General Meeting Information

Date: April 16, 2019
Time: 4 - 5 p.m.
Location: ADM 109

  • Agenda

    Time Topic Purpose Discussion Leader
    4:00 - 4:10 p.m. Approval of Minutes - March 12, 2019 and March 19, 2019 D/A Pape
    4:10 - 4:20 p.m. Equity and Engagement I/D Ranck
    4:20 - 4:30 p.m. Program Review - Preparations 2019 I/D/A Ranck/Pape
    4:30 - 5:00 p.m. Process to Initiate/bring back program/department I/D Ranck

    A = Action
    D = Discussion
    I = Information

    IPBT Memberships

    • Lorrie Ranck, Co-Chair
    • Sam Bliss
    • Randy Bryant
    • Alicia Cortez
    • Moaty Fayek
    • Anita Muthyala-Kandula
    • Thomas Ray
    • Precious Gerardo
    • Lorna Maynard

    • Diana Alves de Lima (on PDL)
    • Rich Booher
    • Milena Grozeva
    • Anu Khanna
    • Rick Maynard
    • Mary Pape, Co-Chair
    • Erik Woodbury
    • Shelly Michael
  • Minutes

    Meeting Notes

    Co-chairs: Lorrie Ranck (administrator), Mary Pape (faculty)

    Administrative reps: Sam Bliss, Randy Bryant, Alicia Cortez, Anita Muthyala-Kandula, Thomas Ray

    Classified reps:  Precious Gerardo

    Faculty reps:  Rich Booher, Anu Khanna, Milena Grozeva, Rick Maynard, Erik Woodbury

    Student reps:  Shelli Michael

    Apologies:  Diana Alves de Lima (on PDL), Lorna Maynard

    Guests:  Dawn Lee Tu, Coleen Lee-Wheat, Lisa Markus, Eric Mendoza, Mallory Newell

     Approval of Minutes

    The notes from March 12, 2019 & March 19, 2019 were approved.

    Equity and Engagement

    As a point of information, Lorrie stated that there is an open Faculty replacement position in Equity and Engagement. The position is for Puente Counselor (Full Time Tenure Track). Brenda Gonzalez, who is currently in this position, will be resigning in July 2019. The position is required by the State and, thus, hiring process will commence.

    A question arose concerning how positions vacated by new retirements not part of SRP and new resignations would be handled. Lorrie stated that the decision whether or not to fill them would be the initial step, as has been the process, at the District level. Once we know the number of faculty positions in the fall, IPBT will review and rank requests. It was suggested that perhaps areas that are growing would be the areas that faculty positions would be considered for.

    Program Review

    Approximately 70% of Program Review documents have been submitted and all are in the process of being posted on the IPBT website. Mary suggested that a department’s Student Learning Outcome Assessment level be a metric added back into decision making process of resource allocations by IPBT. The Excel spreadsheet on the SLO website contains the percent of courses in each department that have been assessed. Mary is working on updating the report to not include courses that are “not currently being taught”. As in the past, IPBT will break into groups to examine the Program Reviews focusing on different data points such as fill rates, SLO assessments, resource request justifications. A list of questions for Deans and departments will be composed as appropriate. We will need to be alert to allocation requests that are duplicates of resources currently being purchased based on last year’s allocations. This possible confusion is due to the close proximity in time of 2019 allocations to 2018 allocations.

    The viability process as it currently exists was discussed: DA IPBT Program Viability Process and Procedure. The process must be applicable to a program that wishes to come back after being phased out and to new programs as well as for eliminating programs. Lorrie stated that faculty and Dean associated with Paralegal department wish for the department to be reinstated and faculty from Music department wish to implement Music AA Degree. Both of these were part of the budget reductions in the past. Hence any reinstatement would need to be “revenue neutral”. That is, such expansions must be supported with funds already in the Division’s FTEF allotment since as eliminated program and reduced program, respectively, the savings must be realized for the future.

    Lorrie stated that the three prongs of Viability process are reduction, sustainability, and new program creation.

    Mary was not aware that the IPBT was involved if a department wishes to start new certificate or degree. Rather the conversation seemed to be within the Division and associated curriculum work was handled with Curriculum Committee. There needs to be a set of defined parameters that will determine when a new program is considered by IPBT. Randy is working on guidelines for CTE program initiation. A full day retreat on visions for success and what it means to be viable was suggested. The viability process should not be a fear model but a usable and organic process to handle reduction, sustainability, and new program creation and that is mindful of the new funding formula.

Documents and Links

Back to Top