May 19, 2022

Shively expressed concerns on the agenda; Equity Plan Re-Imagined as an action item on first read, yet Shared governance as a discussion item, with no decision at the end of meeting and the administrative tri-chair approved at the December meeting, still unresolved. Shively asked for better understanding on how College Council operates in terms of agenda items, approved items by council and what to expect to see materialize in action. Jaeger noted the classified tri-chair was unavailable for this meeting and Holmes is filling in the administrative tri-chair until filled. Equity plan re-imagine, is coming back from a year ago, the IAD is not binding- lack of “Action” next to Shared governance does not necessarily mean no actionable come, but an item not intended to vote on. Shively noted, the concerns were not on the content of the Equity Plan Re-Imagined, but rather how things are agendize.

Shively asked when the Tri-Chair format would be approved formally, and Shared Governance implemented formally. Holmes noted prior agreement at the April meeting to schedule a follow up meeting to continue discussion on SGTF but work contracts were underway and once solved there would have been a was a 3-day notice to College Council members. Holmes expressed his hope to get through discussions to move forward, noting his support for certain things and noting the constituency groups to bring ideas to discuss during this agenda item.

---

Notes approved.  "conversation brought up as there has not been an administrative tri-chair since December" was added under Shared Governance Taskforce section.

---

Equity Plan Re-Imagined 

Cortez referenced previous process to the Re-imagine Equity Plan, noting requirement to submit new plan to the state in November. Cortez noted gathering feedback from campus after presenting to each governance group- adding suggestions to the plan, deadlines removed, addition and removal to some items, and notations. Cortez highlighted that this document is to provide guidance for work on campus and that it would be incorporated into the Educational Master Plan by setting some direction dependent on each division.

Newell noted the planning workshop focus on how Equity plan re imagined and guided pathways can help achieve structural and cultural equity on campus and the 7 principles that are also currently in the EMP, if both documents approved, it would institutionalize those initiatives and principles for the next 5 years, clarifying that this plan is a framework for the campus, not the state required equity plan. Members raised questions on who would be accountable and responsible for tracking and and implementing certain items on the plan.

When member asked for clarification on approval request-if voting on the 7 principles only or as a whole, Cortez noted that is a fluid plan, a framework that can be change. Jaeger noted that the plan was approved by academic senate on May 2 but shares the same concerns as other members when looking at certain thing on the document and accountability.

Approved with addition of EAC charge for reporting back and accountability. 

15 Yes, 0 No, 1 Abstain

---

 Educational Master Plan, 2022 - 2027

Newell expressed gratitude to the Office of Communications and everyone who has participated in the process. Newell noted the documents is at College Council for first read and will be on the June 9 meeting for second read and approval. Newell mentioned the developing of the website to document process and reporting, conducted 4 strategic workshops, one event to reflect input received from workshops and one event to share the plan and request additional Feedback. Newell noted feedback/issues received to address in the document, and asked attendees to bring back information to their constituency groups and provide any additional input with the planning committee prior to seeking approval on June 9. Additional feedback can be sent via email.

---

 Shared Governance Task Force

Holmes noted previous ask of constituency groups to talk about training, highlighting the need of training when it comes to shared governance. Holmes referenced looking at other league schools in terms of shared governance. Holmes asked constituency groups to share what they heard back from their constituents regarding training: Academic Senate shared link with ideas, such as 2–3-minute videos, facilitation training, how to lead meetings and each body making its own decisions.  Ray follow up with Professional Development, noting they needed more specific guidance on needs, trainings, and type of workshops to provide. Holmes highlighted that when implementing training, knowing what training looks like and who is responsible for that training needs to be discussed. Garcia volunteer to draft guiding questions to take back to each shared governance groups, to reflect on those questions and open conversations toward onboarding and training. Garcia noted the need for an intersectional diverse body that can learn from each other, reflect from one another, and allow for sustainability. Holmes mentioned the Shared Governance Handbook- rules and responsibilities noting that a review of the shared governance handbook is needed to update and reflect changes.

Holmes noted disagreement with the PAC Committee; its structure in the recommendation, highlighting that models need to be structure around the constituency groups. Holmes highlighted that in the current Shared Governance model some issues with the PBT structure are budgeting components and conversations to understand impact on the campus. Holmes noted the need for planning teams- getting rid of them and creating subcommittees is problematic. Communication about the budget, how it interacts with all different areas. Holmes highlighted the need to develop training, mentoring and how to be equitable for constituency groups to share within, and for the 4 constituency groups, how they represent their constituents. A member asked for clarification on alternative plan, if it is to remove the Budgeting component, Holmes noted that PBTs whether as a subcommittee or a different name, will still have them. Holmes noted the issue with PAC is the  make-up of the PAC, which needs to be around the constituency groups, roles and responsibilities, and how the group communicates. A member noted a few issues regarding budget and its two levels of budgeting and the needs, which is what PAC is figuring out by allowing arching communication. Holmes agreed and noted that PAC must be built around the 4 constituency groups to understand where the dollars are in the institution. Holmes referenced the outline of the PAC’s four groups; senates, administration, unions, and affinity groups, noting that our 4 constituent groups are faculty, administrators, students and classified professionals, highlighting that every single person that attends/works in this institution needs to be represented. Other members highlighted that the PAC is built around those constituency groups, and around having affinity groups, unions, etc. When Holmes questioned how this particular model guarantees equal representation from classified professionals, a SGTF noted that the PAC was designed around equal number of those groups-6 students, 6 classified, 6 students and 6 faculty.  Jaeger shared memo of feedback given to Holmes, noting the outline of membership proposal, PBTs as a single group, and having a single committee in regard to understanding wide needs. Holmes reiterated that he does not have a problem having a PAC, but needing to be built around the four constituency groups and clearly defining roles and responsibilities. Other members noted that PAC's responsibilities must be better defined and that building around 4 constituency groups is a workable addendum to SGTF's proposal. Holmes expressed that as a college, have to do a better job when talking about equity, how to promote it within constituency groups and his support for PAC, as long as it is built around those four groups. Holmes highlighted the importance of individuals serving in College Council communicating with their constituencies and bringing feedback to College Council. Holmes will put in feedback in writing.

Holmes noted that he will not support senior staff serving in ex officio roles as it takes away from equitable representation. Holmes noted the December meeting he missed, regarding the tri-chair position that was voted on, noting that a senior member could not be chosen but a dean, finding the vote inappropriate as at that time there was not a discussion in the administrative group. Holmes mentioned that some Deans have asked about it and the reasons for not changing the tri-chair yet is due to the new shared governance model. Holmes needs to understand his role in the new shared governance model and does not plan to be on that role into the upcoming year. Holmes highlighted that his focus and priorities are determining training and PAC.

---

Participants 

College Council Meeting          Start Time / End Time
                                                        3:25:29 PM    5:05:44 PM
Name (Original Name)  

19165095120				25
Adam contreras				1
Adam contreras				87
Adriana				1
Adriana				2
Adriana				1
Adriana				51
Alicia Cortez				6
Alicia Cortez				80
Cheryl Jaeger Balm				96
Christina G. Espinosa-Pieb (she#her# ella)				1
Christina G. Espinosa-Pieb (she#her# ella)				95
Christine Chai (she/her)				1
Christine Chai (she/her)				59
Deepa Yuvaraj				1
Deepa Yuvaraj				75
Denica Kelly (she/hers)				1
Denica Kelly (she/hers)				9
Dr. Elvin T. Ramos (he/him/siya)				1
Dr. Elvin T. Ramos (he/him/siya)				95
Eric Mendoza				1
Eric Mendoza				95
Erick Aragon				1
Erick Aragon				88
Felisa Vilaubi				1
Felisa Vilaubi				95
Iman Seale (she/her)				1
Iman Seale (she/her)				95
James Tallent				1
James Tallent				84
Karen Chow				1
Karen Chow				39
karen chow				1
karen chow				57
Kevin Glapion				1
Kevin Glapion				82
Laureen Balducci				1
Laureen Balducci				93
Lisa Mandy				2
Lisa Mandy				95
Lisa Markus				1
Lisa Markus				23
Lloyd Holmes				97
Lydia Hearn				1
Lydia Hearn				91
mae lee				1
mae lee				12
mae lee				2
mae lee				1
mae lee				82
Mallory Newell (she/her)				1
Mallory Newell (she/her)				95
Marisa Spatafore				1
Marisa Spatafore				94
Maristella Tapia				1
Maristella Tapia				31
Maristella’s iPhone				1
Maristella’s iPhone				2
Maristella’s iPhone				8
Maristella’s iPhone				34
Maristella’s iPhone				1
Maristella’s iPhone				11
Mary Pape				4
Mary Pape				95
Melinda Hughes				3
Melinda Hughes				37
Melissa Maturino				1
Melissa Maturino				94
Michele LeBleu-Burns				2
Michele LeBleu-Burns				1
Michele LeBleu-Burns				1
Michele LeBleu-Burns				94
Moaty Fayek				5
Moaty Fayek				95
Monica Ganesh				1
Monica Ganesh				71
Nathaly Aguilar (She/Her/Hers)				101
Pam Grey				1
Pam Grey				94
Pippa Gibson				1
Pippa Gibson				93
Rob Mieso				2
Rob Mieso				95
Sarah Wallace				1
Sarah Wallace				32
Sarah Wallace				1
Sarah Wallace				62
Scott Olsen				1
Scott Olsen				95
So Kam Lee				1
So Kam Lee				82
Thomas Ray (he# him)				1
Thomas Ray (he# him)				94
Tim Shively				1
Tim Shively				94
Tracy C-T				1
Tracy C-T				99
Vins Chacko				2
Vins Chacko				95
Yvette Campbell				1
Yvette Campbell				34