October 26, 2021

IPBT meeting – October 26, 2021

Tri-chairs: Heidi King, Mary Pape

Administrative reps:  Sam Bliss, Alicia Cortez, Lydia Hearn, Anita Muthyala-Kandula, Thomas Ray

Classified reps: Heidi King

Faculty reps: Pati Carobus, Ilan Glasman, Terrence Mullens, Salvador Guerrero, Mary Pape, Daniel Solomon, Andrew Stoddard

Student reps: Anita Chamraj, Fiza Syed

Affinity Group Representatives:

Black Faculty, Staff and Administrators (BFSA): Melinda Hughes

The Asian Pacific American Staff Association (APASA): Christine Chai

De Anza Latinx Association (DALA): Eric Mendoza, Felisa Vilaubi

Absent: Thomas Bailey, Randy Bryant, Christina G. Espinosa-Pieb, Khoa Nguyen, Pauline Wethington

Guests:  Cheryl Balm, Chesa Caparas, Vins Chacko, Mary Donahue, Norma Guido, Dawn Lee, Lisa Markus, Melissa Maturino, Lorna Maynard, Mallory Newell, Edmundo Norte, Elvin T. Ramos, Daniel Smith, Sharon Utomo, Sara Wallace

Approval of Notes for October 19, 2021 - There was a request to add wording underscoring both that the current list did not include growth positions and that there was a need for discussing growth positions. Wording will be added and notes will come back for approval at the next meeting.

DASG Report: Fiza reported that the first meeting for 2021-22 DASG reviewed their By-laws Elections code was updated.

Ranked-choice voting: Ranked choice voting provides voters with a backup to their vote and minimizes strategic voting.

Mary reviewed the slides explaining the ranked-choice voting algorithm at https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADU3YjZjZTgwLWFhMDAtNGQ2ZS04YTIyLWMxNGRlMGVhNDkwNgAQAG498OqV6TtLqEvUgOdJT1A%3D  

All then used the Ranked-Choice Voting Tool: https://www.rcv123.org/  to rank ten means of communication from favorite to least favorite. All have link to the results which includes a round by round breakdown. Not ranking all 10 is a choice and as in all voting methodologies can be preferred by an individual.

Hiring Prioritization Criteria from the Hiring Prioritization Workbook were discussed and updated. There was a desire to add criteria based on impact and growth:

• if the position would increase access and/or retention to the program, and
• if the position is critical to sustainability of program

In the consideration column add:

• Consider effect on providing support services to target groups
• Consider what would be the impact on the department/area if position was not filled.

Questions were asked. In some departments where there is no full-time faculty member how are outside regulations/certifications to be met? In situations like this, does a need for a full-time position for such a department go through our decision tree differently?

People requested data sheets and supplemental questions be arranged differently so the information is easier to access when it comes time for prioritization.