June 13, 2023

Rapp meeting minutes 6/13/23

Membership attendance:

 In Person: Mallory Newell, Thomas Ray, Rob Mieso, Randy Bryant, Moaty Fayek, Justin Fry, Erik Woodbury, Izat Rasyad, Kate Wang, Adam Contreras, Michele Lebleu-Burns, Salvador Guerrero

 Remote: Eric Mendoza, Erick Aragon, Julie Hughes, Felisa Vilaubi, Alicia Mullens, Melinda Hughes, Bidya Subedi, Martin Varela, Tina Lockwood, Andre Meggerson, Debbie Lee, Pam Grey, Nicholas Turangan

Absent: Jason Sousa, Javier Gomez-Tagle

10:02am - Start: Welcome Agenda & Minutes

The agenda and meeting minutes from 6/6/23 were approved.

10:05am - Program Review

Mallory presented – A subcommittee was established a few weeks ago to talk about what the program review process would look like. Kristin, Salvador, Nicholas, Michele, Mallory were apart of the subcommittee. Mallory went over all of the forms linked below and in the agenda.

•  -Program Review Timeline (Quilt): Quilt Chart
•  Instructional Programs Comprehensive Program Review Form: DA Instructional Program Review 22-23 Draft
• Academic Services: Academic Services Program Review Draft
•  Comprehensive Program Review Form
  - Program Review Annual Update/Reflection Form: Program Review Annual Update
• - Instructional & Academic Services Department Feedback From RAPP Form: Feedback Form

Mallory – We will bring these forms back next week so there is time to review and provide feedback by next week. Would like to have these forms finalized so we can start program review in the fall with RAPP, so we would like to have these forms approved in the next meeting.

Mallory added – Another idea the subcommittee had is to make sure RAPP has a consistent way of reviewing and providing feedback on other program review forms. They created a simple feedback form; we would work in groups and review each area of the form.

Erik - Is there some place where we can put some reflection on program completion or program enrollment relative to specific degrees and certificates. Mallory responded yea we can add that into the form and the reflection.

Salvador - Will there be a feedback form for annual reflections. Mallory - we can work on that for next year.

Mallory – Please review forms and provide feedback before next meeting and we will go over everything next week.

10:22am - Timeline approval

Mallory – We had proposed the timeline for RAPP for next year, we want everything on the same cycle, so we have a consistent process moving forward.

Tina – Do these discussions on personnel hiring and recommendations give RAPP enough time to hear feedback from managers?

Erik - Does not feel that there is enough time. He recommended a solution we collect personnel requests in beginning of May and accept one week 3 or week 4 of the quarter for positions people found out about in May-September.

Debbie - Will it be possible for college council meet more than once a month, so we are not feeling pressured to just provide results back at a certain time? Likes Erik’s idea but her concern is if people feel like their positions may have ranked higher and then October comes, and a position may have higher priority they might feel their position gets bumped out.

Tina - likes the idea of breaking up the requests into multiple buckets we can then spend more time on each one.

Ameetta – How do you distinguish a High from a Moderate and a Moderate from a low? She also asked when the criteria would be made available.

Mallory responded - We can put the criteria on the website now, next week we are scheduled to review our criteria to make any changes so we can finalize it.

Erik added - we also intend to have training and work sessions in the fall, it was strongly requested by our campus community it’s our goal to be very transparent.

Randy – Will overlook CTE timelines he will come back with more info next meeting.

Mallory - will bring back the updated Timeline with the suggestions that were purposed today next week.

10:39am Personnel Hiring

1. High-High
2. Questions on High-mixed
3. Moderate/Lows

Erik – College Council did not approve our recommendations they want us to come back and have more conversation and give ourselves more time to ask questions to finalize any recommendations. We are going to look at the positions that were ranked high/high. We got 10 positions that are high/high.

Dr. Elvin – he recommends that RAPP rethink before submitting a short list of high/high/high he feels based on the positions that were selected it is not equitable, he does not think the process is fair when deans were not able to plead their case on why they need certain positions. Wants to know what justification each group had when it came to reaching a decision.

Erik – Let’s compare each individual position if there are claims of certain positions being ranked unfairly.

Mallory – We have 2 groups that are looking at the same position, they may have differences. They come together with a discussion and dialogue around what those discissions may be to come to one consensus.

Michele – Not one of the high/high positions are Student Services. Student Services has gotten the short end of the stick every time, they are the first to be cut and the last to get positions restored or even getting new positions. This is very centered on the needs of instruction, and it is not equitable when it comes to other areas that need positions.

Mallory – Wants to stress that the rankings from group A and B are not a final recommendation until the reconciliation. We would make sure the A and B’s rankings were in alinement after thoughtful discussion.

Andre in chat - Fair is not Equity that would be in the realm of equality.

Debbie in chat - The FT/PT ratio is not the only criteria. There are departments that have only one FT faculty who have to handle everything by themselves.

Andre in chat - Rushing is inequitable at its origin. What was submitted based on the time constraints from my observation. Keep in mind you want what you want for your team when we need to look at the entire pie which not everyone will be happy due to the foundation of the practice. Look at who is here and who is not… to fight for what they want, are you fighting for those not here or only what you want. I am always open to being wrong yet this is beautiful dialogue.   I hear a lot of trauma from passed choices made. Grounds and Maintenance are areas that I am not apart of yet I’ll go to town for any one of their positions to support their team as they are the foundation. Faculty are for more faculty how is that new? I love and appreciate that passion of all in this space, this is equity due to its discomfort which in my opinion means we are learning and growing.

Justin – We have money for all 19 positions with a small surplus that could fund three more positions. If we are not happy with the current decision which of these positions, do we think should not be ranked high priority.

Michele commented – Like Salvador mentioned, 6 people got together and agreed that those positions from the very beginning were ranked high. We should not disregard the work and effort of the 6 people that put into reviewing these positions, it is not respectful of their time and not treating them as professionals with their judgment.

Andre in chat - What I am hearing from the complaints was that the work completed was ‘not fair’ because someone did not get what they wanted for their team. I hope those sharing are active listening to what the self is saying. I am hoping to hear suggestions to improve the process and how the decisions made hurt who and how to locate resolution. This is the 1st time this has ever happened in this process in this group.

There was conversation about the ranking criteria used to make decisions on positions. Also, conversation revolving around “Equity”. In regard to positions in certain departments that were selected and how they were ranked. Majority of the members would like to talk about specific positions for transparency. We will continue this discussion next week.

Erik suggests – encourages the committee to look at the ranking list before next meeting to prepare any questions they might have.

11:25am End of meeting