General Meeting Information

Date: October 15, 2020
Time: 1:30 - 3:00 p.m.
Location: Online Mtg. held via Zoom*

  • Agenda

    Time Topic Purpose Discussion Leader
    1:30 p.m. Review Agenda & Notes from October 1, 2020 I/A Booye/Mieso
    1:35 p.m. Budget Proposal Review (from Joint PBT) I/D/A Mieso
    2:00 p.m. SSPBT Charge Review I/D Booye
    2:30 p.m. Member Updates I/D All
    2:55 p.m. Good of the Order I All
    3:00 p.m. Adjourn    

    *Please contact the admin for Zoom meeting information

    A = Action
    D = Discussion
    I = Information

  • Minutes


    Attending Members:  Alexander, Balducci, Booye (co-chair), Galoyan, Glapion, Kirkpatrick, Kobata, LeBleu-Burns, Mandy, Mieso (co-chair), Rafli (DASB), Shannakian, Shively, Tran (DASB)

    Guests:  Veronica Avila, Patricia Del Rio

    Meeting Items

    Minutes Approval

    There were no amendments to the previous meeting notes or to the agenda.

    Budget Proposal Review (from Joint PBT)

    In continuation of the Joint PBT meeting, Mieso presented the summary of the identified budget reductions for the committee to review and vote on to move forward to College Council before submitting it to the Board on November 1st.

    Shively questioned where the budget reductions originated from since there was no input from any faculty or staff. Shively commented that he has been tracking the state budget since May and many of the budget concerns that we had have evaporated during this time.

    • Since more information will be known in January, he didn’t understand why we needed to reduce $9 million now with not much time for review or debate.

    Mieso commented that multiple people have voiced this same concern but we do not have control over what is given to us by the District in terms of the amount, $9 million, and the deadline it is required. Mieso explained that these reductions were identified in order to move away from having to make cuts from Fund 14 within each PBT which was going to impact positions and the services we provide to students.

    • Shively said the reductions in two accounts, 1320 and the release time, do affect personnel and he didn’t have confidence in these two.
    • These two account reductions will affect jobs, health benefits, and that the District tends to consider them dispensable or a “slush fund.”
      • Mieso responded that these two accounts will likely be debated more in IPBT. In regards to Student Services, the share of these funds is very small and these budget reductions would not have a direct impact on the services we provide.

    Tran asked how the budget reduction breakdown came about in regards to the percentages in each area.

    • Mieso responded that the Finance Office reviewed all the account funds that had not been used for many years, are not used for salaries, or what was typically unspent in the account at the end of the year, to create the amounts/percentages in each area and offer the proposed collateral.

    Shively mentioned the 2% reduction in the 1320 account would hit the new hires in the last two years the most since faculty work on a seniority system. He also wanted to mention that many of the new hires are diverse hires and many would not have work next year with these cuts.

    • Tran felt this reduction may unnecessarily put part-time faculty through unneeded stress, especially if this changes in January.
    • Rafli wanted to know how many people could lose their jobs with this reduction.
      • Shively said it would be between 8-9 part-time faculty

    Shively proposed that the District reduce the ask in the amount of $440k, the amount being reduced in the 1320 account, so the reduction doesn’t affect people.

    • Mieso mentioned that if we do recommend a lower reduction in one account, we would need to locate the funds somewhere else to meet the total $4.5 million target for the college as a whole.
    • As SSPBT, we do not have control over the figure coming from the District and the amount the college is being asked to identify, but to remember this may change and that the reductions would not go into effect until the 2021-22 fiscal year. This proposed reduction is being put in place “just in case.”

    Mieso requested a motion to recommend the proposed budget reduction. The reduction was recommended, as long as the committee concerns accompanied the motion, and it was seconded.

    • The committee voted: 10 Yes, 4 No, 0 Abstentions
    • SSPBT decision-making is by consensus so the budget reduction recommendations will move forward with the committee concerns.

    SSPBT Charge Review

    Booye reviewed the SSPBT charge with the committee with the focus on the first two bullets for this meeting and further follow-up on the others in subsequent meetings.

    LeBleu-Burns recommended the Charge be reviewed as follows:  1) Do we all understand the Charge in the same way?  2) Are we actually doing what is in the Charge? 3) Does the Charge need to be updated and/or revised?

    Booye suggested that a calendar be shared with the group and updated with the items planned out for the year as discussed in a previous meeting. Program Reviews currently were left off the calendar and she inquired about the dates since they tend to change every year.

    • Avila suggested that the SSLO due dates be the same as IPBT to make them more synchronous.
      • The SLO committee is still in discussions regarding the timeline since they have a new software platform but will report back.
    • Glapion also mentioned that more time used be spent reviewing the program reviews. The various program reviews used to be assigned to members of the committee where they would be analyzed with comments and questions being brought forth in the SSPBT meetings. This was how the committee was able to review the overall need for resources.

    Mieso mentioned that the SSPBT Charge will be a standing agenda item throughout the year where each bullet will be broken down and focused on.

    Booye asked the committee to take some time to look at the current SSPBT Charge and to write down any suggestions and/or questions for the next meeting.

    Member Updates
    • Shannakian said the Classified Senate had their first meeting on Tuesday and that they discussed the committee vacancies and updating the bylaws to improve committee selection and diversity.
      • He also reported that after the meeting with VTA, they will not be accepting the new digital ID for their SmartPass but they have found another solution and will be working with ETS on this project.

    • Shively reported that the Faculty Association have been working on the budget and equity and the updates can be found in the October FA newsletter.

    • Balducci is working on the new Title IX policy and hopes to have it ready to submit to Human Resources and the Board by November.

    • DASB did not have anything to report at this time.

    • Glapion said the Academic Senate have been nominating members for the Equity Action Committee and the Facilities Committee. Dialog regarding coming back to campus and how the hybrid model is working and its flexibility are continuing. Robert’s Rules were discussed as well and a reminder that there is still assistance available for students who have wifi and computer needs.

    • Avila reported that they had a robust conversation regarding Student Learning Outcomes during an opening day workshop and the comments will be posted on the SLO website.

    • Alexander wanted everyone to know that the CSU applications have opened up and will go through Nov. 30th and the UCs will be opening up in November. Transfer Center is now holding workshops for students and if students have any issues or questions to please refer them to the Counseling Center.

    • LeBleu-Burns reported on behalf of the Facilities Master Plan taskforce that is currently updating the plan and integrating the new bond measure that was passed. They are currently developing the process to be inclusive and efficient, making sure it is comprehensive and that the product integrates with other plans, and that the recommendations reflect the future of the campus and are welcoming to the community, etc.
      • The taskforce has already done a campus walk through with the campus map to look at the use of buildings, the walkways, and trails. Notations were made of the challenges and areas needing further attention.
      • Any questions or suggestions can be sent to LeBleu-Burns to bring to the committee.

    • Galoyan reported on the Technology Committee. They are working on a co-chair for the committee to represent Classified Senate. They are also opening up new technology implementing preferred name to the DSS Clockworks software and the ID cards.
      • Enrollment Services will be offering a new service of drop-in questions in zoom for two 3-hour sessions a week to chat with and assist students.
      • Galoyan also wanted to note that excused withdrawal deadlines have reverted back to the normal schedule and that the extensions due to COVID-19 have ended. Probation is also back to the normal registration schedule.

    • Kirkpatrick said that ACE is close to securing the proposal for the classification study hopefully by next Wednesday and then the next step will be to send it out to the ACE members for voting.

    • Mandy reported that they will be promoting Financial Aid workshops soon and appreciate all the faculty referrals of students who need financial assistance.

    • Mieso wanted to mention to the new members who may have missed the first meeting to review the orientation packet that is posted on the SSPBT website and the website information in general. Mieso also wanted to extend his appreciation to everyone for attending and participating in the governance process.

    Good of the Order

    Members did not have any statements or observations to note at this time.

Documents and Links

Back to Top