DIVERSITY ADVISORY COUNCIL
RETREAT MINUTES
Members Present: Steve Helfgot, Linda Rosenthal, Maria Hesse, Teresa Toney, Conrad Mills, Marie Parker, Jason Martinez, Steve Moore, Bonnie Gray, Pat Honzay, Bill Collins and Ernesto Sanchez for Mary Parker, Ladonna Lewis for Jayne Goldstein, Debbie Bies, Roxie Holmes, Genevieve Watson, Jeanne Lombardo, Janet Felton, Deborah Krumtinger, Gail Shay, Arunee Grow, Ruth Yandell, Gerry Bradshaw, Beatriz Cohen, Ken Clarke, Caryl Terrell-Bamiro, Pete Kushibab, Joe Pearson, Daniel Meador, Margaret Macias, Jane Saldana, Marybeth Mason, Connie Rainey, Christine Hall and Pat Wyler. Rufus Glasper attending as guest.
I.
Welcome & Introductions
The group was welcomed by Linda
Rosenthal and Steve Helfgot 1:
Minutes of May 3, 2002 meeting were previously distributed with agenda material.
II. Overview of Consultant Findings on Employment Practices
Report made by Rufus Glasper on behalf of Dr. Gaskin to provide an
initial briefing to members.
·
Relayed the
Chancellor’s commitment to diversity and what it means to the District. Message has been issued by the Chancellor on
what diversity means to him, and how it should move forward in the system.
·
Dialogue
began several months ago about this activity and determined to look outside the
District to get an independent view regarding diversity. Contracted with Ybarra & Pedrini to
perform internal assessment of what diversity means within Maricopa based on
the input of approximately 40 individuals including input from Governing Board,
management, faculty and staff members throughout the organization, and brief
with legal counsel. Final report has not
been produced as yet but draft should be available to share in the next month
or so.
Basis of some of the preliminary assessments and
how we can proceed:
·
Review of
policies and procedures, reports relating to employment practice of faculty,
staff, administrative personnel, Faculty in Progress Program (FIPP), and
Affirmative Action report.
Diversity Advisory Council
Minutes of Meeting –
Page Two
General findings of report:
· MCCD plan for increasing diversity has not been understood consistently by district employees.
· Need to be an integration and consistency of our message (first step taken by Chancellor by issuing statement).
· Perception that emphasis is only on certain community groups that we represent and perception message is “more window dressing than commitment”. Needs more work on that.
· Terminology and applying accurately and consistently will need an agreed upon definition relative to what is our defined community, what is diversity to us as a system and how will it be shared, what is affirmative action and what does it mean to us, how does it differentiate from EEO.
· Concern on how do we implement this message:
· Does it come to legal and executive guidance and what is allowed for us to do that;
· How much Governing Board emphasis should be placed on it in terms of a policy, adjustment in role and support;
· How much leadership should come from the District as well as the colleges or come from the colleges up to the District;
· How much training, its available to everyone and make sure it is consistent.
· Definition of diversity relative to faculty, major concern that there is a heightened level of understanding, definitions and training at the division chair level;
· How will we be held accountable (individually and collectively) for any changes we put in place;
· How will it be assessed on an annual basis;
· How is it placed in the individual evaluation of those who are on the campuses at the presidential, CEC/Vice Chancellor level and above;
· Move from fear to understanding and developing commitment to the message; concern for and protections from perceived methods of retaliation and methodology for development of level of trust;
· Recruitment and selection process, and the documentation used for that is written effectively and consistently and implemented on a consistent basis; current perception is that it is not, so we need to work on that area;
· Overall need for recruitment strategy, selection and hiring process that does not differ between our individual campuses and that is coordinated from beginning of process through offer and consistent throughout our system;
· Determine if there should be a central office of recruitment and how would it be coordinated and determine the importance of trying to impose our reputation; what are the real or perceived biases in our selection processes; this is an area that needs to work on;
Diversity Advisory Council
Minutes of Meeting –
Page Three
· How do you measure success (number of those individuals hired, demographic makeup of those hired, applying number or other criteria, what are short and long term goals and communication and how the information is shared to a larger circle about what is being done and the results);
· Administrative concerns for the method of measuring: staffing, travel, budget concerns, issues of reallocation and having adequate advertising dollars to specify types of positions we might want;
· Larger concern also expressed about the role of the selection committee chair and the composition of the committees, how are they selected and is it consistent, who chairs, determine criteria;
· Screening criteria and methods for criteria needs to be established and not exclude individual groups or those that should have some level of representation in the process;
· Larger part is training, a plan established that is consistent and adequate level of staff and individuals are allowed to do training;
· Hiring cycles need to be known and reasonable time lines need to exist; opening and closing of pool dates, recommending certain candidates by specific dates that coincide with financial commitment to have budgets in place; this will require some district and college coordination so it is in sync;
· Looking at number of colleges who would like to expand their role in the hiring process; like to avoid having duplicate offices that do similar things around the district because it will create a financial requirement, but could look into there being an office to assist in this process in a timely manner but still adhering to the issues of consistency, accountability and responsibility; piloting some of these areas;
· Improvement to the employment process: correct and accurate job postings (some are currently outdated); what do we mean by minimum and desired qualifications and how do they reflect the need of the position and how do they interact with groups;
· Review of transfer process, review of categories of adjunct, OYO and OSO position concepts and the concept of administrative reassignments and where does that fall within the process, is there a process, what is the appearance of bias and how can we make sure bias is minimized and minimize the perception that this is may be a closed system and balancing need for flexibility with the whole peer process;
· Organizing MCCD and its structure to reflect our goal of diversity once it is defined;
· Need for a diversity officer and if so is it aligned with the office of EEO and should it be one individual or multiple individuals with multiple responsibilities and what would it mean to our organization, what does it mean to our system.
Diversity Advisory Council
Minutes of Meeting –
Page Four
· How would that effort be coordinated with the whole issue of recruitment, how we are proceeding on diversity and how it ties directly with our affirmative action plan throughout; the organization needs to believe in and follow affirmative action and do everything that is legal and ethical to move through the process.
· Work with legal department to talk about issues of policy development and implementation and practice and work with training areas and others, what is the timeframe for possible rollout, what programs we need to look at first (i.e., FIPP) and how do we provide compliance with affirmative action.
Preliminary discussions currently being held on determining what this report means and how we then move ahead effectively; some components of report may not be agreed with by all but need to affirm that what is being done is correct for MCCD at this time; if it needs to change that maybe it would be made gradually and implemented over time. Certain aspects (i.e., well known policies and procedures) trying to be assured that are being followed consistently and making sure the resources are available for the commitment being made to do this.
Discussed basic makeup of the groups/individuals interviewed during the report process.
III. Self-Introductions and Comments
All members in attendance introduced themselves and the college/interest group they were representing.
Members provided role from their respective college/interest groups to the Diversity Advisory Council, and what they personally and professionally bring to and what they, and ultimately their students, may also receive from this group.
Breakout of groups will also provide opportunity to further develop networking and getting acquainted with other college representatives, interest groups and staff in the field of diversity.
IV. Historical Review
Linda Rosenthal introduced a report prepared entitled the “Maricopa Community College District Diversity Efforts” for the period December 1994 to May, 2002. Discussion held regarding history of the Council.
Diversity Advisory Council
Minutes of Meeting –
Page Five
Joe Pearson added historical footnote of how the group has gone from being named the Diversity Steering Team to its current name of Diversity Advisory Council; explanation made as to what the Steering Team consisted of in terms of subteams and subcommittees and described their roles and what the coordinators of the subteams were responsible for. Six (6) subteams established were: 1) Programs and services for students, faculty/staff; 2) Student populations; 3) Policies; 4) Workforce issues; 5) Curriculum; and 6) Processes and procedures. These groups identified goal/actions they wanted to accomplish through semesters/years depending upon assignment.
Pat Honzay discussed results of the Maricopa Diversity Survey – Employee Questionnaire which was conducted last spring, and modeled on the Student Survey done previously, made more appropriate for the employees; number of employees participated was 1,100; information provided is condensed. For history purposes, Joe Pearson reflected on the student survey conducted previously.
Teresa Toney distributed for the proposed outcomes for diversity goal statement as that will serve as a historical document for reports on the policy actions that have taken place regarding diversity for the District.
Also distributed by Teresa Toney was a draft document of
the Report relating to the MCCD Governing Board Goal on Diversity that is to be
submitted to the Governing Board on
Three areas/outcomes developed and are being monitored related to diversity: 1) Classroom Climate/Campus Environment; 2) Student Outcomes Related to Diversity; and 3) Workplace Diversity. While the Governing Board goal statement (Students will be served by faculty and staff who reflect the communities we serve and who create an environment of equity and mutual respect) may be noble, it does carry with it some legal issues as to what can and cannot be done in terms diversity. This produced a focus the DAC group is to discuss the skills necessary for employees to have related to diversity (i.e., placing a native american student to be matched with a native american counselor, African american student to be slated with an African american counselor, etc…); need to determine in terms of diversity what skills all employees should have to serve all students, not just one particular ethnicity or race.
Diversity Advisory Council
Minutes of Meeting –
Page Six
Draft document/report sections discussed. Requested review by members and submit as soon as possible to Teresa any comments, corrections and/or concerns about the document as it is in the final development stages getting ready to print.
Purpose of this type of report is for the Governing Board to be able to, for each of its goals on an annual basis to be able to hear an accounting of what has been done with regard to their goal statement.
Teresa addressed to Rufus Glasper that in the course of performing this review, acknowledgement does need to be made that dialogue is taking place and that time is being taken putting the report together, it can possibly used as a starting point.
Rufus Glasper responded to the suggestion made by Teresa as excellent. He and Steve Helfgot have had the opportunity to visit with the Chancellor relative to the draft monitoring report. Looking in terms of how the district may be moving ahead, there will definitely be components of the report that should be the purview of this committee in terms of responding; not wishing to “reinvent the wheel” and don’t want to develop something that is not a consensus of the Diversity Advisory Council; the group will be worked with closely.
Further discussion was held on the full report that will
be submitted to the Governing Board on
V. Tri-Chairs’ Philosophies and Expectations of the Diversity Advisory Council
Tri-chair Linda Rosenthal discussed ideals on what she would like to achieve this year, and what each of us is going to accomplish for the year so that at the end, when a new statement is written that there really is some “meat”. To do this we have got to figure out:
1) Help develop some outcomes for each of the ways we are going to monitor the Governing Board goals so at the end of the year hopefully indicators of success will be evident (something has been done);
2) Group to form a nucleus to accomplish real work, do it well together and move the diversity agenda along a little faster than has been the recent pace; this may mean breaking up into subteams as has been done in the past in order to really do some things that really need to be addressed.
3) Looking forward to working with group and new leadership and new members with a lot of energy which may mean developing a new definition, certainly a mission statement for this group and this to be a “working council”, anxious to see what can be accomplished.
Diversity Advisory Council
Minutes of Meeting –
Page Seven
Tri-chair Maria Hesse discussed how she has served in the past and in what capacity with the Diversity Advisory Council. She has similar sense that Linda Rosenthal has in that this group is committed to and has an interest in creating an environment of respect and inclusiveness for all employees and students but a lag has been reached. Earlier efforts of the group where more tangible with specific things that could be worked on and now a sense of uncertainty exists as to what are the actual things to get their “hands around” to accomplish. She is interested in:
1) Challenge of this year would be to identify those things clearly and then making some progress on them. Past accomplishments have been really good but a problem does exist as to what should be done with those accomplishments now (how do we act/react as a district).
2) Awareness level has been raised by this group as to issues to be addressed, but have the hearts and minds of our students been deeply penetrated in any significant way as result of the work so far. This should be the measure the group should hold itself to, looking at accomplishments and what difference has there been in the life of our students and what they have learned as the result of their experience at the Maricopa Community Colleges. We should ask ourselves if we have profoundly improved the intellectual, social and emotional development of our students in the system.
3) Major things to work on in the coming year:
a) Policies, procedures and protocols that need to be addressed; they need to be identified and progress needs to be made on them. Some of these were mentioned earlier by
Rufus Glasper in respect to hiring practices and there are others as well; and
b) Need to impact employees and students in terms of how we create a climate for
an environment in which we would all enjoy working and learning. Examples to consider for discussion and development of some clarity: Policies with regard to religious holidays and how that should happen (applies to work or classroom); hiring practices; articulated rationale for support of a racial, ethnic and fully diverse faculty and staff—is it strong; test of affirmative action knowledge as training device for employees; employee development; training and diversity issues for faculty and staff (best use of dollars); engage students.
Tri-chair Steve Helfgot related that sometime in the future his single greatest goal for us as a group will be to celebrate the day when we no longer need to exist as a group, when we are not about the business of diversity by calling together a council of people to address it, but as a system of individual colleges and as a district we are simply about the business of being diverse.
Steve related some of his past experiences as relates to diversity both personally and professionally, and how something can be developed where being diverse is just the reality. The dilemma is how do we get to something like that when the structural world we live and work in here is not that world.
Diversity Advisory Council
Minutes of Meeting –
Page Eight
Goals this year:
1) Most colleges are a reflection of the world in which they reside and change does not always come quickly. How are structural approaches developed to try and compensate for the fact that world in which the colleges “live” may change more quickly than do the colleges themselves? No magic answers, not exactly sure how we do this, just sure this is important to do.
2) Diversity and quality do not stand in opposition to one another. Access and excellence can go together in harmony and that is a goal toward which we should strive. We should make more and more efforts to go out and make contact with more and more different groups within our community with the goal of seeing the boundaries between the college and the community become fuzzy and eventually become invisible. Then we will be in fact reflections of our communities.
3) We are dealing with diversity from a “structural” point of view and therefore what kind of structural things can we do to bring change. The goal has to be for diversity to become organic and not structural—something that grows out and in of who and what we are. If we can make progress on that where at the end of our year diversity at MCCD is “a little more organic and a little less structural” then this will be a very successful year. Wish us all well.
VI. Role of the Diversity Advisory Council and Member Responsibilities
General discussion of roles and responsibilities of this council were held.
Jeanne Lombardo raised a question regarding diversity and as a system do we represent the community (county) and secondarily does the faculty represent the diversity contained within the student body.
Gerry Bradshaw reported that numbers reflected for diversity based soley on ethnicity (uncomfortably so). The makeup of the student body is 27.9% minority, and 27.1% of the makeup of our faculty and staff workforce is minority (not including adjunct faculty or temporary workers). This does not represent the county population at all. These are raw numbers, not an overall reflection and for a more true reflection we may need to look at a specific college, and its specific service area to obtain a truer view.
Teresa Toney reflected each year the council seems to be a different group of people so loss of continuity/loss of history/loss of momentum occurs in terms of what’s accomplished and what still needs to be done; representatives still continue to come but may not clearly be aware of why they need to be on the council. As representatives, if we are advisory to the Chancellor, what do we understand our role to be, and how do we focus our activity to make sure that we accomplish that mission. This Council has evolved to be advisory soley not to the Chancellor but to the CEC of which the Chancellor is chair.
Diversity Advisory Council
Minutes of Meeting –
Page Nine
Joe Pearson indicated the role of the representatives is not just reporting/reflecting what is happening, but also being involved with driving something for the college/group in conjunction with the district in accomplishing the goal of diversity.
There was discussion as to the responsibility each member takes in accomplishing the diversity goal. A myth exists that members only provide the advice, with some others “using” the advice; this council membership has the role of doing both—everyone having a role and responsibility.
VII. Breakout Activity
Handouts (previously distributed) and how they will apply for this activity was discussed. The documents include a separate matrix format document (three pages) and the proposed outcomes document previously distributed by Teresa Toney for discussion earlier. Facilitators and Tri-chairs identified previously as:
· Group One – Facilitator: Marie Parker; Tri-Chair: Steve Helfgot
· Group Two – Facilitator: Joe Pearson; Tri-Chair: Linda Rosenthal
· Group Three – Facilitator: Teresa Toney; Tri-Chair: Maria Hesse
To determine group identification, members counted off for placement.
Prior to the group breakout activity Gail Shay reported regarding hiring and declared that there is a commission on faculty hiring/recruitment and it is already working on some of these issues. She stressed that the Diversity Advisory Council should work together with them on these issues rather than working separately. This may be an issue DAC would need to be sensitive to in other areas as well.
Members recessed to groups
activity at
VIII. Breakout Reports
Members reconvened at
Next meeting for the DAC set for
Diversity Advisory Council
Minutes of Meeting –
Page Ten
Reports of breakout groups:
Group One: Assignment – Diversity Outcome 1: Classroom Climate and Campus Environment
Steve Helfgot and Marie Parker
reporting. Dr. Helfgot reported
that the group brainstormed a number of ideas and approaches that we might take
in improving the climate and only toward the end was time available to look at who’s responsibility it might be. The group will need to meet prior to
Marie Parker discussed some items addressed:
· Develop a form of training whatever that may be and in addition develop an instrument so that we can measure the outcome not only from the campus, but also district focus;
· Development through the students; if we are supporting an outcome through training, how best to know how that is working for our faculty and staff. Develop a means to get feedback to know we are actually implementing what we say.
· Every college conduct a survey of its climate to know what our students think of our college campus climate and the environment they are in.
· Marketing this perception addressing those looking at it not only from an individual campus perspective but also from their community point of view and how do we know that.
· How do we address our uncounted population; need to find out who they are and how do we find ways to be able to get them to our campuses and to retain them.
· Profile student population.
· Bring community onto the campus; let them know who we are and what we are doing—how do we get their input on what we need to be doing in our classrooms.
· Culturally sensitive from recruiting to the instructor in the classroom; develop a means to measure if we are being culturally sensitive in our classroom. What is involved in that?
· Could develop a Community Advisory Group for each campus.
· Faculty addressing the needs of students with multiple commitments looking at that also not just from an individual campus but across the district.
Group Two: Assignment – Diversity Outcome 2: Student Outcomes
Bonnie Gray and Jason Martinez reporting.
Items addressed:
· What focus should be from the student perspective.
· Should employee model the kinds of behavior that we want students to display—kind of like a mirroring effect.
Diversity Advisory Council
Minutes of Meeting –
Page Eleven
· Idea of fostering a feeling of mutual respect and equity instead of focusing on racial issues and differences, looking for similarities instead.
· Look at whether outreach should be used in locations such as high schools and community entities to create more of a feeling of connection to the community colleges, wanting people to feel they would like to come, possibly feeling more at home.
· Should there be a focus on determining and developing what already exists first and then outreach into the community rather than focusing on the community and then bringing it back into our colleges.
Goals developed:
· Focus not only on faculty training but also student training through student clubs, student forums, encouraging students to do internships with diversity infusion program and bring training to the students to create a better understanding.
· Infusion program measures outcome in terms of whether faculty who infuse their courses, what happens to those students who take these courses. Do they take additional courses; what happens when they go on?
· Overlap can exist in student outcomes that also affects faculty training; we need to look at and discuss the possibility of mandatory training of all employees in terms of diversity awareness.
Examples of how student outcomes can be improved from the inside out:
· Student forum groups to be regrown; get them back together and less isolated, everyone being more aware of each others existence and the issues encouraging more of a communal approach of the student clubs/groups; how can they help each other.
· Involve students with strategic and facilities planning conversations on the campus to improve knowledge of what goes on with a campus to help “buy into some ownership” of the program/campus; encourage and create another ally for the internal community that can also be sent back into the external community for improved communication.
Joe Pearson reported the efforts above have generated interest in development of a model which Jason Martinez and Genevieve Watson graciously consented to lead the effort to making this model come to fruition from a district wide standpoint.
Teresa Toney noted that relative to the Governing Board Monitoring Report, and regarding the question to what we can do better relative to diversity, she would like to take some of the key points each of the groups have made today and include them with that report.
Group Three: Assignment – Diversity Outcome 3: Workplace Diversity
Teresa Toney reporting. Discussion/focus centered on skill sets that many felt employees should have:
Diversity Advisory Group
Minutes of Meeting –
Page Twelve
· Recognizing and capitalizing on things that already exist; be sure we are supporting programs that already exist, not just develop something new.
· Recognize the challenges in working with faculty groups with time limited availability so we structure things so that faculty can attend.
· Diversity component could be added to the EDU courses.
· Make diversity a part of an evaluation for an employee.
· For employees who have been in the system for 5 years or more, maybe a reorientation can be developed with regard to the values—get back to basics and develop an avenue of flexibility and how people can learn about diversity.
· Provide skills for faculty and all employees when dealing with incidents of conflict (i.e., racial name calling in the classroom, etc.) and how it should be handled.
· Target student services employees working directly with students on the front line (including recruitment and retention), and be sure they are aware of diversity issues.
· Need to review hiring practices and procedures to make sure that roadblocks don’t exist to hiring more diverse faculty and other employee groups.
IX. Discussion Items.
Linda Rosenthal called for volunteers to work on developing a draft mission statement for the Diversity Advisory Council. Jeanne Lombardo identified by Linda Rosenthal with co-chair determined as Roxie Holmes. Others to participate: Bill Collins, Pat Honzay, Janet Felton and Debbie Bies (not in the room). Linda Rosenthal happy to also meet with the group when a date is determined; assignment for the group is to bring back a draft for the mission statement for the next meeting.
Discussion items for next meeting:
· Report of the Infusion Program
· Report of the 3 Breakout Working Groups and be able to measure what is being identified by the groups; keep formulating what is being done into a single project of some substance that might be able to be done in the remainder of the year to help give the DAC a full agenda and have some things to look back on and what follows.
X. Plus / Delta:
Plus: Good participation; finishing on time; size of group; good balance of previous members and new members; good group representation; good breakout groups; good
Diversity Advisory Council
Minutes of Meeting –
Page Thirteen
productivity; both passion and a little bit of heat; people well prepared; relaxed atmosphere.
Delta: None.
Meeting adjourned:
Presented to DAC Meeting Held on