Meeting Notes - April 12, 2011
I. Review of notes: Notes from March 15 accepted.
II. Events that have taken place since March 15:
The Budget scenario was explained in detail. Letha Jean-Pierre the VP of Finances and Resources explained the directives from the Chancellor’s Office. The College is planning for a 20% reduction of its share of the overall budget=50% of the overall budget is allocated to De Anza. Espinosa-Pieb described the decision-making processes that took place since the end of March 25 up to the April 11 when the Board announced its final directives. The Colleges are each to plan for reductions for 2011-12. District and Foothill reductions were cited on the handout. The reduction is so large that the Senior Staff gathered to strategize De Anza’s reductions in order to balance the budgetary needs across the college. They decided that plans should be made based on a 60% base of funding to Instruction and 35% reduction to the base of student services funding. The attached spreadsheet depicts the monetary effects of these reductions. The board expects a report from each College on June 27.
III. Enrollment Management Process:
Espinosa-Pieb explained a new strategy for meeting this new budget scenario. It is based on the concept that the discipline experts, should work together to decide how to approach a reduction of this great magnitude, through and examination of all budget sources in their area. In some divisions, adjunct faculty and faculty with overloads will bear the brunt of the reductions. Espinosa-Pieb expressed a grave concern for our adjunct faculty. She proposed that De Anza plans for next year’s reductions in the following manner: Schedule a “strong” summer and Fall and scale down 25% in both the Winter and Spring of 2012. “This would be a gamble, in hopes that something happens elsewhere e.g. State or Federal Mandates, concessions at the bargaining tables and a number of wishful solutions, such that enrollment planning would change next Fall”. It was noted that programs that offer a series of classes that must build upon each other must be planned in light of the 25% proposed Winter and Spring plans. The Senior staff is vigilant and will make enrollment management decisions by next Fall in response to any changes to the overall budget.
IV. Role of IPBT: Not addressed at this time due to a lack of time
V. Review of Guidelines/Criteria for Course Reductions:
The Criteria were reviewed. Student need based on assessment of a three-year course enrollment history has been added to the existing criteria. See attachment.
VI. Program Review Process:
Lee-Wheat reminded the group that it is important to read the “instructions” that accompanied the APRU packet. And that the IPBT’s process would include a review of the 2008-09 comprehensive program reviews and any updates as presented in the Annual Program Reviews of the Spring of 2010 and 2011. A draft of the process was delivered for consideration. The group was requested to ask questions of clarification the next meeting or to make suggestions before the next meeting so that they could be incorporated or discussed.
VII. Outcomes for he next few weeks: Not addressed.
Handouts:
IPBT Guidelines for Course Reduction
Attended ( ): italics means non-voting member
|
Administrative Reps |
Classified Reps |
Faculty Reps |
Student Reps |
|
Christina Espinosa-Pieb, Co-Chair-- |
Mary Clark-Tillman--absent |
Randy Bryant |
Amira Fahah |
|
Ron McFarland-- |
Mary Kay Englen |
Catie Cadge-Moore |
Meera Suresh |
|
Edmundo Norte-- |
Greg Knittel |
Cinzia Muzzi |
Guests: Letha Jean-Pierre |
|
Rich Schroeder-- |
April Qian |
Coleen Lee-Wheat, Co-Chair |
Faith Milonas |
|
Rowena Tomaneng-- |
Kulwant Singh |
Gregory Anderson |
|
|
Thomas Ray-- |
Robert Stockwell |
Cheryl Woodward |