Responses to 2020 Survey

  • Group name: Instructional Planning and Budget Team
  • Group chairs: 2019-20: Lorrie Ranck as VP of Instruction and Mary Pape as VP of Academic Senate; 2020-21: Christina Espinosa-Pieb as VP of Instruction and Mary Pape as VP of Academic Senate
  • Discussion date: July 28, 2020

Members participating: IPBT Membership 2019-20 Administrators: Lorrie Ranck(Co-Chair), Sam Bliss, Randy Bryant, Alicia Cortez, Anita Muthyala-Kandula, Lorrie Ranck, Thomas Ray Classified Professionals: Vins Chacko (ACE), Thomas Bailey (Classified professionals), Dana Kennedy (Classified Professionals), Lorna Maynard (Classified Professionals) Faculty Ed Ahrens, Diana Alves de Lima, Cheryl Balm, Milena Grozeva, Rick Maynard, Mary Pape (Co-Chair), Erik Woodbury,Lisa Markus (FA) Students Grace Lim, Arushi Sharma IPBT Membership 2020-21 Administrators: (Christina Espinosa-Pieb, Co-Chair), Sam Bliss, Randy Bryant, Alicia Cortez, Moaty Fayek, Anita Muthyala-Kandula, Thomas Ray Classified Professionals: Vins Chacko (ACE), Thomas Bailey (Classified professionals), Dana Kennedy (Classified Professionals), Lorna Maynard (Classified Professionals) Faculty Ed Ahrens, Cheryl Balm, Mayra Cruz, Terrence Mullens, Mary Pape (Co-Chair), Daniel Solomon, Erik Woodbury, Lisa Markus (FA) Students Grace Lim, Arushi Sharma

Guests participating: Invited representation from affinity groups: Chesa Capras, Melinda Hughes, Eric Mendoza, Khoa Nguyen, Felisa Vilaubi, Pauline Wethington, Wendy White Other participants: Karen Chow, Mary Donahue, Olga Evert, Kimberly Lam, Mallory Newell, Edmundo Norte, Kim Harding-Palmore, Elvin T. Ramos, Tim Shively, Kulwant Singh, Daniel Smith

Questions and Responses

Note: These responses were collected from each participating member and guest through a Google form. The co-chairs have chosen to submit these responses in each person's own words in their entirety. They are separated here by a grey dividing line.

Question 1: What do you believe works well about the current governance system? Please list.


  1. IPBT is well balanced and made up of volunteers from across the campus.
  2. Decisions are made with a big picture view
  3. The good of the campus as a whole as well as goals and aspirations are considered.
  4. Each person's vote carries equal weight. Classified, Faculty, and Administration

  1. There is even representation from faculty, staff and administrators
  2. The group is very respectful of different points of view

  1. We make decisions in IPBT with thoughtfulness, long range consideration and compassion.
  2. Our members are comprised of genuinely caring individuals who volunteer because they want what is best for the campus as a whole, and chose to serve on IPBT to be an effective and active member of the governance system

  1. Opportunity for input from students, staff, faculty, administrators.

  1. Open Communication. Members and visitors are encouraged to add to the discussions and provide input. There is an open-door policy for anyone to attend meetings and speak up.
  2. Transparency. All meeting notes and agenda items are posted to the website.
  3. Data. The basis for all decision-making is data driven, with stats and program reviews made available to all members and frequent visitors.

  1. collegial group
  2. minimal dissension
  3. most are experts in this area

  1. wonderful Mentor to support student representatives
  2. Priority system (Critical, Needed, Desirable), filled in by Deans
  3. DASB Report Out as an agenda item in every meeting
  4. Deans are encouraged to work together in small groups to prepare for Division Presentations
  5. comprehensive workbook to prepare for resource allocations

  1. representation of various stakeholders, such as faculty from different disciplines, administration, staff, part time reps, and students
  2. a solid effort to be transparent in the process of allocating funds and the active involvement of every member in the committee to participate, be heard and valued as a unique voice
  3. a hard-working community of colleagues who support and respect one another, a very important element in any team work!

  1. All groups are represented.
  2. All meetings are open for all to attend.
  3. legal and accreditation requirements are met.
  4. All opinions are respected.

  1. The passion and general good intentions of the people involved in IPBT allow an imperfect structure to function in a basic to keep the lights on.
  2. The hard work of folks on IPBT makes up, to a certain extent, for lack of involvement on a larger scale.
  3. The willingness, at this pivotal point in time, to re-think and re-organize IPBT speaks well for our commitment to self-reflect and improve." decisions are based upon group discussion and vote

  1. Broad engagement with campus community. We invite many constituencies to meet with us and try to work with them to address issues and answer questions
  2. many dedicated and knowledgeable committee members

  1. minutes and agenda are public
  2. Meetings are in a room with no locks, so any one is welcome to attend

  1. It provides individuals an opportunity to participate in decisions affecting our classroom instruction and student services.
  2. Opportunity to learn about budgets and how each funding source has specific requirements.
  3. Allows faculty, deans and classified staff to come together to examine programs, services, data reporting, program reviews and to look at continued support for programs through a viability study.
  4. Have now included equity data in program review and workbook with equity data.

  1. Multiple voices - faculty, staff, students and administrators have a place at the table. All decisions are viewed through an equity lens, and outcomes for the widest possible number of students are taken into account, CTE programs that produce students ready to enter the workforce (although expensive but generously funded through Perkins and SWF dollars) are given their due consideration. Representation is taken from all constituent groups within instruction. Open meetings are conducted where all are welcome.

  1. We have regular meetings that are open to anyone.
  2. There is enough continuity among members to preserve institutional knowledge.
  3. Distribution of funds, when there is any relative abundance, works well.
  4. Members learn about other areas of the college and different disciplines by participating.
  5. The program review process preserves a record of activities in each instructional discipline.
  6. Staff, faculty, students, and administrators are represented.

  1. Members commitment to fair processes in decision making

  1. Visits by Deans informs decision-making as each member becomes aware of all that a Division des to support students.
  2. Inclusion of information about CTE programs
  3. IPBT through Dean/department visits provides opportunities to assist programs to perform
  4. Process of posting all resource requests with priority system (Critical, Needed, Desirable) can be discussed and seen by entire department/division.

Question 2: What do you believe does not work well about the current governance system? Please list.


  1. There is too much to do in the time we have allotted to ourselves.
  2. People who choose to not be involved complain about decisions
  3. Lack of communication and/or coordination between committees

  1. Although there is a lot of talk about transparency, the actual budget is not at all transparent.
  2. In the name of fairness and to avoid bias, people are asked to verify and make decisions about things they know nothing about
  3. There is a lot of lip service given to equity, but little actual action. e.g. there is a question on APR that asks departments if they need help with their equity goals, but nothing is done to help the departments that answer "yes" to this question
  4. There seems to be a handful of people who have been on the committee for a long time who know how everything works and little to nothing is done to help new members learn and be effective 
  5. Faculty representatives are elected to the committee by Academic Senate, which means they are generally the same people whose voices are already heard around campus and are elected to IPBT based on name recognition above all else.

  1. Too often, being a lead on one committee automatically makes one required to attend many other committees, leading to significant burn-out, or, alternately, the system encourages participation by the same individuals that make up the body of many committees so that ultimately it is the same few people serving on many shared governance committees.
  2. Recruitment for new committee members does not seem to be working across the campus, leading to answer 1, above.
  3. The work-load in IPBT is significant, and the decisions made there are significant, as well. Perhaps longer-but fewer-meetings per month, so that time is available for the deeper dives into subject matter

  1. The Academic Senate could improve the method of selecting faculty to be on this committee. Some years not enough people apply. This year, many people applied and the officers did not have a plan in place for how to best appoint faculty. It IS good the Academic Senate asks everyone to apply.
  2. Faculty do not always know what is being done by IPBT - the message is not getting out. Better communication would be helpful (my divisions does not always get a weekly senate report, and IPBT is not always mentioned in the reports we get) On boarding for new members. New members/those on the committee for a short time need to be introduced to the processes and pertinent data the committee considers when making their decisions and in preparation for meetings/discussions.

  1. Program Review happens very late in the budgeting process
  2. Program Review is, in many ways, largely incomprehensible without help
  3. Funding source information is not well organized

  1. the larger group lacks rigorous discussion when resource allocation comes to its final phases
  2. Division Presentations are given limited time
  3. resource allocation spread out among multiple IPBT meetings
  4. absence of Public Comments on agenda
  5. no way for IPBT members to 'pass down' resources to incoming members

  1. I would like to see newly elected faculty undergo a process of mentoring under more seasoned members of the group so that the newcomers can develop a faster understanding of the processes, familiarize themselves with the various pots of funds, their rules and how the allocation process works
  2. Perhaps creating a short 5-7 page workbook of how IPBT operates and what one can expect while serving on the committee; how the Viability Committee is structured and what their work and hours might look like, etc. While some of this information may be present on the website, it might be a good idea to also have it summarized and regularly updated in a central .pdf file to be distributed to all IPBT members or interested candidates, or even to all the staff and faculty at De Anza.
  3. It may be beneficial to have a broader representation from the areas of administrators, staff, faculty and students in the interest of inclusion. Some of the work could also be distributed more evenly among the members without being the big burden that it can be at times.
  4. Since each area and department have different needs, it might be good to learn more in-depth about each of them and hear about their specific needs well before the group has to do the work of allocating funds; I believe this past year we had the chance to hear from all deans and listen to their presentations in late Spring but it might have been helpful to do so before the program review process. Also, perhaps having the dean presentations have more unified guidelines and expectations in the kind of information and detail that they would give the IPBT members might be beneficial, as well as help place all divisions on an equal footing. Getting the word out

  1. Culture and norms both within IPBT and between IPBT and the wider campus do not foster open, trusting, engaged participation. From the process of setting agendas to the information provided and processes for making decisions, groups (all groups but especially IPBT) need to adopt structures and routines that build and maintain trust, openness, and clear communication. /How_Can_We_Create_An_Inclusive_And_Equitable_Planning_Process.pdf
  2. Too much time is spent on mechanical/rote tasks. Close scrutiny of program review documents is a good thing, but some of the work can be streamlined to allow for deeper conversations.
  3. Conversation is often dominated by faculty and administrators. Student and classified participation exist, but they do not generally have a strong voice on the committee.
  4. Virtual communication, accelerated timelines, high stress and crisis-mode can lead to greater implicit bias, shortcuts and poor communication. I believe many folks are not interested or motivated to participate. Perhaps there should be compensation.

  1. Program review process workshopping takes too long - wasted time in committee
  2. Faculty position selection process has been gamified. People play the system to serve individual departments and not overall college needs.
  3. Program Review requests a lot of information, some of which gets no meaningful response or feedback Meeting Minutes are not always posted in a timely manner. This causes a lot of stress for some constituency groups. Nothing is ever perfect. The committee makes the best decisions based on available information. There is no clear process for allocating. creating, or filling vacant classified positions. For faculty positions the process is based on data; there should be some clear criteria for classified positions, which bear the brunt of budget cuts. The committees chaired by senior staff

  1. Inefficient and ineffective on-boarding for new members. There is a sense of needing to jump in and learn as you go. It would be great to provide a handbook with a year-long activities and timelines, student voices governance guideline, budget criteria for SWP, Perkins, Lottery, Instr. Materials, equity-minded decision-making handouts.
  2. individuals most impacted by decisions are not in these meetings. Need to involve actual front-line stakeholder doing the work to help guide these decisions.
  3. Representatives are often chosen by a popular vote not by who is missing from the table (committee)or .
  4. Not enough representation from underrepresented faculty and staff since they are often overworked in their respective areas especially if they are the only person of color in their departments.
  5. Decisions are too fragmented and not tied to the College Master Plan or Student Equity Plan.
  6. Not enough integration of student services and instructional faculty or staff on these committees. Much of the representation comes from the instruction side of the house.
  7. Budget is not always transparent and controlled by one or two senior administrators.
  8. Representatives should not serve more than two terms. More than half of the participants have served 6 yrs or more and have not been ethnically diverse.
  9. Representatives do not always report back to their constituents
  10. The faculty position process is biased toward in-class instruction not focused on ethnic specific populations or their retention (Ethnic Studies, Counselors and Faculty Coordinators position for Equity, LGBTQI and Learning Communities). The expectation that other non-instructional position continue to be funded by other sources that are not part of the general fund is problematic and does not more the needle in closing equity gaps.
  11. Classified representation not reflected of its employee groups.
  12. Planning and Budget teams are disjointed and do not communicate priorities to one another. They do not reflect the institutional metrics or Equity plan metrics in closing the gaps.
  13. Academic Senate and Classified Staff process to confirm representatives are not done through an equity lens. " The current system works well although a part of the process is to continuously reassess.

  1. Although meetings are public and minutes/agendas are posted on the public website, a significant portion of the campus community is unaware of or does not understand the work done in IPBT.
  2. Not all instructional divisions are equally represented, which privileges the voices of some divisions and departments over others.
  3. A lack of institutional or committee knowledge (approximately 1/3 of membership is new each year) means that we often spend weeks revisiting procedures or past decisions.
  4. IPBT often considers decisions that involve more than just instruction without someone present to represent the needs in college operations or student services.
  5. Program review requires faculty to include facilities requests but IPBT does not have the authority to approve or deny the requests and there is no existing means of ensuring that College Operations reviews them. The limited ability to respond to the totality of program review and equipment requests results in items such as adjustable lighting or white boards being requested year after year without getting addressed.
  6. Faculty who write the program review updates aren't all equally well-versed in data analysis, creating inconsistency in the interpretations upon which staffing and equipment requests are made.
  7. Equity gaps and equity practices need more intrusive interventions from the Office of Equity, as departments often want more ideas, inspiration, and support.
  8. In spite of the best intentions of the committee membership, decisions are often made based on the scale of the impact (i.e., larger programs receive greater resources), leaving other areas struggling to have their needs met, even when they are institutional priorities, such as equity.
  9. Participatory governance works well in times when budgets are sound or growing, but it does not work as well when difficult financial decisions need to be made. Put simply, faculty and staff are not well-prepared to and are often reluctant to cut programs that are cherished by their colleagues, even when those programs are no longer viable.
  10. Members, both new and continuing, don't communicate equally with their constituencies and are often unsure of their roles. To combat these inconsistencies, member roles and responsibilities should be established and training for new and/or potential members should be done annually.

  1. lack of ethnic representation
  2. lack of desire to engage in ongoing conversations about racial equity in budgeting, resource allocation, innovation and decision making
  3. To be or become an Equity Focused/Anti-Racist Institution, there is a lack of understanding on how to integrate these equity mindedness principles and anti-racism tenants and framework.
    1. Evidence based - Regular review of disaggregated data to inform change
    2. Race-conscious - Critical and reflective of color-evasive ideology
    3. Institutionally focused - Reflective and proactive, seeking institutional solutions
    4. Systemically aware - Critical of institutional structures that perpetuate bias
    5. Equity advancing - Willing to assess own practice and accountable to closing equity gaps.

Question 3: Ideally, how would governance groups and processes be structured at De Anza? How would this work in practice? Please provide a summary.


For IPBT, I think the group needs to either meet for twice the time or divide the work load between two groups. Have one the planning team and the other the budget team. Once a month they would hold a joint session to ensure both are going in the same direction. This would allow for longer, deeper discussions and double the members allowing more people to become involved in the process. I don't have a short answer to this question, but I would love to be a part of group that discusses honestly how we can make deep changes to the shared governance the budgeting process at De Anza to chip away at institutional and structural issues of racism and inequity. Start with Deans, managers and supervisors, and urge them to encourage the folks in their areas to serve on governance committees. The more variety of members on committees, the greater variety of perspectives will be presented. More balance among members, to include more Classified professionals. Different groups to look at different aspects of governance, then all feed into one advisory-to-the-president group (similar to current college council). Would be good to have very little overlap between the groups, allowing for a diversity of people to serve (although the ""top"" group would need a rep from each of the other groups). Maybe each group (IPBT or its successor) could send out a regular ""what we are doing"" email, or (for faculty) this could be done through Academic Senate. Communication is key! Also, people not in the governance groups need to know how their views can be expressed to the groups. I believe that, ideally, in addition to the two Co-Chairs IPBT should be comprised of an equal number of Faculty, Classified, and Administrators/Deans and 1-2 Students. Practically, however, since decisions primarily involve instruction and CTE programs to a large degree, a sound on boarding process would be critical especially for new Classified and Faculty. Non-politically organized, with clear agenda and mandates. No hidden agendas. Clear oversight and management with ownership of the process and a clear set of deliverables against a measurable set of objectives." Ideally, all members of that governance group would be given (and have access to) equal and sufficient resources to make informed decisions. All processes, including discussions and decisions, must be made public including to people who are not part of that governance group. Members should not feel intimidated nor irrelevant due to power dynamics. All members should equally contribute to the group. Perhaps institute a rotation of departments and divisions similar to Academic Senate, so that all departments and divisions have the chance to be represented on IPBT and in equal numbers. I also think that there is value in retaining some long-standing members of the committee who would ideally represent the various stakeholders equally (administrators, staff, and faculty from various divisions and departments), and who would help provide a more in-depth understanding, history and context to those who are newly elected.

I think the current structure works very well and helps us meet requirements.

  1. Intensive, ongoing training for leaders and participants--not just one-time sessions for new members, but frequent check-ins, team-building, etc. in all groups to foster positive, productive, inclusive working cultures. Let's use all our good teaching skills and understanding of organizational behavior to build community and motivation. Link posted in IPBT Transformation proposal is a good starting place:
  2. Mentoring and relationship-building within the group--shared leadership, roles, clear expectations.
  3. Structures to ensure timely communication with whole campus, and more personal approach/outreach to those affected by decisions (ie members reach out personally)
  4. Processes and criteria that serve students and align tightly with our values and mission and college planning committee. We need to be self-aware and build community internally, and also reach out to ensure transparent communication, engagement and trust among everyone affected by the changes we must make. so we must be vigilant and intentional about including and valuing diverse student, classified, faculty and administrators' voices and perspectives.

It seems to me based on my limited time at De Anza that governance groups are made up of representatives from various groups. I believe that to be a good foundation. With the desire to improve structures I wonder if we could have specific representatives to advise structures/offer suggestions/vote. IE, for example if security a concern, then a security representative to help guide and inform discussions.

IPBT needs to have stronger equity and student support representation. The core notion of IPBT has merit: co-equal groups of faculty, staff, and administrators that meet to discuss budgetary and program issues that then makes recommendations to AS and College Council. This structure needs to be supported with more student-centered and equity-minded practices. I think our enthusiastic inclusion of active DASB members has worked well this year. I think we should expand the student role to include a student rep that stands for the various smaller student groups (Umoja, AAPI, etc...)

We need to change/supplement the current system to provide more opportunity for experts in how to address persistent achievement gaps, not just identify them. We need more voices from counseling or student support programs

I think that CTE is big part of the campus. 50% of the degrees and certificate. There should be a CTE shared governance group that should make recommendations to the IPBT. It should be composed of representative of all CTE programs. Not everyone on IPBT is aware of the CTE programs and have much less knowledge making decisions for CTE programs.

I think we need to do a better job of encouraging people interested in IPBT to serve a "learning year/quarter" or complete a training course/orientation prior to running or serving.

There is no initial training that can get someone entirely up to speed and some people that have joined the committee did not always understand exactly what we do.

The chairs should be nominated. Any full time employee on the committee could be the chair

  1. Integrate IPBT and SSPBT - Have only one team. The goal of Guided Pathways is to integrate instruction and student services in order to best serve students by removing barriers, providing intentional support and instruction and to view campus services in a more holistic manner. By combining budget teams the members can create a more student-centered decision making framework and help to break down silos, coordinate resources and work together in closing equity gaps in a more deliberate manner.
  2. If we say equity is a central value in our mission then we must look deeper at our General Funds to see how this is reflected. To date, many of the equity supported programs and services are funded not by general funds. By providing an overview of the general funds to the planning team and assessing where and what we are funding and how do they correspond to our Educational Master Plan and institutional metrics that include closing equity gaps if a worthwhile assessment of what we stand for.
  3. Hold a half day retreat for planning team in early September for new and returning members to build community and provide much needed background information involving long-term members and new. Provide a workshop on unconscious bias as a requirement for membership on the planning team.
  4. Invite members of the affinity groups (APASA, BFSA, & DALA) to have a representative or two on the team to expand voices and inclusion. Also, make sure LGBTQI+ are represented within those affinity groups.
  5. Invite a representative from the Equity Action Committee to serve on committee.
  6. Invite student representation from first generation students from the following programs: UMOJA. FYE, Puente, EOPS &S, LEAD, IMPACT AAPI, Athletics and provide them with a stipend since many of them struggle financially and often don't participate in mainstream government groups but provide leadership within their own respective program communities.
  7. Create ad-hoc/advisory committees with stakeholders: SWP and Perkins; Lottery and Instructional Materials and SEA that report to the larger team. They are the experts and we should take their recommendations into consideration more seriously in consultation with the Deans.

Input from multiple perspectives should always be considered. Decisions should be considered through an equity lens. CTE programs should be considered for the almost immediate outcomes they produce for our students. AFTER all the aforementioned are taken into account - the greatest outcome for the greatest number of students should also be considered.

Ideally, governance would function with both equal representation (divisions, administration, faculty, staff, and students) and with inherent protection for groups and policies that might be pushed to the margins by majority decision making processes. These protections would require that the governance committees be provided with written guidelines that establish institutional priorities from the senior administration. In addition to the written guidelines, regular input from the senior staff into the process is needed so that the recommendations, information, and feedback flow is multidirectional. Members of governance committees also need to establish regular means of sharing information with and gathering input from their constituencies. If necessary, instructions can be provided as to how members should manage communication.

Study and discuss these resources to improve the charge of the committee and its processes. 

We must ask ourselves: What is the issue, policy, or process being examined? Who is conducting this analysis -- who is at the table for this discussion? These inquiry questions have been formulated to help us improve equity focused decision making.

  1. Who is affected by content and current framing of this policy, program, practice, or decision? What are the potential impacts? (Use the lists on the back of this page to help you get started.)
  2. How does this policy, program, practice, decision-making process, or decision increase access, equity, and inclusion? How does it produce or worsen any disparities?
  3. Who is being impacted by this decision-making process? How have stakeholders been intentionally invited to and empowered to participate in the decision-making process or practice?
  4. What are the barriers to more equitable outcomes around this policy, program, practice, decision making-process or decision?
  5. How will members of the college community identify, address, and mitigate negative impacts and the barriers identified above? How will you support this work?
  6. How can we, as members of the college community, create an environment and culture that fosters healing and reconciliation to transform our structures, environments, and selves? What is the decision or action that will be taken in relation to the issue, policy, or process?

Question 4: In the ideal structure you suggested above, how would members of the governance groups be selected? Please provide a summary.


I don't see a need for a change. If people don't volunteer to serve, they should not complain. We are all busy, yet some still make the time.

Each group (students, faculty, staff, administrators) should appoint their own representatives. Similar to how IPBT is structured now, but each group should have a plan for how to do this ahead of time!

Each governance group, including Deans, should select their own members to represent them.

Shared governance, encouraging participation from all groups must be maintained.

"Elected, not appointed by both Academic Senate and IPBT; with an eye towards expertise in the area."

By means of voting by the people that that member would represent provided that the member was voted in by a group representative of actual racial, gender, age, and other demographic makeup.

Ideally, positions inside the governance group would also be determined by internal voting.

I am not sure but if initiative is lacking in certain divisions or departments, perhaps creating more incentives to serve on the committee might be helpful.

The current system works well. It has only been very recently that there has been the need for voting on faculty positions.

There should be a mix of experienced and newer members, with balance of perspectives across disciplines , ethnicity/race, gender, etc. Release time is essential for counselors, classified staff etc. Criteria for selection should include enthusiasm for the role, understanding and commitment to equitable processes, track record of follow-through, willingness to reach out regularly, do work beyond meeting times. Perhaps there could be a (compensated?) shared governance mini-course, facilitated by Professional development as a pre-requisite for ALL governance groups, then members and leadership selected from those who complete that course.

Elected from representative groups with special consideration for equity. IE, is there a way to encourage reps who would/could help inform and guide decisions Engage new fresh blood. Deans are to be nominated by their prospective constituents and not appointed.

  1. Develop a standard timeline for a call to serve. For example, every May 15th to May 30th each of the following respective groups should put out a call to serve for the upcoming year and forward the name(s) to the new Planning team. This allows ample time for student representatives to learn more and to attend a meeting beforehand to be introduced and to shadow at least one or two meetings in June.
  2. Each group should take into consideration representation and who is not present on the committee.
  3. Let each group determine how they select their representatives. It could be by vote, statements or the core leadership of each group can determine their representative.
  4. Develop a document with equity-minded guidelines on considerations when appointing, voting or selecting a representative.

The present model although undergoing much scrutiny is a very good model particularly in the case of classified staff and administrators.

Each Division should have representation. Also, groups that serve particular interests, such as equity, need to be represented.

Ensuring representation through a two-body method (like the Senate/House of Representatives) is one way a broader spectrum of voices could be heard. Another method would be to establish subcommittees that provide progressive input into a larger structure (i.e., CTE, Gen Ed, Counseling, Equity, Athletics, etc. would provide input to the larger Instructional body).

Recruitment of representatives, along with the member responsibility training mentioned previously, needs to be done annually, with a portion (not more than 1/3) of members replaced each year.

Recently faculty and faculty leaders who are equity minded/anti-racism practitioners have suggested the following which I support (please review the complete document to learn about the guiding principles and the decision-making approach).

The Approach: Create a comprehensive representative structure that reflects disciplines, professional status, and racial/ethnic diversity comprising of one-two reps for different areas of the campus including areas, levels of staff, faculty, administration, and students.

Requirements: Seats (Each group or area elects their representatives): Divisions Academic Senate Considerations will include service years, disciplinary area, divisions, etc. FA Classified Senate ACE Part-Time Faculty Race/ethnic-based affinity groups (BFSA, DALA, APASA) Students DASB One student representative from each of the SSRS programs (Umoja, Summer Bridge, Puente, Impact AAPI, and FYE) Student representative participation needs to be encouraged and given space. (as part of the Student Voice in Governance group, shared governance groups agreed to identify a mentor to work closely with students. I believe all adopted this, but not sure who is implementing it other that EAC)

Term: Representatives rotate after one year (or staggered years) and provide a hand off to new representatives.

Voting: All votes carry equal weight; 1 seat = 1 vote

Deans: Deans play a larger role in relaying budgetary information to their areas in advance of discussion in

IPBT: Draft strategic plans and prioritize a list of needs or places to cut for their areas with the input from their constituents. These plans and needs guide the 'ask' from these areas. Attend college- and district-wide meetings about the budget to provide the Division/Area perspectives to senior staff and to ensure shared governance. Communicate budgetary information to their areas.

IPBT Timing- Requirements: Creation of annual decision-making timeline aligned with Academic Calendar deadlines. Posting of IPBT timeline on the landing page of the IPBT website.

IPBT Transparency- Requirements: Posting of annual meeting dates on the IPBT website. Availability of? Creation of? Public access to the decision-making process. Posting of meeting agendas on the IPBT website at least 72hrs before the meeting. Posting of detailed minutes that capture all major discussion points and decisions made Unapproved minutes available to the membership within 24 hours of the meeting. Approved minutes posted on IPBT timely. Designation of Public Comment section on meeting agenda.

Centering Equity in Decision making: Work with all stakeholders to establish clear and agreed-upon equity-based criteria for guiding decision-making processes. Create processes that allow all voices to be heard and that center student voice and concerns in decision making.

Question 5: All other recommendations and comments


(None submitted)

Note: These responses were collected from each participating member and guest through a Google form. The co-chairs have chosen to submit these responses in each person's own words in their entirety. They are separated here by a grey dividing line.

Back to Top