MARICOPA COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD RETREAT
APRIL 21, 2009
MINUTES
A retreat of the Maricopa County Community College District Governing Board was scheduled to be held at 5:00 p.m.. at the Rio Conference 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 (Via Teleconferencing)
ADMINISTRATION
Rufus Glasper
Pete Kushibab
Gloria Smith
CALL TO ORDER
The retreat was called to order at 5.10 p.m. by Governing Board President
Colleen Clark. Ms. Clark welcomed everyone to this retreat which would include
discussion pertaining to the following topics:
A. Request for Proposals Committee
B. 49% Active Retirement Program
C. Student Insurance Deductible
D. FY 2009-10 Budget
Request for Proposals Committee
Ms. Clark commented that when the idea of the Request for Proposals was first
discussed a committee to bring forth three formal proposals had been recommended.
These proposals would be brought before the Board. She said that a discussion
with Mr. Lumm, it was called to her attention that some members were interested
in nominating members for that committee. At this time, she was interested
in discussing that nomination process and would call upon each board member
to voice their thoughts.
Randolph Lumm: Interested in recommending someone for the committee.
Jerry Walker: No preference
Debra Pearson: Stressed the importance of credentials and criteria
to be considered as part of the study, as well as qualifications based on
scope of work and their experience in those areas. Individuals should come
from business and education. She also asked if each board member would represent
each division?
Don Campbell: No Preference
Discussion:
President Clark commented that the original decision had been that the Board
Chair would bring forth three proposals on behalf of the selection committee.
She requested legal opinion from General Counsel Pete Kushibab. Mr. Kushibab
stated that the main issue was the matter of the open meeting law. Because
MCCCD is a public body, open meeting rules also would include advisory committees
appointed by the Board. If the committee was appointed by the Board, they
need to conduct themselves pursuant to open meeting law. Mrs. Pearson commented
that if the board is to appoint the committee, she recommended having each
one name someone and board members make assignments. Mr. Lumm wanted to make
sure that the Board looked for people who represent business and education.
Mrs. Pearson asked if each board member was to pick a person. President Clark
indicated that it would be a combination of all of the previously mentioned
points and that she would appoint and bring forward a list of nominees for
Board approval. Mrs. Pearson stated that the original outline called for a
committee made up of people who had business experience and education experience
to bring to this discussion, and also ensure that someone has technology experience.
Mr. Lumm requested the following criteria be set: Business, Education, and
Technology. President Clark asked that the discussion go back to original
discussion of creating the committee. Mrs. Pearson asked if the Board would
be supporting that concept or new concept and asked what the committee would
look like? President Clark indicated she would work with individuals that
she has been in discussions with and set up an advisory committee and appoint
individuals. Advisory committee would be appointed and would be subject to
open meeting law. Mrs. Pearson asked how the individuals would be appointed
and what criteria would be used. President Clark repeated that criteria would
be business and education individuals who rely on community colleges to supply
their employees. Mr. Lumm indicated he didn’t want someone from just
business but someone who also had technology experience. Mr. Walker suggested
the committee be appointed, recommendations be brought back to the Board for
approval, and that this group be subject to open meeting law.
Motion 9543
President Clark repeated the motion and asked for a roll call vote. The motion
stated: Appoint advisory committee to the Board for RFP process, subject to
open meeting law.
Vote
Vote: 2 yes, 2 no, 1 abstention (Campbell: abstain; Lumm: yes; Walker: no;
Pearson: aye; Clark: no) Motion not approved
New Discussion:
Mr. Lumm asked if he made a suggestion for President Clark to accept or reject,
would ultimate decision be made by President Clark and if she had authority
to accept or reject. Mrs. Pearson asked what other option could be made for
the Board. Mr. Kushibab responded that the procurement process was in play
here and typically the administration appoints a committee to review and Board
can appoint a commission. Dr. Campbell recommended that five members serve
on this committee and that it consist of two people from the business community,
two from the educational community, and the Board Chair.
Motion: 9544
President Clark stated a new motion that a committee be created by the Board
which would allow the Chair to serve on and appoint two individuals from education
and two from business. Mr. Lumm requested an amendment that the committee
include three individuals from business, three people from education, and
the Board Chair.
Amended Motion: 9545
That a committee be created by the Board which would allow the Chair to serve
on and appoint three individuals from education and three from business.
Vote:
Vote: 4-1 (Mrs. Pearson: no)
Discussion:
Mr. Lumm requested that President Clark appoint someone from technology and
that the committee also include two minorities and two females. President
Clark reiterated instructions which included appointing three members from
business, three members from education, and providing resumes of individuals.
All members of the advisory committee will receive all proposals and maintain
a timeline. There have been nine bids received. Mr. Kushibab reminded everyone
that the open meeting would not apply to the committee appointed by the Board
Chair. Mrs. Pearson made a motion that the committee be subject to open meeting
law as its purpose would be to allow the Board to provide more input. The
scope of the project is very large and very important and would provide an
opportunity to walk the talk. President Clark stated that communication and
transparency will be very evident. Committee will utilize a scoring sheet
and will bring back conclusions for discussion subject to open meeting law.
Motion: 9546
Committee would be subject to open meeting laws
Vote:
Vote: 4-0 (Walker: Abstained)
49% Active Retirement Program
Mr. Lumm expressed concern that Phoenix College has discontinued the 49% Active
Retirement Program. He expressed concern that a commitment had been made to
certain people and then pulled out. There is a need to be consistent. Classes
will not appear because faculty will not be there.
Discussion:
Chancellor Glasper responded that Phoenix College has not yet implemented
this. Each college made a list of proposed reductions that they would make
in the event they were required to cut budgets by 3% and that decision has
not been made. Scenario: If the Governing Board were to make decision that
faculty would be available to teach, then the budget would be balanced appropriately.
If we go above 2%, conversations would be held with the employee groups. Mr.
Lumm asked what the deadline was. Dr. Glasper responded it would be early
June. Conversations which had been started were stopped due to decision to
seek third party review of District efficiencies. Dr. Glasper requested direction
on what the Board would like to do to standardize the 49% program and further
asked if the program was only available to faculty who were in the classroom?
President Clark asked if Board Members were in agreement. Mr. Walker indicated
that each college president should be allowed to make their own decisions.
Ms. Clark stated that the Board needed to allow Dr. Glasper and Dr. Harper-Marinick,
in concert with college presidents, to project faculty needs relative to the
49% program. Mr. Lumm stated he thought new faculty were obtaining 49%, therefore,
what about old faculty? Dr. Glasper commented there were no guarantees on
49% because this was based on needs and funding. Faculty are allowed one year
for every five years of service. Mrs. Pearson commented that people have had
a commitment made to them and Dr. Glasper responded that no commitments have
been made per se but practice has been that if funding is available, discussions
will be held each year. Mr. Lumm expressed concern that faculty plan on this,
Phoenix College has indicated this will be discontinued and other colleges
have not. Dr. Glasper inquired if the Board was giving direction for every
college to evaluate the program? Some do 25%, other 30%, etc. If this is a
priority of the Board, that is the directive he will pursue. Mr. Lumm expressed
a desire to have this be consistent and also have Phoenix College go 30% and
focus on individuals that are now in program. President Clark emphasized that
the Board wants to respond to needs based on classrooms and availability and
funding. Mr. Walker commented that these individuals are already receiving
their full retirement and up to 49% additional. Dr. Glasper commented that
on funding for 2010 colleges will not be asked to reduce above 2%. Ms. Clark
stated that this was based on funding, needs, and respect for employees, capitalizing
on experience they bring to the classroom, and that 49% for faculty is a primary
need.
Motion #1 9547
President Clark proposed that the Chancellor ask CEC to look at overall picture
at all colleges and come back with recommendation as to what they are tying
to achieve and how they are trying to meet those needs.
Dr. Glasper reminded the Board that the current active retirement program includes employees groups and not just faculty. Would motion include teaching faculty only?
Amended Motion #2: 9548
President Clark motioned that active retirement be made available only to
teaching faculty to fill the needs for the classroom relative to needs at
each campus based on funding availability.
Vote #2:
Vote: 3-1-1 (Campbell, Walker, Clark: yes; Lumm: no; Pearson: abstain)
Mr. Lumm commented he was still concerned about Phoenix College being anti-faculty. Mrs. Pearson commented she had spent time with President Solley, as this campus is in her district and also because of numerous negative e-mails from Phoenix College. She has received more negative e-mails from this campus than any other campus. She attempted to see what she could do to handle the negativity. Keeping an open mind, she determined that many employees have been there for many years and are a very vocal group. She said that Dr. Solley is a no-nonsense administrator and has shown respect for employees at Phoenix College. Out of respect for Dr. Solley, Mrs. Pearson indicated she would like to acknowledge all that she has had to deal with. President Clark indicated Mrs. Pearson has asked her to consider a transitional period of one year before changing the 49% program. Dr. Glasper suggested discussions be held regarding other individuals who perform valuable service to the district as part of the active enrollment program. Dr. Glasper also said he would use that time to provide the Board with information on what non-teaching but essential faculty and other staff do while part of the 49% program.
Amended Motion #3: 9549
Amended motion: Motion pertaining to active retirement program amended to
allow for a one year transition period for non-teaching staff.
Vote #3:
Vote: 4-1 (Mrs. Pearson abstained)
Student Insurance Deductible
At the request of Board member Jerry D. Walker, the District will study ways
to ease the burden of student athletes -- and possibly other students -- who
are injured and seek physical therapy for which they must pay insurance co-pays.
Chancellor Rufus Glasper said that when new health insurance bids are examined
later this year, bidders will be asked to provide bids on insurance both with
and without co-pays, to determine how much additional cost the district would
have to bear to provide insurance with no co-pays. The Board also asked district
officials to determine whether it would be feasible to create a pool of money
that could be used by needy students who face co-payments for post-injury
physical therapy treatments.
FY 2009-10 Budget
President Clark called attention to two handouts which had been provided to
Board Members. These were the General Fund Revenue Projection FY 2009 To FY
2012 and the FY2010 Resource Allocation Proposal. She requested that Dr. Glasper
provide explanations on these two documents.
With reference to the General Fund Revenue Projections, Dr. Glasper pointed out that projections show that cumulatively more than $44 million would be available to students if the Board increases the primary levy by the 2% permitted by the Constitution; This is important in a period of enrollment growth as we try to complete the bond program approved by 76% of voters. Regardless of whether the Board approves the 2% levy increase, the primary tax rate is expected to rise in FY 2010-11 due to expected declines in assessed valuation. This change is strictly defined by the Constitution and an overall rate increase signals a decline in property values. Therefore a house worth of $100,000 may now be worth $80,000; however, even with the tax rate increase, the amount of taxes paid may not increase.
With reference to Resource Allocations, Dr. Glasper also pointed out that projected revenue received from applying the FY2010 Primary Property Tax rate to property which was not previously on the tax rolls. Does not include 2% increase on existing property permitted by the Constitution (voter approved). Redeployment of the 2% permanent budget cuts to Colleges and District Office. Operating State Aid cut in January 2009 will be permanent in FY 2010.
Discussion:
Mrs. Pearson inquired about the economic levels for those individuals who
are experiencing layoffs and losing their homes. Dr. Glasper indicated that
whatever decisions are made by the Board will impact new faculty. Chancellor
Glasper told the Board that the district and colleges still could face budget
cuts, but given the projection of economic stimulus money coming to the state,
the district is not sure what the impact will be. He said the district continues
to closely monitor budgets and state activities around economic stimulus money.
Concluding Comments:
There being no further topics for discussion, the meeting was adjourned by
President Clark.
Adjournment of Retreat: The retreat adjourned at 6:53 p.m.
.