May 10, 2022

Co-chairs: Christina G. Espinosa-Pieb, Mary Pape

Administrative reps: Sam Bliss, Randy Bryant, Alicia Cortez, Christina G. Espinosa-Pieb, Anita Muthyala-Kandula,Thomas Ray

Classified reps: Thomas Bailey, Margaret Bdzil, Vins Chacko

Faculty reps: Pati Carobus, Ilan Glasman, 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, Pauline Wethington

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

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

Absent: Moaty Fayek, Lorna Maynard, Alicia Mullens

Guests: Karen Chow, Norma Guido, Susan Ho, Debbie Lee, Lisa Ly, Melissa Maturino, Mallory Newell, Kristin Skager, Daniel Smith, James Tallent, Sharon Utomo, Sarah Wallace

Approval of Notes: Notes of meeting April 19, 2022 and meeting May 3, 2022 were approved with minor changes.

DASG Report: Anita Chamraj reported that DASG voted to support the Fair Election Initiative. Alicia Cortez presented the Equity Plan Re-Imagined to the DASG. DASG Bylaws changes and DASG Marketing and Communications Code changes were discussed. $14,680 revenue was lost due to the mandatory opt out provision for the Student Representation Fee (SRF). DASG plans to emphasize to the students the importance of contributing to this fund in hopes of recouping some of this loss in 2022-23. DASG will proceed with adopting a Canvas shell to advance communication among all students.

Discuss Feedback for Program Reviews: During the resource request allocation process and during the prioritization of faculty hiring requests, IPBT members have historically taken deep dives into the Program Review documents submitted by each department/program area. In small group discussions, IPBT members have formulated lists of questions for many or all departments. However, there has been no process established to actually give constructive feedback to each department on its strengths and areas for improvement as evidenced in their program reviews.

Randy Bryant reminded all that each question on the Program Review has a reason to be there. On that cue Mary Pape reviewed the document with the group as a whole stating typical responses.

Acknowledging that the first rubric designed to give feedback to a department’s program review will not be the “perfect rubric”, the consensus was to move forward at the next week’s meeting with a draft of such a rubric. The starting point might be as Khoa Nguyen suggested in chat: “Maybe the rubric can be as simple as two columns, ‘commendations’ and ‘recommendations’. Reviewers (review groups) can fill out those two columns for each section (I through VI) for the depts/programs they are reviewing.”