GOVERNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 14, 1995
MINUTES
An executive session convened at 5:30 p.m., pursuant to A.R.S. [[section]]38-431.02, notice having been duly given.A special meeting and a work study session of the Maricopa County Community College District Governing Board were scheduled to be held at 6:15 p.m. at the District Support Services Center, 2411, West 14th Street, Tempe, Arizona.
PRESENT
GOVERNING BOARD
Roy C. Amrein, President, Donald R. Campbell, Secretary, Ed Contreras, Member, Linda B. Rosenthal, Member, Nancy Stein, Member.ADMINISTRATION
Paul A. Elsner, Frank Ramirez for William Waechter, Bertha Landrum for Alfredo G. de los Santos Jr., Dan Whittemore, Ron Bleed, Janice Bradshaw, Raul Cardenas, Larry Christiansen, Ken Roberts for John Cordova,Art DeCabooter, Stan Grossman,Jim Jacob for Homero Lopez, J. Marie Pepicello, Phil Randolph, Linda Thor, Arnette Ward, John WaltripABSENT
STATE BOARD
Jim Ullman
CALL TO ORDER.
The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by President Amrein.EXECUTIVE SESSION.
President Amrein called for a motion convening an executive session, notice having been previously given.MOTION NO. 8354
Linda B. Rosenthal moved that an executive session be convened. Motion carried 5-0.The meeting recessed at 5:31 p.m.
The special meeting reconvened at 6:29 p.m.CONSIDERATION OF CONSENT AGENDA.
President Amrein asked if there were any requests to remove items from the Consent Agenda. There were none from the audience. Linda B. Rosenthal requested that item B-1 be removed from the Consent Agenda.The following items are included in the Consent Agenda:
(B-2) MARICOPA SKILL CENTER 1% SALARY ADJUSTMENT - approval of a 1% mid-year adjustment to the salary schedule for Maricopa Skill Center employees, with the increase for current employees retroactive to January 1, 1995.
(B-3) CONSIDERATION OF EMPLOYMENTS, RESIGNATIONS, RETIREMENTS, AND TERMINATIONS - approval of the personnel item.
(C-1)CONSTRUCTION AWARD FOR BUILDING 410 REMODELING AT WILLIAMS EDUCATION CENTER - awarding of a contract in the amount of Two Hundred Nine Thousand Six Hundred Five and no/100 Dollars ($209,605.00) to TDH Construction for remodeling of Building 410 at the Williams Education Center for Chandler-Gilbert Community College's Aviation Maintenance Program.
MOTION NO. 8355
Donald R. Campbell moved that the Governing Board accept the Consent Agenda with the exception of item B-1. Motion carried 5-0.(B-1) FLEX CREDIT BENEFIT PROPOSAL-FY '95-'96 - Diane Johns recommended approval of the implementation of the Flex Benefit Proposal to be effective July 1, 1995. Linda B. Rosenthal requested clarification of number 4) relating to funding for wellness activities for employees not electing medical coverage, and expressed her disapproval of differential benefits for employees and her support for personal/ individual responsibility. Donald R. Campbell commented on the use of property tax funding to support community colleges. Ed Contreras questioned the use of flex credit savings in lieu of returning those dollars to the employees.
MOTION NO. 8356
Donald R. Campbell moved that the Governing Board approve the implementation of the Flex Benefit Proposal to be effective July 1, 1995 with the following components: 1) The level of Flex Credits provided for full-time and part-time benefit-eligible employees based on the tier of medical coverage selected remain at the same level as FY '94-95; 2) Cash limitation of unexpended Flex Credits be reduced from 90% to 85% for full-time employees and from 67.5% to 65% for part-time employees' 3) Cash limitation of 50% of unexpended Flex Credits for employees hired after July 1, 1994, remain the same; and 4) wellness activities provided by the medical carrier for employees not electing medical coverage be funded from the aggregate cash-out forfeiture. Motion carried 3-2. Ed Contreras and Linda B. Rosenthal were opposed.ADJOURNMENT The Special Meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
(II)STRATEGIC ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH A LEARNING ORGANIZATION - The outcome was to define a learning organization and determine how we can improve our performance as a learning organization. Ron Bleed discussed definitions, activities, learning disciplines, and attributes of a learning organization. A learning organization was defined as "an organization skilled at creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge and at modifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights."
Ken Baer explained the ground rules, tools, including dialogue, and the self-assesmment test.
Ground Rules
Our purpose is learning together
- decision making not necessarily a result
- balance inquiry with advocacy
Distinguish data from abstractions
- identify and examine assumptions
Listen at the speed of sound
- be aware of the whole message ("Data", context, assumptions, opinions, etc.)
- thinking time is ok
Be aware of your own communication and thinking processes
- defensiveness
- over-advocacy based on personal opinion
- when frustrated, call your MA
Understand and improve our team's learning ability
Jan Baltzer introduced Pam Petersen, Arnette Ward, Joyce Elsner, Linda Thor, Larry Christiansen and John Schroeder, who participated in a role play. Attributes of non-learning organizations illustrated in the role play and questions and comments were as follows:- Organizational capability
- Discussion instead of dialogue
- Who's going to hold down the fort?
- What's in it for me?
- Competition for FTSE
- Lack of understanding of
- No clearly defined vision
- Lack of resolve
- No commitment
- No benefit discussion for students
- Is pain worth the gain?
- No team skills
- We tried it before
- Performance evaluation
- Dishonesty
- Budget issues
- Resentment
- Unfounded mandates
- Baggage - we're still mad about last time
- Will it include everybody?
- Us vs. them
- Roles separated rather than integrated
- Short-range thinking
- Personality issues
- Personal security
- Lack of trust
- Sacred cows
- Incentives
- Fear of change
- Mandated by district
- Poor communication
- Identity crisis
- Training
- Hierarchy
- Am I required to learn?
- Lack of equipment
- Lack of discovery
- Restrictive current personnel policies
- Looking at future issues with old criteriaSmall group discussions were facilitated by Ken Baer, Ron Bleed, Jan Baltzer, and Donna Schober. Major issues identified included development of a change model that can be communicated, responsibility and resources, FTSE, training needs, a need for evolving personnel policies, and a detailed definition and process of communication.
Group One
Change Management
- Real change or name change?
- Behavior follows incentive
- Simple well communicated philosophy on what the purpose of the organization is
- Drive out fear
- Answer the question, "Why change?"
- Attitude affects fear level
- Fear of control and being out of control
- Assessment of where people are now - need to know how much change is needed - how much training - how committed - listening to understand where people are
- One of training issues is integration of roles and responsibilities
- Address risk-taking and possible failures
- What will cost of failure be?
- Job security is important
- How long will this take?
- How much will it cost?
- Develop a "change model"
- stages
- support plan
- celebrations
- Apathy is bigger problem than negativity
- If we don't manage change, it will manage us
- Strategy should be proactive
- Involve stakeholders in processes of change and dealing with change
- Constant communication
- Chaos before changeGroup Two
Responsibility and Resources
- Organization vs. personal
Training
- Funding
People
Equipment
District Office mandates
- Will it include all?
- FTSE competition
No commitment
- Foster more personal commitment to learning
- Organization responsible for environment
- Organization sets vision for where we want to go for learning
- Organization prides opportunities and rewards for learning
- Issue of workloads
- Must include more employees
- Foster learning for part-timers
- Set tenor for all levels of employees
- Include all in vision of Learning Organization.
- Foster buy-in--show benefitFTSE Competition
- Paralyzes sharing of ideas
- Criteria needs to be clear for each college and unit
- Why use FTSE at all?
- Old terminology
- Need to share at all levels
- Rewards now promote dysfunction regardless of mission statement
- Power in coming together
- Funding structure demands it
- FTSE on exterior - something different on inside
- Where is mission?
- Resource allocation is politicalPeople
- Change in how we acquire, educate incoming people
- If you do "learn" how do you get a different job
- Make job description what you are really doing
- Process monsters "pathological"
- Curriculum Approval
- Human ResourcesDistrict Office Mandates
- Open more communication
Part-timers- Don't overlook the positives
- Strengths are greater than weaknesses
- Training tied to resources, time
- Just-in-time training
- Commitment is a two-way street
- Training at my campus
- Different modes of training
- Leave resident expert behind
- What is difference between teaching and training? Collaborate with instructionGroup Three
Personnel Policy Issues
- Rewards and incentives
- Performance management
- Role of employee group
- Segregated roles rather than integrated - new way of doing business
- Age of personnel policies - really redone?
- Individual roles with productivity evaluation
- Performance standards
- Drive toward teams
- Policies based on "protection" rather than growth
- Have to value risk-taking -
- Look at all employee groups - including everyone
- Value on experience and experimentation with rewards
- Shared responsibility for personnel/individual training
- The workplace security of the past isn't here
- Need for "new contract"
- Owe employee investment in learning environment
- Individual is responsible for his/her own career path
- Concept of exploration vs. ownership (what employee brings to organization) - interviews don't get at hiring "learners"
- Only rewards are to do more with less
- Tapping into people's potential by challenging them
- Willing to look at different ways to evaluate employees -
- clarify reason for "evaluation"
- "evaluation" vs. performance management
- compensation tied to evaluation
- Relate what we do to studentsBarriers
- Old "contracts" - unwritten
- Old policies
- Showing employees how this will be advantageous to hem
- Lack of trust/fear in the workplace
- Traditional role of employee groups
- Perception of ulterior motives or lack of knowledge on part of decision-makers
- Difficulty in conceptualizing abstracts
- Need to be brave enough to have an "employee bill of rights" and responsibilities
- Lack of time - time it takes to change policies, procedures and attitudes- Rate of change/fear of change
- Difficulty "measuring" intangibles like team skillsAction
- Be honest and open about change
- Communication to and from grass roots level from beginning
- Organization needs to convey that it values everyone who contributes
- Improve performance management system
- Develop better incentives
- Evaluate skill sets to make sure they match job
- Let employees develop their own job roles
- More support for change process - team based
- Put the undiscussables" on the table
- A "hold harmless" policy during major transitions
- FlexibilityGroup Four
Communication
- Clarify issue Lack of Trust Action Steps
"us" vs "them" (barriers to
attitude change)
- Definition
- Purpose of communication? Creation of effect --> translated negatively into win/
- perception
- inform vs. persuade
- Meanings are found in people
- Communicate WHY need to change
- Think holistically, not just parts (e.g., foot more important than hand)
- Effect - change students - questions - change, value system? Any constants in change? Related to data. Make it concrete and measurable.
- Exchange of information black/white at least two people-->ask for an example or ask for clarification or verify or play back--if got message
- Transference of an idea from one page to another page-exact copy (vision) or close enough
- Responsibility - play back (e.g., beat devil out)
- We bring meanings to situation
- Problem - get point across - communication vs. listener responsibility
- Message must be clearly thought out and stated
- Breakthru=set a standard simple, direct
- Covey: seek to understand first-->listener and communicator
- Communicate-->reflect back (is that rote memorization?)Next Steps
- Learn about nature of communication. How do it?
- Filter-learn how to do that-to ensure all have understanding-so don't leave some out
- Evolve from chaired committees to empowered facilitated teams
- Someone should synthesize all information to help those who don't talk to stakeholders
- See Mindwalk - exchange of dialogue
- Universal model-general semantics
- Need systems to disseminate information
- Share intent to build trust "we" interpret why, more information-A-1
- Include people
- Share positive and negative
- Have communication classes and practice
- More process throughout, communication is hierarchy
- Need to know more about definition, the process and techniques of communication/dialogue
- Effective communication
- Would have known Apollo
- See similarities
- add problem solving approach
- Less "I" centeredDr. Amrein expressed appreciation to those involved in leading the strategic conversation and presenting the role play.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8: 15 p.m.
______________________________
Donald R. Campbell
Secretaryaa
2/15/95