IPBT Notes - November 8, 2011 - 3:30 PM - 5:00 PM
Christina Espinosa-Pieb Chair
Coleen Lee-Wheat Co-Chair
Present: Administrative Reps Anderson, Espinosa-Pieb, Ray, Tomaneng
Classified Reps: Englen, Knittel, Qian
Faculty Reps: Bryant, Lee-Wheat, Mitchell, Roberts, Singh, Stockwell
Student Reps: Kenneth Perng
Absent: Norte, Schroeder
Visitors: Canter, Castillo, Cook, Ellis, Hansen, Jeanpierre, Kandula, LeBlu-Burns, Lee-Klawender, Moberg, Newell, Swanson, Woodward
I. Approval of Notes:
Anderson requested an amendment of the notes (November 1, 2011) to reflect the importance of C. Espinosa-Pieb’s view of the college’s perspective regarding each proposal on the hiring list.
II. Prioritization of Faculty Hires:
Espinosa-Pieb recapped the process so far and explained that at this IPBT meeting the members were to have received the results of their work on the prioritization of faculty hires. She had invited the deans and Student services managers to the meeting because of decisions made in the IPBT are of interest to the whole college community.
Espinosa-Pieb reminded the group that the determination of the calendar deadlines for a prioritized faculty hiring list were driven by the need to start the hiring processes as soon as possible in order to improve our chances to invite the best candidates for an interview. Espinosa-Pieb further explained that as a result of this timeline a lot of genuine concern had been expressed by many constituents of the college and members of the IPBT. People expressed that it appeared to be in conflict with the work that was preceding the work of program discontinuance. She displayed a list of 5 questions that reflected these concerns. Espinosa-Pieb then stated that in light of these concerns Lee-Wheat and herself have decided to make the recommendation that the process should be delayed for two weeks. Espinosa-Pieb then went on to share her thoughts on the answers to the questions – see attached Questions and Answers.
Espinosa-Pieb would email the 5 questions to the IPBT, deans, VPSS & VPFER. She requested that each IPBT member consider the questions and decide if they want to move forward with the prioritization process next week or to slow it down to allow for more consideration of the program reduction and discontinuance process. The IPBT members should email their decision to Espinosa-Pieb. Email will go out to IPBT so the members can give their opinion of delaying the process to Espinosa-Pieb and Lee-Wheat.
In the ensuing discussion, Mitchell pointed out that delaying the process would present a different set of challenges and that discontinuing/eliminating/suspending programs is a lengthy process. Knittel felt that the process followed so far was acceptable and was the same process the team had followed previously. He added a concern that if the process were delayed it would present problems to the divisions waiting to hire faculty. Englen noted that classified staff were also asking questions about “doing things backwards”. Espinosa-Pieb stated that the program viability and discontinuance process must proceed as the campus is waiting for answers and, contractually, the union needs to know by early January if programs are going to be discontinued. In response to a question whether the campus was looking at program suspension or discontinuance; Espinosa-Pieb stated that both program suspension and discontinuance are being considered. She stated that the campus has to live within its budgetary limitations. There is no more money coming in from the State. These hard decisions will set the stage for the college’s future.
III. General Questions:
Espinosa-Pieb asked the IPBT members to break into groups to objectively look at the program information. She introduced several tools to help them look at the program creatively and to encourage critical thinking and creative problem solving. A data set of “fill rates” as provided by M. Newell was discussed. This sheet reveals trends of class enrollment at census dates based on seat counts compared to seats available. It was noted that if any of the data appeared to be incorrect, M. Newell should be consulted. A worksheet to help determine cost savings in comparison to apportionment lost and a third “tool” in the form of a set of questions was also introduced. Espinosa-Pieb emphasized that these questions were NOT criteria. Hard copies of the list of 22 questions were distributed and reviewed. Teams were encouraged to make use of these questions and the worksheets meet before next Tuesday while reviewing their divisions. Espinosa-Pieb and Lee-Wheat led the discussion around the questions and Espinosa-Pieb reiterated the importance of considering every aspect of a program. Program suspension, program reduction and program discontinuance are all recommendations that are possible solutions that the IPBT might recommend to a program and its faculty.
IV. Small Group work on Program Review: Not addressed at this meeting.