
IPBT Notes - November 17, 2009—4:00 – 5:00 PM
Present: Anderson, Bradshaw, Bryant, Cadge-Moore, Espinosa-Pieb, Hearn, Irvin, Kubo, Lee-Klawender, Mowrey, Pereida Pham, Qin, Schroeder, Singh, Tomaneng.
Visitors: Anne Argyriou, Diana Alves-de-Lima, Mary Kay Englen, Rich Hansen, Wendy Low, Cheryl Woodward.
I. Approval of Agenda and Meeting Notes:
The November 17, 2009 agenda was approved as written, and the notes of November 10, 2009 were approved with the following change under Section II--Current Process and Timeline to read: Dec. 1, 2009.
II. Academic Senate’s Update/Ideas:
C. Lee-Klawender shared some of the comments coming from the Academic Senate pertaining to the process of determining where budget reductions should occur.
- Admonition of making the “cuts” fair—not targeting certain groups
- Administrators—what are they willing to “cut”
- Use caution that “cuts” do not affect the school’s diversity efforts
- Re-check with the divisions to determine if some confusion still exists regarding plans
- “Position guidelines” from Academic Senate cannot be specific—too much variance
III. Division Meetings/Feedback:
C. Espinosa-Pieb stated that there is no “magic rubric”—critical thinking skills need to be employed to determine solutions. For this reason, it is necessary for everyone—faculty and staff—to engage in these division discussions. She explained that the division deans were asked to provide three phases to their reduction plans. Phase 1 should exemplify the easiest solution—which most likely would affect classes. Along with the “solution,” a “rationale” which would consist of a couple of sentences, and an “impact” statement are necessary additions. Phase 2 most likely would affect people and/or programs, and Phase 3 would be a solution that had to be employed—if there was “no other place to go.” Both Phase 2 and 3 required the “rational” and “impact” statements. (December 1 is the submission deadline.) The directive given was that this process should be broadly voiced across the campus. Espinosa-Pieb continued to say that the instructional divisions are working on their “solutions,” which will be given to her. From that point, the numbers will be analyzed—FTES checked to meet target goals--and those adjusted “plans” will be forwarded to the Chancellor’s Office. It was emphasized that the “plans” are not a “done-deal.” (A request was made to use the word “scenario” in place of “plans.”)
Relating to the division reduction plans, it was suggested to faculty that any faculty who disagree with budget-cut scenarios should contact one of the officers of the Academic Senate. The instructional deans that were present at this meeting confirmed that their “plans/scenarios” decisions are already made transparent; however, it was noted that other deans might not employ the same approach. The division deans will be encouraged to post the budget-cut scenarios for all departments in their divisions, and to inform the entire faculty in their division that they are posted.