09-08-09 MCCCD Governing Board Minutes

Welcome and Overview
The work session was called to order at by Board President Colleen Clark. President Clark stated that the work session was intended to share thoughts regarding the recommendations made by Governing Board Member Jerry Walker pertaining to revising Governing Board Policies.

Recap of Community Feedback Process
Mr. Walker stated that back in January the Board gave him the responsibility of looking at Board policies and he thought it best to turn this over to the community. He sent copies of the policies to different people; some he knew and some he didn’t. He subsequently gave to Teresa Toney and she compiled the various recommendations into something that could be followed and understood. As the compilation of what the community wanted policies to be. He stated he didn’t agree 100% with all of them but wanted to honor the community by bringing them forward to either adopt or reject. He suggested that people take back to their communities and get comments.

DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED CHANGES
Teresa Toney, Manager of the Office of Public Stewardship, facilitated this portion of the work session. She indicated that each year the Governing Board holds a policy housekeeping session to review its policies and governance process. This usually includes the Governing Board Members and the Vice Chancellors. Changes are discussed prior to be presented to the Governing Board for first reading. This evening’s session should include a discussion as to which version should be submitted to the greater Phoenix community. The governance structure includes five different categories which are Leadership, Doctrines that Govern Policies, Administrative Regulations, Arizona State Statutes and Federal Regulations, and Accreditation. Administrative Regulations have been delegated to the Chancellor and Board Policies are either statutory or on own. Ms. Toney commented that the proposed changes are those marked out.

Comments:

• Dr. Campbell commented that on page 2 the Vision/Mission/Values had everything that has been there in the past has been stricken out. He questioned who in the community would strike these out? Mr. Walker remarked that this had been done for the purpose of being concise. Ms. Clark remarked that although much had been stricken out, there had also been additions.
• Mrs. Pearson remarked that in her opinion the entire document reflected a specific political position. She questioned how many people responded to this? Mr. Walker stated that he had been provided three edits from Districts 1, 2, and 3.
• Mrs. Pearson remarked that in any valid research study, the validity was determined by the size of the population and the number of respondents. Until these demographics were provided, the validity of this document should be questioned.
• Ms. Clark reminded everyone that the purpose for this session was dialogue on the proposed changes.
• Mrs. Pearson commented that in order to have an intelligent conversation, the study itself should be discussed. For further discussion, more validity of information was needed.
• Ms. Toney informed the Board that in the past community forums with the external community have been held. If that would be the desire of the Board, these could be scheduled. The question as to which version of the policies should be discussed, the original or the revised. Mrs. Pearson remarked that external forums should be scheduled and that both versions should be used.
• Mrs. Pearson asked if board policies are part of the third party review. Ms. Clark responded no.
• Mr. Walker encouraged that copies of what has been provided should be provided to the community, get objective input, bring back, and compile changes.
• Mr. Lumm indicated he would concur with the recommendation to get broader input. He questioned what needed to happen in order for that to occur? Ms. Toney indicated that is still part of the Board’s Housekeeping.
• Mr. Walker stated that this should be a bottom-up effort rather than top-down
• Dr. Campbell commented that the Board was a part of the community and their opinions were reflective of community. No one that he has worked has ever told him to make major changes in policies. He would go along with the idea that the community should provide input as to how to move forward for change.
• Mrs. Pearson stated that she did not feel that the changes in the document are reflective of the feelings of people in her district (District 3).
• Chancellor Glasper commented that the document has had a major evolution over time. He would support a more inclusive process and have Civic Participation be involved in the process. The District has changed over time. Junior colleges were created in the 1960’s and are now more comprehensive and more reflective of their communities and have a more global perspective. Where do we want to be five-to-ten years from now? We need to look at the fact that we have a large district. We need ten forums and regional forums and then have an informed discussion. We need to do this – not isolation. Broaden the process and that would involve the Governing Board and college presidents.
• Mr. Lumm stated he believes in diversity and that it needs to be discussed – that we respect and enhance diversity in our colleges. Community education and global education are important. He questioned some of the wording on lowest cost – you don’t go for the lowest bid in all cases. This will not always result in highest quality. A briefing paper with stats regarding global education should be produced to show we do and why we do it.
• Mrs. Pearson stated it would be helpful to have a history of board policies to show the evolution of how things came about.
• Dr. Campbell commented that board members are representatives from different districts and they represent values of those districts. Periodically board members go to national conferences so that they learn different perspectives.
• Mr. Walker commented that he was aware that many of the people that worked on these policies were professionals (doctors, attorneys, business people). He stated that this was creating dialogue about policy and giving direction as to where we want to go.
• Ms. Clark stated that a process could be implemented.
• Mrs. Pearson stated she would not endorse anything that had honesty and integrity taken out.
• Ms. Toney responded that the policies explained who we are and what we do, i.e., community college governance, role of trustees, role of chancellor, etc.
• Mr. Walker stated he felt they were redundant. Ms. Toney responded that the redundancy was intentional. Policies established according to the principles of John Carver. Within a public community college institution the role of trustees and the chancellor were identified. There is a prepage that identifies the deliverables. They identify the stakeholders, the outcomes for those constituents, and how we are going to provide those outcomes. Mr. Walker stated he felt they should be simplified.
• Mrs. Pearson stated that striking out global engagement is taking an isolationist approach. In legalese words are very important. You connect to the responsibilities economically. Important that if you are going to say something that you do it as many different way as possible. The document has to cover every base possible.
• Ms. Toney stated that some changes are specific to the Governing Board, i.e., the role of Board President. Is it consistent with trustee role among community college. Previously Board President did not differ from other board members. Mr. Lumm remarked that the Board President has only one vote. Suggested that “we go by Robert’s Rules of Order” be inserted into policies.
• Ms. Toney stated there are times when there may be a gap in Board’s Code of Conduct as to who has the authority. What authority should board members have to supervise any other board member? Mr. Walker stated that no board member has the authority over any other board member. Mrs. Pearson commented the entire Board could agree on something, however asked if one member does not agree, could this bring the rest of the board down?
• Ms. Toney stated that she felt language was clear without additions. She stated that she would proceed with scheduling regional forums that would include advisory councils, community partners, higher education partners, vice presidents of student services and student life, as well as public and private partners. They would explore how to accept changes and have focused discussions designed specific outcomes intended.
• Phoenix College President Solley commented that she was encouraged to have discussions and invite advisory councils, as well as internal community. Changing the vision/mission/values will change and impact many things. The process has to be inclusive of stakeholders that the community colleges represent. Ms. Toney stated that stakeholders have been identified as taxpayers, students, K-12, universities, and public/private partners.
• Mrs. Pearson asked what costs are associated with revising policies, vision/mission/values.
• Dr. Glasper referred back to Dr. Solley comments referencing the trickle down effect. The District Vision/Mission/Values statements are contained the Colleges’ Vision/Mission/Values statements. If these are changed at the District level, a similar process will have to occur at each college. Thinking about the elephant in the room, if we move forward, are we moving to single accreditation? What do we do about the process of singular accreditation to District and each college? What is impact of making this change?
• SMC President Dr. Ken Atwater commented that as he looked at the document, there are concerns about taking diversity and inclusiveness out. These two things are very important at his college.
• CGCC Faculty Member Reggie Munro made reference to page 66 regarding curriculum. Ms. Toney responded that information contained on page 66 was written based on state statute.
• Vice Chancellor Dr. Steve Helfgot remarked that as we begin this process, we need to keep in mind the many ripples in the pond such as board members, presidents, advisory committees, chancellor, foundation members, and donors that believe their values and the values of the organization align with the Vision/Mission/Values of the District.
• Mrs. Pearson stated that when we make changes, we need to keep in mind the impact on our donors.

There being no further comments, Ms. Toney stated she believed she had enough information to take this process to the next level of working with Civic Participation to begin planning regional and college forums. She asked Board President Colleen Clark if she had any closing comments.

CLOSING COMMENTS - Colleen Clark

Ms. Clark came to the front of the room and indicated she had a personal statement to make. Although the timing of this statement was not ideal, she felt it was important. She stated that she had recently been issued a DUI which had most certainly changed her life. She had spent five hours at a restaurant and the evening easily transpired. She could not discount this and wanted to be transparent. She stated she was working with an attorney and attempting to work this out. There would most likely be county jail time and fines. As people that she admires, she wanted to ask forgiveness. Context was important for each one. She couldn’t tuck this away and is dealing with it directly. She stated it would not affect her career and her relationship with this organization. Mistakes are mistakes. She has much admiration for this organization and asked for people’s forgiveness.

Adjournment of Work Session and Move into Executive Session:
The work session adjourned at 6:25 p.m.