General Meeting Information

Date: February 27, 2024
Time: 10:00 - 11:20
Location: MLC 255;

This meeting will be held HyFlex, meaning anyone can participate in-person or online.  To join remotely, see the Zoom information at the bottom of this page.

  • Agenda

    Time Topic Purpose
    10:00 - 10:05 Welcome and Introductions I
    10:05 - 10:10 Review Agenda and Approval of Minutes I/A
    10:10 - 11:20 Discussion and Selection of the 3 Options I/D/A
      Discuss selected option D
      Recommendation to College Council A
      Adjourn Meeting A

    A = Action
    D = Discussion
    I = Information

  • Minutes

    Attendance: Mallory Newell, Rob Mieso, Adam Contreras, Alicia De Toro, Anita Muthyala-Kandula, Bidya Subedi, Daniel Solomon, Dave Capitolo, Dr. Elvin T. Ramos, Eric Mendoza, Erick Aragon, Hieu Nguyen, Martin Varela, Melinda Hughes, Michele LeBleu-Burns, Nazy Galoyan, Pam Grey, Sam Bliss, Thomas Ray, Tim Shively, Andre Meggerson, Tina Lockwoodd, Michelle Hernandez, Ian Ang, Nicholas Turangan, Benjamin Furagganan, Izat Rasyad, Kate Wang

    Minutes approved and agenda review. 

    Discussion on 3 Options: Mallory says that we will be discussing based on groups but not advocating for positions. Tim asks for clarification and Mallory reviews 3 current options. Reviews the voting process - we strive for consensus but we have in our charge/norms we may vote. We’ll hear each group’s position and if there’s no clear consensus, we will ask groups if they can shift based on their conversations with constituency groups. If we can’t get consensus, we’ll vote. If there’s no clear majority, we will eliminate the option with least votes and then vote again for the top 2. Tim asks why we’re voting by constituency. At this point, all the employee groups have weighed in. When we started, we were in mixed groups. Now that we’re voting as blocks, it seems a disservice to the process and doesn't leave room for individual gradations. Rob reminds us we are not voting -- we’re just asking about everyone’s discussions with their groups. Tina says we were doing it by constituency group to ensure people would talk in the group. Mallory confirms yes, this was the intention. Rob adds that there’s an emphasis on 2-way communication - this is to give an opportunity for RAPP members to share the discussions they’re having with the constituency groups. 

    Group feedback: Administrators - Michelle H. says they chose option 3. Classified - Tina says they also chose option 3. Affinity Groups - BFSA (Melinda) discussed option 1. DALA (Erik) says they chose option 3. APASA (Erik) says they chose option 1. EAC (Michelle) says they chose option 3. Students - Also went with options 3. Faculty - Tim says they didn't vote as a block but has spoken with some and they were looking at either option 2 or 3. Seems consensus is 3, they can go with option 3. 

    Summary: Majority of option 3, 2 option 1s. BFSA or APASA, is there discussion to shifting to option 3? Melinda said they can shift over. Erik says option 3 was discussed but more people were in favor of option 1. Erik says that it is a possibility. We have consensus on option 3. 

    Next Discussion re: Bucket 3: Mallory says maybe we don't need a bucket 3 or just put the remaining items. Or we just have a few of them. We’re opening it up about what we’ll do with the remaining (unranked high) positions. Shows a list of the unranked positions. 

    Administrators - Debbie says that for their constituency, they ranked the CETH position very high. After that, it would be the CIS position. Mallory says no need to state reasoning. Michele L. also wanted to put forward Visual Arts and Humanities. Classified - Asks if Mallory can come back. Affinity Groups - For BFSA, the CETH position, the Humanities, and Visual Arts and Design. For DALA, Erik says CETH, Custodial Supervisor, and Chemistry. For APASA, Erik A. says CETH and CIS. EAC - Michelle said they didn't do through and rank but CETH was a primary concern and making sure that it came up. The next one there was discussion around was the Custodial Supervisor. Students - In no order, CHEM, CETH, MUSIC, and Visual Arts and Design. Faculty - Time says Music at top, CHEM, VISUAL ARTS And Design, Humanities, and CETh. We would like to exclude the custodial supervisor due to the cost differential. Daniel voices support for those positions. Classified - Tina says that Custodial Sup, CETH, and VIS ARTS and DESIGN. For Classified, Adam says we want to add MUSIC and for CSEA, doesn’t support the custodial position. Adam also asks to add CHEM. 

    Summary: CETH got votes across each group. This will go in the bucket. 

    CIS - 2 

    VIS ARTS - 5 

    HUMI - 3 


    CHEM - 4 

    MUSIC - 3 

    Debbie clarifies that there are 8 votes total that a position could have. Debbie says there are 8 constituency groups. Tim expresses concern about disproportionate power in the Affinity Groups. Melinda says that she thought we Affinity Groups were representing their own group, not speaking as a block. Mallory says it doesn't necessarily matter as we’re not voting. Daniel said he’s also representing PT Faculty. 

    Mallory suggests to scratch discussion on votes, as we’re not ranking. If we have a 3rd bucket, we’re just deciding what goes in the bucket. All the positions can go in the bucket - it doesn’t matter how they are ranked. Thomas says we have been discussing blocks as Affinity Group members. Rob says we’re striving for consensus. The #s are not indicative of a vote. If we don’t get consensus, then we move to a vote where each member votes. Adam understands Tim’s concern. And if Classified was broken up into different unions, the voting would look different. Mallory apologizes for doing it that way and not counting up votes and has two proposals. 

    Tina has a broader question: If we have a 3rd bucket, what are we hoping this bucket will be used for? Rob said they took the bucket approach so they don’t assign rankings to each position. The remaining positions that are not in Bucket 1 and Bucket 2, they are in Bucket 3. As we were talking through Bucket 2, there was some variation and how we all see the positions. So now we have a remaining bucket. Thomas suggests that it isn’t black and white, but we did in this last round of discussion come to a consensus on one position, which is the CETH position. Tim goes back to his earlier comment re: working in small groups and says that’s when positions were moved to high. The group didn’t decide as a whole - two smaller groups decided. Moving forward, it forces people to think outside of their frame of reference and thinking about the benefit of the college as a whole (rather than just their constituency). Worries that moving towards constituency based, we may lose the ability to see other perspectives. Mallory says hopefully we can improve in Spring. For now, Mallory has some options:

    • CETH can be a stand-alone in Bucket 3. All of the unranked positions made it into the discussion, which means all the positions can just go into the 3rd bucket. 
    • Another option would be a 3rd bucket with CETH by itself. 
    • Rob wants to add one proposal to move CETH to Bucket 2 and then the remaining positions in Bucket 3. 

    Tim says that opening buckets would be like bringing in additional candidates to a final round of interviews. Asks how many buckets do we need since we don't have enough money for Bucket 2? What would be served by sending them positions we don’t have the funding for. Michelle H. says they see the whole list regardless. It’s just about the group delineating priorities within the 7 that are left. But they all default to Bucket 3. Likes the idea of putting it into Bucket 2 but understands the discrepancy with putting something in Bucket 2 that everyone agreed would not be opened up. But if you look back at last week’s discussion, the two positions were spoken in the same breath, so there was support for both. Tina agrees, as we don’t have enough funding. Erik A. says part of the issue was the 3 retirements and one was in December and another in the next few weeks. The contention is what if they don’t retire? By the time it gets to College Council, will there be more funding available or should we kick it to Spring? Mallory said the way the process is structured is that those positions would come up in Spring. Thomas said in IPBT they’d put a list forward, and sometimes the President has borrowed against future positions to reach down the list. But that is the President’s option.Tim said we had 1 position (CIS) that has only 2 consistency groups putting forward but 3 or 4 that wanted 3 or 4 positions and then we had 4 for 2 positions. And then CETH. Mallory says we’re not going back to counting. 

    Mallory says everything that is leftover defaults into the 3rd bucket, including the CETH position. Debbie said she thought there was consensus that CETH was unanimous so unclear why that would be put together with other positions. Debbie asks if it can be a stand-alone item (2.5). Tim says given that we’re short for Bucket 2, we shove everything else into Bucket 3. Tim says he feels he’s abdicating his responsibility by sending it forward. Says College Council will decide even though it’s our responsibility. Erik W. said College Council just wanted us to make a fully informed decision. 

    Michelle H. says she didn't hear strongly one way or another. Is there strong opposition to including the CETH in Bucket 2? Erik W. has a point of clarification -- we already came to consensus on not opening buckets. Mallory mentioned the idea of CETH being in a stand-alone bucket. EAC strongly believes CETH should have been in Bucket 2. CETH has whole consensus today as we were discussing, so that’s why Michelle is asking to revisit the question re: CETH. If there’s no opposition, then we can put CETH in Bucket 2. Daniel wants to voice opposition to adjusting or re-opening Bucket 2. Daniel says we can clarify that CETH would be the highest in Bucket 3. 

    1. CETH becomes its own bucket an the rest in a last bucket 
    2. We have a 3rd bucket but specify that CETH is noted as important 

    Erik W. not comfortable ranking CETH at all. Tim says maybe we shouldn't start ranking now. Let’s put everything in Bucket 3 since we don’t have enough funding even for the first two buckets. Mallory says as we do not have consensus, we should vote. Michelle says we don’t need to vote. Debbie says she doesn't think it needs to be ranked. But the spirit of the conversation needs to be reflected and brought back to College Council and they should know it was on everyone’s list. Tim says he has issues as we’ve had discussions for previous other positions. Michelle says she agreed with Tina. Send the buckets to College Council. RAPP informs the decisions that College Council makes. Tim says College Council is a public meeting and anyone can show up and advocate. 

    Mallory states all 7 unranked positions are in Bucket 3. Any objections? This will go to the College Council as bucket 3. 

    The final approved recommendations are reflected in this document: Final RAPP Recommendations to College Council for 3-7-24 meeting

    Moving Forward: Mallory reviews what's coming up on the timeline. We’re a little behind on the hiring process. We’ll have training for hiring for Spring at the end of March. A training for RAPP members and deans and managers. We need to start on feedback for program review - shoot for the end of the year. At the beginning, we got feedback from Student Services, so we need to get it from other areas to inform their program review moving forward. 

    Instructional equipment. We took it in a draft form along with program reviews. We thought it was easiest to submit program review and instructional equipment at the same time. We will need to discuss feedback on situational equipment to inform final decisions. Final Instructional Equipment requests due at the end of March- getting questions about funding from last year and people not getting funding right now. This process that we started -- last year's request for 23/24 should have already been allocated for you to spend. If it hasn't,it's not within RAPP and within the Martin and Pam’s area. What we’re looking at are requests that will get approved and funded for 24/25 year. 

    Erik W. asks if Pam or Martin can confirm if last April funding was sent to people? Pam says as she understands, it was the money that was allocated last year that was spent last year and is being spent this year, so there are several debts in the red. Tina says that she has seen people doing requisitions. Erik W. says if we approved last year, and they're spending things on stuff we have not approved, how is that working? Tina says that now they’re using the list to make requisitions. Mallory says they should be doing them based on last Spring. Martin responds - What was approved last spring was for last year's allocation and presentations they provided. They didn't have time to spend down last year so they'll do it this year. Some departments used up their money and are now spending on what they expect this year -- they are in red. They have not received this year's allocation for 23/24. Mallory says that's the problem -- the 23/24 allocation was approved in Spring and they should have spent it;  Spring through now until this spring when they would get a new allocation from RAPP.  Pam states that’s late and the departments are behind a year - but can’t speak to that and maybe the VPI can speak to it more. Clarifies that we’re talking about lottery being in the negative, not instructional equipment.Mallory says people can figure it out in their area. The allocation in Spring is for next year and they get a new one the following spring. Martin says because it was transition, there was a delay. 

    Erik W expresses concern about the disconnect. People are just saying they are spending but it's not coming to this committee as an emergency request. Mallory also said to remind people of emergency request option. Erik W also says on the topic of instructional resource requests, would like to suggest that we form a subcommittee to do an initial review. Outside meetings, homework and flagged things. Tina wants to be involved but doesn't have much additional time. 

    Mallory discussed the timeline for personnel requests. Rob confirms that we can start hiring as soon as we forward positions to College Council. Erik W. says we can skip next week but we need a reflection meeting on this past process. For next week, we’ll get trained on reviewing program reviews and feedback. 

Documents and Links

Back to Top