Personnel Prioritization Process

In alignment with RAPP's mission and charge, in spring 2023 RAPP agreed to the following process for all personnel prioritization requests. As RAPP evolves to meet the needs of the College, the process will be adapted and updated (version as of June 2023).

Overview of Process

Round 1 takes place in May and reviews new full-time faculty requests or replacement positions that became vacant between October 1 and April 30. New Classified/Administrative positions must be requested in Round 1.
Round 2 begins in October and reviews full-time faculty positions that became vacant between May 1 and September 30.
RAPP makes forms available and provides training on how to submit position requests in advance.
Managers/chairs submit position requests to their area dean for review.
Deans submit position requests to area Vice President/Associate Vice President for review.
Area Vice Presidents/Associate VPs provide input/feedback to RAPP on collegewide resources available.
RAPP trains voting members on how to review the position requests and how to apply the criteria.
Positions requests are assigned to groups for review.
All groups review all position requests.
Groups develop questions for deans/managers/chairs if additional information is needed.
All groups assign a priority level (high, moderate, low) to each position request (Round 1 stops here).
RAPP comes together to discuss the priority level assigned to each position from Round 1 and Round 2, reasons behind the decision, and agree upon the priority level for each position if the priority level is in conflict.
Deans/managers/chairs are given an opportunity to respond to questions or provide clarifications.
Small groups assign their top psotions to one bucket.
The full committee starts the discussion of positions based on each small groups bucket and creates a final group of buckets that is advanced to College Council.
College Council makes a recommendation to the President.
The President makes a decision on the recommendation from College Council.

Timeline

RAPP members developed a planning timeline (adopted spring 2023) for the 2023-24 academic year to guide program review, instructional equipment requests, personnel prioritization and more.

2023-24 Important Dates

RAPP approved the following dates for processes to take place in the 2023-24 academic year.

Emergency Requests

Emergency requests may be submitted to the tri-chairs at any time for review by the full RAPP committee outside of the established cycle. RAPP will use the following criteria to review emergency requests. Requestors must meet criteria 1 or criteria 2 and 3:

1. Required by law or accreditation (with documentation)
2. 100% non-tenure track temporary 1 year position would not work, or has been in place already for a year
3. Part-time faculty cannot temporarily meet the department needs and student demand

Personnel Prioritization Process Details

Budget Advisory Committee Determine Funding Available

The Budget Advisory Committee informs RAPP of available funds for personnel requests. These funds are within one pot of money to be allocated across faculty and new staff and administrative position requests.

RAPP Training Conducted

RAPP team members attend a workshop to be trained on the college’s educational master plan, equity plan re-imagined, personnel forms, review criteria and process. RAPP will host a workshop for managers/deans/chairs on how to complete the form.

Forms Available

RAPP makes forms available:

* Faculty position requests will be submitted within the Program Review tool. To request access to the form as a submitter, please email the Institutional Research and Planning Office at newellmallory@deanza.edu.

Faculty requests can be made for replacements, retirement or growth positions. New classified staff and administrator requests can be made for positions requiring new funding. Retirements, resignations or grant funded positions do not need to be submitted for ranking at this time.

Each request form clearly outlines the guiding principles of the college and asks requestors to align their request to those guiding principles. Areas that are requesting more than one position are asked to rank their positions within their area and provide the ranking to RAPP.

Deans and Vice Presidents Review Forms

Managers/chairs/supervisors submit either a faculty request form or a new classified staff/administrator request form to their area dean for review.

The area dean reviews the form for accuracy, completeness and ensures the request aligns with the overall goals of the area. Deans may choose to have their area rank the requests if multiple requests are made and provide the ranking information to RAPP.

Deans submit the forms to their area Vice President/Associat Vice President.

The Vice President/Associate Vice President, in consultation with Senior Staff, conduct a high-level collegewide review of the requested positions and available resources. Senior Staff provides input and/or recommendations to RAPP for consideration.

RAPP Reviews Personnel Requests

RAPP reviews all submitted forms through a small group evaluation, large group norming, and a large group discussion which includes the following:

RAPP voting members are divided into groups being mindful of the composition of the group (e.g., administrator, faculty, staff, student) and their employment area.  Group members who are affiliated with the area requesting the position will not be assigned to review the respective position.

Position requests are assigned to small groups of voting members. Each position is reviewed by all groups and the following criteria is used to assign a priority level to each position:

A. Form Complete

the form was fully complete, the response was thorough, thoughtful and articulates the need for the position (evaluate entire form) Yes/No

If the small group answered “No” to the question above, the position does not advance.

B. Guiding Principles  

2. The position request meets the following guiding principles:  

the position request is clearly aligned to the College’s Educational Master Plan (evaluate question C1 on the faculty form and question A2 on the staff form). Yes/No 
the position requested is clearly aligned to the College’s Equity Plan Re-Imagined (evaluate question C2 on faculty form and question A2 on the staff form). Yes/No

If the small group answered “No” to any of the questions above, the position does not advance.

The group indicates why the position received a “No’ in any category and enters the reason in the priority level template:  

there was "lack of alignment” with the guiding principles of the college (provide a brief summary of why it lacks alignment)

If the small group was able to answer “Yes” to the questions above the position is “Aligned” to the Guiding Principles.

The small group then engages in dialogue around the following questions: 

C. Alignment with College Goals 

For the following questions, indicate the level of alignment overall with the following:

3. The program’s goals support the achievement of the College’s mission, Educational Master Plan and Equity Plan Re-Imagined, including: 

The position is aligned to one of the college’s Strategic Initiatives including: Outreach, Retention, Student-Centered Instruction and Services, Civic Capacity for Community and Social Change or Racial Equity (review questions C1 & C2 in faculty form and question A2 in staff form). Indicate the level of alignment: Strongly Aligned (3), Moderately Aligned (2), Little Alignment (1), No Alignment (0).
The program clearly uses, or indicates how it will use, data to develop, adapt, and improve teaching and learning, to respond to the needs of changing environments, populations served, and evolving state priorities (review question A1 for instructional faculty, B1 for noninstructional faculty, and A4-8 for staff). Indicate the level of alignment: Strongly Aligned (3), Moderately Aligned (2), Little Alignment (1), No Alignment (0).
The position clearly supports on-going college operations and/or student success (review C4 in the faculty form and B2 in staff form). Indicate the level of alignment: Strongly Aligned (3), Moderately Aligned (2), Little Alignment (1), No Alignment (0).
The position clearly contributes to the health, growth, or vitality of the program (review C5 in faculty form and B1 in staff form). Indicate the level of alignment: Strongly Aligned (3), Moderately Aligned (2), Little Alignment (1), No Alignment (0).

RAPP Assigns Priority Levels to Each Personnel Request

Based on the dialogue within each small group, responses to any outstanding questions, the small group determines the priority level of the requested position:  

High 
Moderate 
Low

The group is asked to provide a summary (300 words or less) of their dialogue and why they selected the priority level for the position.

The groups then enter their results in the position tracking sheet. The 300-word summary of each position will be made public.

Deans and managers invited to respond to questions and provide feedback

Deans and managers come to a scheduled meeting to respond to questions from the groups and to provide additional context if needed.

RAPP Groups Engage in Norming and Reconciliation

RAPP reviews positions that were assigned differing priority levels to determine a final priority level. In this way all groups must review their decision together and come to a consensus on each position. Theoretically norming their decision.

Small Group Priorities

After the reconciliation process with the whole group following Round 2, small groups meet again and assign their top positions into a bucket to share with the full committee.

Review RAPP of All Positions and Assign Buckets

The full committee meets to discuss the buckets from the small groups and evaluate the priority levels of all positions to determine buckets to advance to College Council.

Round 1 vs Round 2

In Round 1, RAPP determines priority levels and stops there. In Round 2, RAPP reviews any new positions requests, assigns a priority level and combines all priority levels from Round 1 and Round 2 together. Based on all positions, RAPP then assigns positions to buckets that are then advanced to College Council.

RAPP Votes

RAPP voting members vote, with an attempt at consensus, to approve the buckets that will go to College Council. All position requests, their priority levels and the 300-word summaries from each group are posted online.

Recommendations Sent to College Council

Those positions approved by RAPP go to College Council for approval.

Remaining Positions

Any remaining positions that were not advanced to College Council or approved by College Council go back to RAPP and retain their priority level but the buckets are cleared out and RAPP starts the process over.