MARICOPA COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
FEBRUARY 3, 2009
A retreat 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.
Colleen Clark, President
Randolph Lumm, Secretary
Don Campbell, Member
Jerry Walker, Member
Debra Pearson, Member
CALL TO ORDER
The retreat was called to order at 5.25 p.m. by Governing Board President Colleen Clark. Ms. Clark welcomed everyone to this retreat which would include discussion pertaining the following topics:
A. Discussion of creation of a Board “program” that will govern the Board’s objectives and direction for the year (negotiating and setting goals)B. Discussion of Board Member Top Ten Programs and Areas of Focus for the YearC. Board Committees (Board Member Specializations)D. Submission of Board Action Items by Board MembersE. Revision to Personnel Action ProceduresF. Implementation and Accountability of District-wide Customer Service BasicsG. Evaluation of Maricopa Administrative Costs (14.5%)
Ms. Clark further informed that an executive session had been added at the end of the retreat for the purpose of consulting with the attorney for the Governing Board in order to consider its position and instruct its attorney regarding its position in pending or contemplated litigation or settlement discussions conducted in order to avoid or resolve litigation--A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(5)--Inquiry into employment practices.
Maricopa Community College District Successes and Strengths
Ms. Clark requested that each board member provide their comments and thoughts pertaining to what they felt were or had been the District’s successes and strengths.
1. Spoke about his involvement with a group of three other retired people who wanted to be involved with the community and were concerned about the high dropout rate in their district. They meet with sixth and seventh graders at local schools to encourage them to stay in school and move through the system into high school. This experience has shown him and other members of the group about the need to mentor young people in the elementary schools. Dr. Campbell suggested the possibility of putting a college in the South Phoenix area and using it as a role model. He also spoke about encouraging students who don’t necessarily want college degrees to pursue other vocational certificate programs. Even though we have the Maricopa Skills Center in South Phoenix, most students come from other areas other than South Phoenix. SMC and GWC have also been very successful in that a lot of parents have now started going to these two colleges.
Discussion: Are there any statistics as to where students come from?
Response: Assessment is correct in that most students at MSC do not come from South Phoenix Area. Furthermore, financial situation has slowed things down.
2. The City of Phoenix is putting a library at SMC so that people from the community can
participate on this campus. NAU has built a facility there as well and they can take third and fourth year level classes.
Discussion: Will there be a children’s section at this library?
Further thought: There is a need for additional sources of funding.
1. Dual Enrollment is a big success. Glendale Community College has backed out, however, some of the other colleges still participate in this. This program has had difficulty at the legislature. There is a conflict with paying teachers for dual enrollment. As board members, we need to contact legislators and let them know how dual enrollment works and how important it is for students.
Discussion indicated that this battle has been fought for many years. Got close to losing it last few years but it is still intact. One legislator keeps it in the forefront. Teachers doing extra work but not being paid. There are rigid standards in how this program is run.
1. Multiplicity of campuses. Need to increase in other communities. Dual enrollment is a great concept. Need to consider putting campuses on high school campuses. Place them where people are and have them in every high school.
Discussion: Surprise and Buckeye have them. Need to get data about high schools they
are in and look at building capacity. Some high schools want community colleges to pay
additional dollars for liability and this is not offset by state aid. K-12 attorneys pursuing
this. Insurance premiums have increased. How are underwriters scoring these? Can we
do a secondary insurance. Do cost benefit analysis on this. We cannot insure for a wrong
to an offense on other people’s property.
1. Strong desire within the community of Maricopa to be innovative and try new things. Interested in ways that we can facilitate this.
2. Opportunity to interact with ASU. Would like to see this relationship be a success. Maintain and increase this.
- Articulation Authority passed in 1998.
- What does “relationship” mean?
- How many students transfer to ASU? MOU further enhanced ability to transfer students. Try to keep student through 35 hours. We now have NAU on campus which will help increase numbers who go on to ASU.
- How many students are going elsewhere? The three public universities maintain a tracking with us. Privates do not. Leverage could be that if they don’t cooperate, maybe we don’t ???
1. During her experience at national level, she would immediately call to mind the Maricopa Community College District. Very well respected. People were frustrated with their board members taking kickbacks and not showing up for votes. MCCCD has a stand up historical system.
- Success with individual communities and that communities perceived that the colleges were their colleges.
- Building stronger transfer relationships with institutions. Strengths are the transfers.
- Choices. How do we focus students into more technical areas.
- Accomplished the Bond Program and partnerships with communities. When needs identified, we accomplished them.
- Workforce Development.
- Set a standard for student success so that we can see where we have been successful and where we can go.
- Notoriety in U.S. and County.
Board Member Three Top Tens
1. How to create policy and how to address issues that come to board members? This has become a goal. Has expressed concerns to Presidents. Need to become a national model. Broader issue of personnel policy.
Questioned who Mr. Walker was talking about in his #9. Mr. Walker responded that we ignore constituents of the United Stated and their ability to voice opposition to policies. It was asked if he was referring to fellow board members or if leadership was squashing opinions of employees. Mr. Walker said he has been told he has no right. If so, then this is personal. Is there a problem within the district with employees? Mr. Walker indicated groups of students have told him they cannot express themselves again deviant subcultures. Ms. Clark pointed out that this references the Value of Inclusiveness. Mrs. Pearson recapped how she understood this due to conversations she has had with SPPF students – they were told they could not express anything not on the green sheet. They cannot go into a congressman’s office and debate the issue. Some students have gone and made demands; dissention of opinion versus policy. Mrs. Pearson asked in what arenas would this dissention be expressed? Response from Mr. Walker was on campus. Once again Ms. Clark pointed out that because of Maricopa’s Value of Inclusiveness, reasonable conversation could be held. The term deviant subculture denotes look down on someone. Mr. Walker responded that deviant subculture meant a deviance from the norm, an abnormal relationship. He asked what deviant subculture meant in an educational setting. Mrs. Pearson responded that a board should not get involved in semantics with the public and instead choose words more carefully. Misspeaking grows into an abuse of people. People can say all they want and then we need to explain what we mean. Need to sensitive to how we can be perceived. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard. Mr. Walker stated he was not putting someone down but also not wanting mainstream to be put down. Inclusiveness is a value and needs to be held to a higher standard of accountability.
Dr. Campbell indicated he had been looking at Mrs. Pearson’s #5 and wondered how it could be accomplished. It was probably not a top 3 for everyone. Would like conversation and momentum in each column where everyone made a comment that could become a board legislative agenda. Need to work with individual colleges and bring to CEC. CEC would be the Think Tank. The legislative agenda should be more at a Board level. ABOR is known by the legislature and treated with respect. Community colleges need to come up to this level. A bill involving welfare reform should have benchmarks for welfare recipients. What is the number one indicator that made some go on welfare or not be on welfare: Education is the #1 factor. The resource to welfare reform is developing how we get people on welfare into a two-year program that is employable. Need to have them come to the community colleges. Create legislative policy and get a legislator that becomes a champion for the community colleges. If we tie into welfare reform, we could get more money. There needs to be accountability as a board and not work individually with legislature. We can’t go as an individual. We have lobbyist and they need to have clearer direction from the Board. Recommended that Mrs. Pearson be the one to pursue this. Need to set a board policy for things we want to see. Lobbyists are important but board members are even more important. We don’t want to become the ABOR. We want to become champions for the community colleges with programs. Historically what has happened prior to the State Board going away is that an agenda was presented by our Board and then it went to ACCA. We want to go one step further and promote the Board’s agenda. For Legislative Day for community colleges we have a localized agenda. AADGB representative could promote this agenda. MCCCD Board should be the catalyst to promote legislative agendas. The welfare reform concept is great but does not an initiative where we don’t get reimbursed.
Overview of Maricopa Administrative Costs (14.5%)
Ms. Debra Thompson provided the following overview of the Maricopa’s Administrative Costs:
The Maricopa Community Colleges’ annual budget presents planned operating expenditures by college/district office; by object code (salary, supplies), and also by functional area (instruction, student services). The presentation by functional area uses the definitions from the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). To allow for greater detailed understanding of the budget, Maricopa subdivides the Institutional Support category into administration and general institutional.
Maricopa’s FY 2008-09 General Operating Budget sorted by functional category identifies 14.2% or $85.3 million for Administration. We anticipate that this percentage will decline in FY 2010. Of this total amount, $8.1 million is a budgeted transfer to Fund 2, the Auxiliary Fund to support student activities. For FY 2009-10, we will consolidate student program resources in the General Operating Fund 1 and eliminate the need for most of the transfer.
In addition, we already have implemented permanent operating reductions and more may come as the Legislature works to balance the state budget. As colleges work through contingency plans to manage budget cuts, the Chancellor has directed that colleges must preserve to the extent possible Maricopa’s teaching and learning mission. While it may not be possible to make large cuts without impacting some instruction, student service and academic support activities, we remain mindful of this expectation.
Finally, as a practical matter, it is easy to overstate Administrative costs to a degree. For example, college administrators wanting to control costs may budget and expend resources from an account that they control. Since it is managed by an administrator, the account may be classified as “administrative” even though the item of expense may be additional adjunct faculty to teach additional students which is an instruction cost. Addressing this situation requires close work with college personnel to ensure that they understand the functional categories and the importance of appropriate reporting.
Definitions the various functional expense categories were provided. They are:
Instruction A functional expense category that includes expenses of the colleges, schools, departments, and other instructional divisions of the institution and expenses for departmental research and public service that are not separately budgeted. Includes general academic instruction, occupational and vocational instruction, community education, preparatory and adult basic education, and regular, special, and extension sessions. Also includes expenses for both credit and non-credit activities. Excludes expenses for academic administration where the primary function is administration (e.g., academic deans). Information technology expenses related to instructional activities if the institution separately budgets and expenses information technology resources are included (otherwise these expenses are included in academic support).
Administration A functional expense category that includes expenses for the day-to-day operational support of the institution. Includes expenses for general administrative services, central executive-level activities concerned with management and long range planning, legal and fiscal operations, space management, employee personnel and records, logistical services such as purchasing and printing, and public relations and development. Also includes information technology expenses related to institutional support activities. If an institution does not separately budget and expense information technology resources, the costs associated with student services and operation and maintenance of plant will also be applied to this function.
Student Services A functional expense category that includes expenses for admissions, registrar activities, and activities whose primary purpose is to contribute to students emotional and physical well - being and to their intellectual, cultural, and social development outside the context of the formal instructional program. Examples include student activities, cultural events, student newspapers, intramural athletics, student organizations, supplemental instruction outside the normal administration, and student records. Intercollegiate athletics and student health services may also be included except when operated as self - supporting auxiliary enterprises. Also may include information technology expenses related to student service activities if the institution separately budgets and expenses information technology resources (otherwise these expenses are included in institutional support.)
Public Service A functional expense category that includes expenses for activities established primarily to provide non instructional services beneficial to individuals and groups external to the institution. Examples are conferences, institutes, general advisory service, reference bureaus, and similar services provided to particular sectors of the community. This function includes expenses for community services, cooperative extension services, and public broadcasting services. Also includes information technology expenses related to the public service activities if the institution separately budgets and expenses information technology resources (otherwise these expenses are included in academic support).
General Institutional A functional expense category that includes expenses for the day-to-day operational and general administrative support of the institution such as safety, security, insurance, software licensing and computer repair, mail and copy services, etc.
Auxiliary Enterprises Expenses for essentially self-supporting operations of the institution that exist to furnish a service to students, faculty, or staff, and that charge a fee that is directly related to, although not necessarily equal to, the cost of the service. Examples are residence halls, food services, student health services, intercollegiate athletics (only if essentially self-supporting), college unions, college stores, faculty and staff parking, and faculty housing.
Scholarships and Fellowships That portion of scholarships and fellowships granted that exceeds the amount applied to institutional charges such as tuition and fees or room and board. The amount reported as expense excludes allowances and discounts.
Board members requested an evaluation of Administrative Costs (report due to Governing Board in two months). They asked what would 10% look like minus student scholarship or money transfers and how to get there in one year / five years. There is a need to make sure money is following students. A responsible board must be able to state emphatically that they are doing their jobs and that the organization is not top heavy. If we can say that there is a 10% cap, we can stand before any complaint that the organization may be top heavy. Not advocating impulsive choices. What would 10% look like minus student scholarships or money transfers. Guidelines as to what it would look like over a period of time ( 1, 2, 5 years). Need to look at contract and commitments that we have. We are going to downsize and if one person absorbs the work of another, that person would need an increase.
The issue of the Active Retiree Costs was raised. How much money is being spent and what work is being done? The benefit to the community must be provided. An analysis of this program should provide the benefits, a position analysis, how many are qualified and for how many years, how many are current employed under the program, and how is the salary determined.
Dual Enrollment was discussed. What has been the growth in the last five years? What is prohibiting us from going to the high schools and telling them about dual enrollment?
Implementation and Accountability of District-wide Customer Service Basics
Ms. Clark spoke about complaints she is receiving pertaining to level of customer service. People are complaining that no one want to answer questions. There are registration complaints and signage problems.
Dr. Glasper responded that a High Impact Service Model has been implemented with the District Office that could serve as a model for the campuses. What we are doing will be shared with the campuses.
Ms. Toney commented that it would be helpful if Board Members would share complaint information through the Chancellor and these could be sent to her for tracking purposes. If a pattern can be seen, this could be addressed. Perhaps the Ombuds hot line number could be printed on the bottom of business cards.
Revision to Personnel Action Procedures
As of January 27, personnel actions will be separated into four different actions:
- New Employments by employee groups
- Specially Funded Employments by employee groups
- Short Term Employments by employee groups
- Separations by employee groups
Colleges will continue to provide more information.
Top Three Discussions – FLIP CHART NOTES
• Athletics—sponsors, vendors to become self-supporting
• Naming rights
• Product equity
• Public/private relationship
• Parking—Leg statute
• Mutual benefit relationships (classes/businesses)
• Diversify streams of income through partnerships
• Expanded use of property, tech, and other resources
• Equitably and fairly promote best use of talent and skills
• How do we implement better customer service?
o African American
o Native American
• Adjunct issues (develop national model policy)
o Include more in: training/events
o Business Professional
o Better pay
• Active Retiree
o Position/position analysis
o How many are qualified for / how many years / how many are currently employed under the program
Miscellaneous Issue Bin Items
• Cars—auto expenses (cost/benefit analysis)
• PR/marketing materials (District and college levels)
o Currency and relevance
o Targeting high school students
o On more campuses
o More dual enrollment (give us % of growth over last five years)
• How do we get to parents and students of non-participating high schools?
Specializing Board Positions (Board Committees—Chairman)
• Policy (Mr. Jerry Walker)
• Minority Recruitment (Dr. Don Campbell)
• Fundraising/Foundation (Mrs. Debra Pearson)
• Technology (Mr. Randolph Lumm)
• Legislative / Parliamentarian (Mrs. Debra Pearson)
Should Board Members wish to have something on the Board Agenda, items should be submitted to the Board Chair who will discuss with the Chancellor.
Adjournment of Study Session and Move into Executive Session: The study session adjourned at 9:07 p.m. and the Board moved into Executive Session.
Randolph Elias Lumm
Governing Board Secretary