MARICOPA COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD
MARCH 10, 2009
MINUTES

A special board meeting and study session of the Maricopa County Community College District Governing Board was scheduled to be held at 5:00 p.m. at the District Support Services Center in Tempe, Arizona, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice having been duly given.

PRESENT

GOVERNING BOARD
Colleen Clark, President
Randolph Lumm, Secretary
Don Campbell, Member
Jerry Walker, Member
Debra Pearson, Member

ADMINISTRATION
Rufus Glasper
Maria Harper-Marinick
Debra Thompson
Darrel Huish
Steve Helfgot
Al Crusoe
Anna Solley
Pete Kushibab
Paul Dale
Shouan Pan
Ken Atwater
Sue Tavakoli for Ernie Lara
Gene Giovannini
Linda Thor
Mark Mason for Maria Hesse
Jan Gehler
Velvie Green

Attendance: Approximately 60 people

CALL TO ORDER
The study session was called to order at 5:10 p.m. by Governing Board President Colleen Clark. Items for discussion would be:

A. Board Learning Module: The Speed of Trust
Focus: Introduction to the book, The Speed of Trust; Board Members learning together.

B. Update on Budget Items and Questions
Focus: Discuss any updates on budget and responses to questions from the Study Session on February 20th.

C. Discussion of Board Chair Positions-Assignment Recap
Focus: Review Board Chair Positions according to District Office Divisions.

D. Update on Policy Governance Language
Focus: Respond to discussion of potential changes at Study Session on February 20th.

E. Definition of Hiring Freeze
Focus: Clarify information about a hiring freeze.

F. Orientation to Accreditation Visit - Higher Learning Commission
Focus: Presentation to prepare Board Members for accreditation team visit.

G. Report on Tribal Summit
Focus: Provide update on planning for Tribal Summit.

H. Report on Streamlined Process to Handle Student Issues
Focus: Response and update on how the Streamlined Process is working.

I. Discuss rough draft of Request for Proposals for the MCCCD Institutional Effectiveness & Stewardship Evaluation
Focus: Scope of Work and Evaluation Criteria

J. Discuss SPPF/Walker investigation
Focus: Bring clarity to the East Valley Tribune investigation and
allow board members to ask questions.

K. Discuss the Article from SCC Chronicle and Subsequent Actions
Focus: Briefing on protocols and actions taken.

L. Explain Board Communication Campaign
Focus: Highlight methods, areas of impact and purpose.

M. Discuss Chancellor’s Strategic Plan for the District
Focus: Highlights of planned progress and questions

N. Discuss Role of District Director of Public Safety
Focus: Role and Relationship to Colleges

Board Learning Module: The Speed of Trust
Focus: Introduction to the book, The Speed of Trust; Board Members learning together.

Emily Weinacker, certified Covey Facilitator, introduced the book, The Speed of Trust, to those present and indicated that board members start a discussion of the book this evening and then during future study sessions utilize the training components that accompany the book. She drew everyone’s attention to the yellow handout which she would be using as she facilitated the Board’s discussion.

Quote: “You can’t have success without trust. The word trust embodies almost everything you can strive for that will help you succeed. You tell me any human relationship that works without trust, whether it is a marriage or a friendship or a social interaction; in the long run, the same thing is true about business, especially businesses that deal with the public.” Jim Burke (pg. 6.)

Ms. Weinacker then asked each board member what their definition of trust was. Responses were:

Trust means confidence. When you trust people you have confidence in them – in their integrity and in their abilities. By learning how to establish, grow, extend, and restore trust, you can positively and significantly after the trajectory of this and every future moment of your life.

Ms. Weinacker then asked each board member to think about a time when they were members of a group where there was high trust. What made it so? How did that impact the results?

Recap:

Pages 22-24 referred to different levels of trust. Having trust taxes is not an option. What level of trust do you want to have? What level of dividends do you want to have?

Moving forward with the study of the book, Ms. Weinacker stated that tools and activities that will help achieve that level of trust. Five waves of trust include self, relationships, organizational, market, and contribution to society. There is a call for leadership greatness. What mindsets need to change?

Update and Discussion of MCCCD Budget
Focus: Discuss any updates on budget and responses to questions from the Study Session on February 20th.

Comments by Vice Chancellor of Business Services, Debra Thompson:

(Note: Unable to copy tables that were part of the minutes into this document. Please see copy of official bound minutes.)

Fund One Revenue

The Tax levy may increase by no more than 2% per year plus we receive revenue from new property

On February 10, the Maricopa County Assessor notified us that for FY 2010 our levy limit would increase from $346.0 to $367.5 million.

Almost all Arizona Community College Districts levy at the maximum permitted

Primary Property Tax Rate Example

(Note: Unable to copy tables that were part of the minutes into this document. Please see copy of official bound minutes.

(Note: Unable to copy tables that were part of the minutes into this document. Please see copy of official bound minutes.

Property Tax Rate Comparison

(Note: Unable to copy tables that were part of the minutes into this document. Please see copy of official bound minutes.

FY 2010 Tuition & Fee Proposal
Resident: Tuition $76/credit hour

Out of State: Non Resident Surcharge $242/credit hour

Skill Centers Tuition hourly tuition rates proposed to increase by $0.30 per hour

Registration Fee: $15/semester

Tuition Comparison

(Note: Unable to copy tables that were part of the minutes into this document. Please see copy of official bound minutes.)

Out of State Surcharge

In addition to Tuition, Non Resident students pay a surcharge since they do not pay taxes in Maricopa County to support their education

Considering the combination of Resident tuition plus the Out of State Surcharge, Maricopa Community Colleges are higher compared to most other Western States

(Note: Unable to copy tables that were part of the minutes into this document. Please see copy of official bound minutes.)

FY 2010 Special Course Fees

FY 2010 Resources
(Note: Unable to copy tables that were part of the minutes into this document. Please see copy of official bound minutes.)

Potential Expenditure Increases (Amount in Millions of Dollars)
(Note: Unable to copy tables that were part of the minutes into this document. Please see copy of official bound minutes.)

These FY 2010 proposed items total $21.97 Million
They represent a short list of critical continuation needs. There are no new program initiatives; no employee cost of living adjustments

Evaluating Alternatives - Low Revenues
(Note: Unable to copy tables that were part of the minutes into this document. Please see copy of official bound minutes.)

Implicit Expenditure Decisions
(Note: Unable to copy tables that were part of the minutes into this document. Please see copy of official bound minutes.)

As the Board makes decisions about revenues, it will force additional decisions about expenditures. If the Governing Board decides NOT to increase resident tuition or the property tax levy, it must also decide how reduce expenditures. These are not easy choices as they may have long lasting impacts. As an example, the FY 2009 state aid cuts left the District without a source of support for capital equipment, library books, or maintenance. We cannot sustain instructional programs – particularly vocational programs – without equipment. Our 2004 Capital program supports new building construction through a secondary property tax, but without operating support to open the facility it does not seem prudent to move forward with construction of any more buildings.

Evaluating Alternatives - Increase Revenues
(Note: Unable to copy tables that were part of the minutes into this document. Please see copy of official bound minutes.)

Considering alternatives that increase revenues will require fewer decisions about expenditure cuts. There are both statutory and logistical requirements that will affect revenue determination. If the Governing Board decides not to increase the tax levy or student tuition and the legislature makes additional state aid cuts, it may be too late to go back and go through the statutory process to increase the levy or to provide sufficient notice of a tuition rate increase.

Board Chair Positions-Assignment Recap
Focus: Review Board Chair Positions according to District Office Divisions.

Discussion: Board Members were informed that a copy of the Board Chair Positions was attached to the agenda. No changes were indicated. Mr. Walker informed the Board that he was currently working on developing a had copy of the board policies for review purposes.

Update on Policy Governance Language
Focus: Respond to discussion of potential changes at Study Session on February 20th.

Discussion: Some policy governance changes will be presented for first reading on March 24. These included Manner of Governing and Special Services Employments.

Definition of Hiring Freeze
Focus: Clarify information about a hiring freeze.

Discussion: Mrs. Pearson indicated that she understood the hiring freeze was districtwide, however, learned that the hiring freeze was meant to be for the District Office only. She expressed an interest in having this extended further to include the campus level.

Chancellor Glasper clarified that the hiring freeze at the District Office had been in place since December 1, with exceptions to be considered by the Chancellor based on recommendations from the Vice Chancellors. He further commented that the Governing Board had requested a study of administrative costs at the February 3 Study Session and was scheduled to be completed by April 3. The report is scheduled to be reviewed by the Governing Board, with possible actions to be recommended, including a district-wide, specifically defined hiring freeze. Dr. Glasper further commented that hiring has slowed across the system as all colleges and the District Office have worked to implement 2% cuts and plan for additional cuts. The District’s financial challenges are not at a level where there is a complete retrenchment of staffing required. The limited hires being presented to the Board reflect positions necessary to perform critical duties at the college or district office. The Chancellor recommended that the Governing Board not impose an absolute hiring freeze at this time but continue to require justification for each hire and make decisions on a case by case basis.

Mrs. Pearson indicated that she wanted to focus on keeping administrative costs low and be able to show that we have an efficient system. Business sense needs to be applied. Any business that is at 14% shows that do not need any money.

Ms. Clark stated that the challenge for any institution or government entity is to show that it can be done. There needs to be a hiring freeze for all administrative positions.

Dr. Campbell commented that it needs to be realized that there is a difference between business and secondary educational systems. Businesses are responsible for doing a lot of things that education does not.

Mr. Lumm remarked that we should talk about case by case as needed.

Dr. Glasper commented that colleges have been very responsive to the needs of the District. He further remarked that the Board hires him and can fire hm. The conversation deals with dollars and takes into consideration what money is involved before any psotions are filled. He is the safeguard on the jeopardy of this institution and asked that the Board accept the timeline given on February 3.

The issue of trust was raised by Dr. Campbell. Mrs. Pearson affirmed her trust in the integrity of the Chancellor and his ability to run this huge organization, however was requesting that the Board consider setting policy.

Orientation to Accreditation Visit - Higher Learning Commission
Focus: Presentation to prepare Board Members for accreditation team visit.

Discussion: SMC and GWC are in the process of being reaccredited. Chancellor Glasper indicated that he would like for board members to become familiar with the accreditation process by possibly spending time with the Presidents to discuss the process.

Phoenix College President Dr. Anna Solley, who currently serves on an accreditation team, provided the following information as a result of her experience:

In the United States, institutions of higher education seek, on a voluntary basis, accreditation from non-governmental bodies. Accreditation has existed for more than 100 years. Accreditation is built on
(a) importance of institutional mission as central to academic quality;
(b) need for institutional independence, flexibility, and freedom to carry out the institution's work;
(c) meeting of standards;
(d) fiscal integrity; and
e) exercise of academic freedom by faculty.

Institutional accreditation is provided by regional associations. There are six regional associations, each named after the region in which it operates. All of the public colleges and universities in the State of Arizona are regionally accredited by the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. Each of the ten Maricopa Colleges is separately and independently accredited by HLC.

Definition = Accreditation is a periodic, peer-based system of review of higher education institutions and programs.

Purpose = Accreditation is designed to assure the public of an institution's commitment to academic quality and fiscal integrity and stimulate ongoing improvement by the institution.

Format = The institution prepares a self-study (written report) which is followed by a visit from a group of experienced administrators and faculty members who are especially trained to evaluate institutional performance and improvement plans within the context of accreditation standards.

Governing Board's Role in Accreditation.

• Become educated about the accreditation process. Understand how accreditation relates to core values, mission, oversight responsibilities and ongoing stewardship of academic mission, student learning outcomes, and assessment of effectiveness and efficiency.

• Engage in the accreditation process by reviewing key elements of the accreditation self-study and the visiting team's report, and consider the recommendations on strategic goals and the institution's mission.

• Meet with the visiting team during the site visit and be prepared to answer questions.

• Become familiar with the HLC standards that address board governance.

• Develop a plan for ongoing involvement in accreditation review that links to the Board's responsibility to monitor educational quality.

Chancellor's Role

• Engage the Board in the accreditation process in order to affirm and strengthen the Board's fiduciary roles in assuring the quality, efficiency, and effectiveness of the colleges.

• Assist in educating Governing Board members about the accreditation criteria and preparing members for involvement in the accreditation process, including the self-study and site visit. (Information is attached relating to the five Higher Learning Commission accreditation criteria.).

• Assist in preparing strategies to ensure that board agendas include relevant issues for board consideration resulting from accreditation reports/recommendations.

President's Role
• Assist Governing Board members to get engaged in the College accreditation process, including the self-study process and the site visit.

In closing, Dr. Solley commented that the role of the Board is critical to the accreditation process. There are usually six to seven people on a team who are responsible for reviewing the institution. Their role is to determine the accuracy of the self-study and ensuring that the vision/mission statements align to the institution and are actualized. Support for the Chancellor and administrative leaders is critical. Staff play a critical role. The Board is invited to the exit dinner, the opening session and exit report. Also looked at is Board self-performance, as well as how they value employees and diversity. They will also look for signals regarding trust.

Report on Tribal Summit
Focus: Provide update on planning for Tribal Summit.

Discussion: Chancellor Glasper reported the following information pertaining to his meeting with the Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona (ITCA) held Tuesday, March 3:

Attending were:
ITCA Executive Director, John Lewis
MCCCD Chancellor, Rufus Glasper
ITCA Assistant Director, Alberta Tippeconnic
MCCCD Center for Civic Participation, Alberto Olivas
ITCA SAICN Program Director, Kenton Laffoon
MCCCD Academic Affairs, Bo Colbert

Background:
The Chancellor wishes to investigate opportunities to meet with Arizona tribal leaders to learn more about the barriers and obstacles faced by Native American students with regard to access to college education, and to explore strategies to better promote Maricopa programs and services to members of these communities.

Bo Colbert and Alberto Olivas recommended meeting with ITCA to request guidance and assistance in developing a strategy to do so, potentially to include trips to visit tribal leaders in their communities, and also having meetings to coincide with key events that draw tribal leaders to the Phoenix-area.

Prior to the meeting, which was held on March 3, 2009 at the ITCA offices, MCCCD Governing Board member Debra Pearson also expressed desire for MCCCD to meet with tribal leaders to develop strategies to obtain federal designation as a Native American-Serving Non-Tribal Institution (NASNTI). This designation would make MCCCD eligible to apply for additional federal and grant fund streams for services to support Native American students.

Inquiries:
• What is the representation and makeup of Native American students within MCCCD colleges? (Lewis)
o Approximately 3,000+ students, or about 3.7% of the total student population
o Representing over 30 tribes, including all Arizona tribes and some out of state tribes
o Largest tribal representation is from the Navajo Nation (Colbert)
• How has the state budget crisis and budget cuts impacted MCCCD, especially with regard to programs serving Native American students? (Lewis)
o Due to funding structure differences, ASU and the rural community colleges have had a more severe impact than Maricopa thus far. The Chancellor has advocated that cuts be taken from operational rather than equalization funds in order to help lessen the impact to rural community college districts. (Glasper)
• To what extent can MCCCD provide remedial education for students that are under-prepared for college courses? (Tippeconnic)
o MCCCD provides a lot of remedial education programming currently. For many tribal students, a “cohort” approach is often the most effective way to deliver remediation to students before they get to college, especially in association with training for specific vocational or degree programs. (Colbert)

Findings:
• Approximately 22% of Native American students are dropped between enrollment and the 45-day count due to issues related to delay of grant funds disbursement (Colbert)
• Housing and delayed disbursement of grant funds continue to pose monumental obstacles to students from tribes, even though these issues have persisted for a very long time and are well known. (Tippeconnic)
• The threshold for obtaining NASNTI designation is a minimum of 10% Native American students. Colbert believes this is readily attainable for the Mesa Community College site within four years, with a concerted recruitment and retention effort. See: http://www.ed.gov/programs/nasnticcraa/index.html.
• Tribal leaders and tribal education officials may be largely unaware of the extent to which their students are participating in Maricopa academic programs. Their focus has been largely on making scholarship funds available to tribal members, but a more concerted effort to address retention and student success may be warranted. Maricopa should do more to educate tribal leaders and education officials about these issues and enlist their support in developing strategies to address them. (Lewis)
• ITCA and MCCCD are both interested in seeing these issues addressed, and agreed to co-host an Educational Summit for statewide community colleges, tribal colleges, tribal leaders and tribal educational officials during the Summer of 2009.

Action Items:
• Research the student population figures for each of the community college districts and forward this information to ITCA.
• Determine whether Native American Connections (NAC) has moved forward with plans to acquire property and provide housing accommodations for Native American students. Was the needs assessment completed, and has a proposal been completed and adopted? Dee Dee Yazzie is the contact for this.
• Check with Dave Castillo regarding a possible program for tribes to buy housing properties for students.
• Create a draft, or framework template and agenda for a half-day summit meeting:

Participants - Invited/targeted participants may include:

Content - Content may address topics, including:

Discuss Rough Draft of Request for Proposals for the MCCCD Institutional Effectiveness & Stewardship Evaluation
Focus: Scope of Work and Evaluation Criteria

Discussion: President Clark distributed copies of the drafted RFP and indicated she had worked with Mike McIntier to capture points previously discussed. Discussion took place regarding the background, the scope of work, the cancellation clause, conflict of interest, looking outside the box, finding someone that has community college experience and also other enterprises, looking at new models, what progress is desired in five, ten, fifteen years. Decision made to indicate that experience should include having worked with community colleges “but not limited to.” Other suggestions desired should be provided to President Clark no later than Friday, March 13.

Discuss SPPF/Walker Investigation
Focus: Bring clarity to the East Valley Tribune investigation and allow board
members to ask questions.

Discussion : Mr. Walker suggested waiting for Dr. Rooney’s findings. His concern was taxpayer dollars. No statement towards SPPF. Value of SPPF is being questioned. Things that students talk about are mimicked, scripted and coached. Chad Douwstra explained that students are selected by Student Life Directors on each campus. They are then taken through the SPPF Workshops and introduced to ACCT and AACC issues. Students are allowed to choose and advocate on any issue they feel they wish to speak to. Students do their own research and state their own opinions. The program has been in effect for about 7-8 years now. Four other Arizona Districts take students. No article has appeared in the East Valley Tribune as Reporter Ryan Gabrielson has been out ill. Mrs. Pearson commented that she had been told prior to coming on the Board that there had been illegals going on this trip and there to argue for the Dream Act. Information was inaccurate as only about 20% were going to speak on this. As she listened to them discuss their topics, she recognized that this program had shown them how to debate their opinions and agree to disagree. This was an opportunity to discuss differences of opinions and take ownership of their government. Mr. Walker stated that in the past there have been students who have gone to Washington and did not have documentation but this year there were no students that went who were illegal. It was pointed out that since Proposition 300 passed, undocumented students have been paying out of state tuition and they have the ability to go to DC.

Discuss the Article from SCC Chronicle and Subsequent Actions
Focus: Briefing on protocols and actions taken.

Discussion: Subsequent to the printing of the caricature, there have been responses from students and Dr. Gehler. Dr. Gehler came forward and explained that many discussions have been held on the campus and community about free press and having a newspaper on an educational institution. In the most recent issue, an apology was made that they were forever sorry that anyone was offended. Because one does not intend to offend, does not mean that this doesn’t happen. Faculty and editorial board have discussed lessons learned from this incident. They will be more careful and examine what it means when you are a members of the press and start to look at all of the issues as a society that keep you from working together. Mr. Lumm commented that this was a serious offense and asked what oversight we have over a paper? Mr. Kushibab indicated that the answer was prospective. An organization can impose as much control as it wishes. Most chose to impose no control. First Amendment Rights. Institution may not control content. They can, however, increase control. Dr. Gehler stated the faculty advisor reviews drafts but students are free to include whatever they want. The newspaper uses a service where they can obtain cartoons. Perception of cartoon probably not the best choice. Can assure you that their student paper is one of the finest. Students are well prepared. Mr. Lumm asked for information on what oversight there is. This learning point raised a question oversights. Dr. Glasper responded that he would follow up on what each college does on oversight and develop a recommendation. Mrs. Pearson indicated that in this case the Board gets the calls on what is happening and the bottom line is does it reflect on Board. Important that this be looked at as an educational experience and raise the fact that this issue is a concern which has raised the level of discernment, mafia mentality, and unsigned communications. Sees a concern here on communication with the Board and tabloid mentality.

Explain Board Communication Campaign
Focus: Highlight methods, areas of impact and purpose.

Discussion: President Clark distributed a copy of the Organizational Review Communication Plan which listed project goals, communication goals, key messages, key constituencies, tactics, and the anticipated timeline.

Discuss Chancellor’s Strategic Plan for the District
Focus: Highlights of planned progress and questions

Discussion: Would like to see this as part of evaluation. Mr. Lumm indicated he doesn’t hire or fire anyone but rather speak to the good things that are happening. Would like to see a presentation of the strategic plan. Dr. Glasper indicated that the document was a response to a request for the strategic plan. It is driven by the District’s vision/mission and values. He has also provided the Chancellor’s Pillars or Guiding Principles which include Student Success, One Maricopa, and Public Stewardship. These will help guide the organization in the important work of accomplishing the mission and achieving the vision.

Discuss Role of District Director of Public Safety
Focus: Role and Relationship to Colleges

Discussion: Mr. Walker commented that there were a couple of items he wanted to address pertaining to this topic. One was the request for a flowchart of the District Security System. He would like to see Ernie Baken have authority over all security officers. Dr. Glasper commented that a revamping of the security structure was being worked on.

I. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING
5:00 p.m.
District Support Services Center
Governing Board Room - 2nd Floor
2411 West 14th Street
Tempe, AZ 85281

1. Consideration of New Employment – Mesa Community College

2. Approval of the revised minutes of the January 27, 2009 Regular Governing Board Meeting

Adjournment of Study Session & Special Board Meeting: The study session and special board meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.

_________________________
Randolph Elias Lumm
Governing Board Secretary