FEBRUARY 25, 1997
A regular meeting of the Maricopa County Community College District Governing Board was scheduled to be held at 7:00 p.m. at the District Support Services Center, 2411 West 14th Street, Tempe, Arizona, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice having been duly given.GOVERNING BOARD
Nancy Stein, President, Ed Contreras, Secretary, Linda B. Rosenthal, Member, Donald R. Campbell, Member, Gene Eastin, Member
Paul A. Elsner, William F. Waechter,Rufus Glasper,Ron Bleed, Bertha Landrum for Alfredo de los Santos Jr.,Richard Young for Janice Bradshaw, Raul Cardenas, Mary Vanis for Larry Christiansen, John Cordova, Art DeCabooter, Stan Grossman,Homero Lopez, J. Marie Pepicello,Phil Randolph, Linda Thor,Tessa Martinez Pollack,Patti Johnson for Arnette Ward
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by President Nancy Stein.
President Stein called for a motion convening an executive session, notice having been previously given.
Linda Rosenthal moved that an executive session be convened. Motion carried 5-0.
The meeting recessed at 5:31 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 7:15 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The assembly pledged their allegiance to the United States of America.
BOARD EVALUATION PROCESS
Mrs. Stein explained the Board Evaluation Process to the assembly.
Jamey Taylor, representing himself and some of his Iclassmates, expressed to the Governing Board his recommendation for four-day per week courses and more class sections. Mr. Taylor expressed his opinion that such courses would be of benefit to working students and would save money for the District.
BOARD MEMBER REPORTS
1. Don Campbell - no report.
2. Ed Contreras - no report.
3. Linda Rosenthal reported that she, along with Mrs. Stein and Mr. Eastin, attended the National Legislative Seminar in Washington D.C., details for which will be available in Mrs. Rosenthal's ACCT Report for the ACCA Newsletter. Mrs. Rosenthal indicated that one of the highlights of the seminar was the presentation given by Secretary of Education Richard Riley. 4. Gene Eastin reported that he also attended a Workforce 2000 Conference in Anaheim, California. Mr. Eastin gave recognition to Rio Salado Community College for a presentation made at the conference, which he cited as thorough, polished, professional, and well-executed. He recommended that the presentation be made at the various campuses throughout the District, perhaps as part of a strategic conversation.
5. Nancy Stein reported that she attended an interesting and informative meeting with Mary Kay Allen and Marti McCorkindale.
Judy Boschult introduced Alex Backus, GateWay Community College,who, on behalf of the Honors and Service Learning Committees, provided a report on a Leadership Conference held at GateWay. Mr. Backus indicated that the conference focused on social responsibility in leadership. Mr. Backus provided an overview of the seminar which used a course format and had a service learning component in it. The course featured community leaders and contained 10 - 12 hours of post service learning activities. Student participants were nominated by faculty members. The students will further participate in a reflections activity in May to reflect on what leadership skills and experiences they had encountered throughout the semester. Mr. Backus recognized GateWay personnel Michele Bush, Fred Gaudet and Jim Baugh who were also involved with this project.
Judy Boschult provided an overview to the Governing Board of the Proposed Faculty Evaluation Plan and provided copies to the Board of the draft proposed plan and the plan currently in effect. Dr. Boschult introduced Abbie Hemingway, Paradise Valley Community College, who worked on the committee responsible for proposing the new plan. A history of the formation of the committee and highlights of the proposed plan and comparisons to the current plan were presented. Work on the proposal began approximately five years ago. The last draft from the committee was submitted to the Faculty Association in the fall and concerns were addressed by a sub-committee. The present draft reflects the Faculty Association's responses to comments, and will be distributed to faculty Districtwide. An overview of the proposal will be provided in the Peerpoint Newsletter. Once this draft is amended, it will sent to faculty for ratification, and if so ratified it will move into a Meet and Confer proposal - approximately in an eight month period.
Mr. Eastin inquired as to the amount of time involved to provide an evaluation of one faculty member. Abbie Hemingway responded that the amount of time depends on the process chosen to do the evaluation - the classroom visitation as done now (the faculty member would now be writing the criteria for this type of evaluation) would include time for designing the assessment and writing the summary page. Mr. Eastin expressed concern that under the present system, administrators, such as Deans of Instruction, spend a great deal of time assessing evaluations, along with other faculty members participating in the evaluation process and inquired if a shorter evaluation process had been considered. Ms. Hemingway responded that the summary sheet is the only written requirement of the faculty member. The two mentors chosen to assist the faculty member going through the evaluation process would only be using time for oral discussion, which will occur at a mutually agreed upon time and location.
In response to Dr. Campbell's concern that Deans of Instruction should have a part in faculty evaluations, Ms. Hemingway indicated that Deans of Instruction are not precluded from a having a part in the process. In response to Mr. Eastin's inquiry if the committee was satisfied with the new process over the old process and if the plan contained a statement that faculty evaluations were for improvement and not to be used as a tool for termination, Ms. Hemingway indicated that the committee is satisfied, that the evaluation process supported improvement of instruction, and that there is no statement in this document regarding the use of the evaluation as inquired by Mr. Eastin since that would be a statement for the RFP. Dr. Campbell stressed the importance of utilizing the document as a constructive tool for improvement, not as a tool to be used against employees. Mrs. Rosenthal indicated that she was pleased to receive the materials and would comment following her review of the proposal. Mrs. Stein concurred with Mrs. Rosenthal. EMPLOYEE Adjunct Faculty Association President, Jack Goodman, thanked GROUP Dr. Elsner and Dr. Waechter for the opportunity to attend the REPORTS Chair Academy held in Reno, Nevada. He indicated that he attended all sessions that pertained to adjunct faculty issues and indicated that a common theme presented throughout the conference was that many issues, including recruitment, retention, mentoring, and recognition, are the same for adjunct faculty as they are for full-time faculty. Mr. Goodman also presented a book, Strangers in Their Own Land: Part-time Faculty in Community Colleges, which was written by one of the presenters at the conference.
Mr. Goodman thanked Dr. Pollack and others for their positive comments regarding the first Adjunct Faculty Newsletter, which was mailed to more than 3,000 adjunct faculty in the District.
Gerry Bradshaw, PSA President, reported that PSA now has a web page on the Internet. She introduced Sylvia Riley and Kristen Bryant who displayed the PSA web page through a multi-media presentation to the Board and audience.
Dr. Tessa Pollack, President, Glendale Community College, reported on a conceptual agreement between the District and the Deer Valley School District for a proposed partnership between the two entities. Dr. Pollack indicated that this partnership will be important in the development of the Northwest College Center. Mrs. Stein inquired regarding the needs and population of the northwest area that will be serviced. Dr. Pollack responded that programs and needs for that area will be predicated on 1995 population information. That information indicated that there are approximately 130,000 people within the area of the Center, families are young, and fairly affluent. The number is very likely to be higher currently as this is a fast-growing area. Regarding needs, from the strategic planning group and residents in that area, it was indicated that, along with interest in the general education core, there is interest in programs such as emergency medical training, business and communications, pre-engineering, and preservation of the environment. There could possibly be 5,000 students to be served. Mrs. Rosenthal indicated that she was pleased that this conceptual agreement falls into alignment with several of the Ends, in regard to cooperation and coordination with other parts of the education community. Dr. Pollack indicated that this conceptual agreement lays the groundwork for the parameters for an agreement with Deer Valley School District. In response to a request from Mr. Contreras, Dr. Pollack indicated that all school districts in the northwest area and school districts in surrounding areas are being worked with and upcoming meeting dates will be shared with the Board.
STUDENT GOVERNMENT REPORTS
There were none.
Although Mrs. Rosenthal was not able to attend the AADGB meeting due to her attendance at the ACCT Board Meeting in Washington D.C., she did provide the following AADGB report. At the AADGB meeting a report was heard from the Auditor General's staff regarding the surveys that had been sent to community college CEO's and Board Members. Pat Hill provided a legislative update. The election of officers was held and the following officers were elected: Dan Main - Chair; Linda Rosenthal - Chair-Elect; and Marty Cortez - Secretary/Treasurer.
REWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS
There were none.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
MOTION 8634CONSIDERATION OF CONSENT AGENDA
Linda Rosenthal moved that agenda be approved. Motion carried 5-0.
Mrs. Stein asked if there were any requests to remove items from the Consent Agenda. Dr. Waechter requested that Item B-1 be removed from the Consent Agenda. The following items are included in the Consent Agenda:
(A-1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES - of the January 28 and February 11, 1997 Meetings
(C-1) CONTRACT AWARD FOR ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CONTROLS AT RIO SALADO COMMUNITY COLLEGE - Approve awarding a contract in the amount of One Hundred Eighty-eight Thousand One Hundred Thirty-five and no/100ths Dollars ($188,135.00) to Johnson Controls to install Energy Management System (EMS) Controls at Rio Salado Community College's Tempe location.
(C-2) CURRICULUM - Approve as submitted.
(C-3) ACCEPTANCE OF A FORD FOUNDATION GRANT FOR THINK TANK - SYSTEMIC CHANGE INITIATIVES STAGES IV & V - Accept a two-year, $290,000 grant from the Ford Foundation.
(C-4) ARIZONA SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTER NETWORK AND LEAD CENTER - Acceptance of a negotiated contract in the amount of $2,324,048.00 between the Small Business Administration and the Maricopa Community Colleges.
(C-5) RIO SALADO COMMUNITY COLLEGE/PIMA COMMUNITY COLLEGE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT - Approve a memorandum agreement with Pima Community County College District allowing Rio Salado Community College to provide Pima County a program of study requested by the Arizona Department of Corrections. This memorandum of agreement in accordance with SP7-902 (Providing Services in Another Community College District) of Arizona State Board Procedures requires both governing boards (Maricopa and Pima) to reach agreement before submittal to the State Board of Directors for Community Colleges of Arizona. Pending Pima and State Board approval, the memorandum of agreement will be in force for a minimum of one year with provisions for Rio to negotiate an ongoing multi-year renewal with Pima Community College District.
(C-6) INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SUN SOUNDS AND ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF LIBRARY, ARCHIVES AND PUBLIC RECORDS - Approve an intergovernmental agreement between the Arizona Department of Library, Archives and Public Records and Rio Salado College on behalf of Sun Sounds whereby the Department will grant $35,000 to Sun Sounds to be used for the Sun Sounds Radio Reading Service Outreach Program for the appropriation period October 1, 1996 through September 30, 1997.
Linda Rosenthal moved that the Governing Board approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of item B-1. Motion carried 5-0.
(B-1) CONSIDERATION OF EMPLOYMENTS, RESIGNATIONS, RETIREMENTS AND TERMINATIONS - Dr. Waechter recommended the approval of the Employments, Resignations, Retirements and Terminations Item with the following corrections: removal of Raye A. Kish from Termination/Resignations, as the resignation had been rescinded.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION 8636
Gene Eastin moved that Christine Bergholt's name be removed from the list of Terminations and that Dr. Waechter through his office find a suitable transfer for Ms. Bergholt to another position within the District commiserate with her capabilities and at her current rate of pay. Motion was defeated 2-3. Mrs. Rosenthal, Dr. Campbell, and Mr. Contreras were opposed.
Linda Rosenthal moved that the Governing Board approve the Employments, Resignations, Retirements and Terminations Item with the following corrections: removal of Raye A. Kish from Termination/Resignations. Motion carried 3-2. Mrs. Stein and Mr. Eastin were opposed.
VI.A.) Proposed Tuition Fee and Schedule FY 1997-1998
Rufus Glasper reviewed the recommendation, which proposed a per credit hour tuition rate of $26.00 (a $2.00 increase) and a per credit fee rate of $11.00 (a $1.00 increase), for a total tuition and fee rate of $37.00 (a $3.00 increase). Dr. Glasper indicated that although the State Legislature had not completed their recommendations for State funding, the State has committed $1.3 million dollars of State aid. Adding that State aid, property taxes and some reallocation of District budget, there is approximately $11.4 million of solid revenues. The District has a request before the Legislature for $3.7 million for new initiatives that include instructional programs and new faculty. The District is now within a three to four percent increase in enrollment for this current year. Ways are being examined to pay tuition and fee rebates that allow for the $2,000 per FTSE to the colleges to pay for costs to continue to enroll students in this District.
Dr. Glasper reviewed the requests from the colleges made during the budget hearing previously held and the possible sources of available and possible funding for the identified needs, which fall under the $11.4 million of solid revenues and proposed tuition and fee increases. The Chancellor's Financial Advisory Council will be making recommendations based on priority requests on March 4. A final tuition and fee recommendation will come before the Board at the March 25 meeting. Meetings are scheduled to be held with each of the Associated Student groups over the next few weeks to discuss what a tuition and fee increase will mean to them. Mr. Eastin inquired what the worse case scenario would be if there were to be no increase. Dr. Glasper responded that priorities of the District would have to be reconsidered. A two percent Meet and Confer/COLA in the previous year alone cost approximately $6 million . If a three percent is given for the coming fiscal year, the cost would be $7.6 million; if a four percent is given the cost would be $9 million. Of the $11.4 million available, only a possible $2.9 million would remain. There would not be funding for any other initiatives. Worse case would be status quo.
Dr. Glasper further stated that the tuition and fee rebate program is estimated to cost $3.2 million dollars. If current and projected growth is not funded, it will be necessary to cut classes. Dr. Elsner went through some of the priorities identified in CFAC, such as $2.5 million for basic materials, fixed costs, lights, etc. and contributing $2 million for the reserve on the capital which allows for faculty, custodians, etc. for new structures. He indicated that without the tuition and fee rebate of approximately $2.5 million, increases in enrollment could not be reimbursed to the colleges. Dr. Elsner provided an overview of a number of other areas where the need for additional funding was identified, which included, $50,000 for the Diversity Program and $500,000 for Policy Governance, funding the new centers, and the youth programs at South Mountain and Mesa, the Central Corridor Program, and the Genesis Program. Mr. Eastin expressed concern over a tuition increase to students and asked that reconsideration be given to the proposal. Mrs. Rosenthal received clarification from Dr. Glasper that the additional amount that would come from the State is based on growth and the funding does not attempt to cover the estimated $2.6 million inflationary costs listed in the item. Dr. Glasper indicated that although the colleges are given $2,000 per student under the student rebate, the cost of students actually range from $2,800 to $6,500 per student. The $1,000 per student received from the State does not cover those costs. Mrs. Rosenthal stated that the students will be served and will benefit from an increase in tuition which will enable programs and classes to be available to them.
Dr. Campbell indicated that with inflation, costs rise, but in the District there are financial aids and Foundation scholarships available to assist students. The District has to look at available sources. Although painful, a tuition increase may be necessary. In response to an inquiry from Mr. Contreras as to the use of the $1 increase in fees, Dr. Glasper indicated that it would located in the Fund 2, Student Services Fund and will fund only student services and programs. In response to Mr. Contreras on the how the amounts of $2 and $1 increases were decided upon, Dr. Glasper indicated those numbers were a result from examining the identification of needs brought forward and to meet mandates and initiatives. Mrs. Rosenthal inquired as to the cost for the revenue bonds listed for performing arts facilities. Dr. Glasper responded that there are four to five limited performing arts facilities being considered for an approximate cost of $5.4 million each, for a total cost of approximately $32 million paid for over a period of 20 years. Mrs. Rosenthal requested that she be provided more information on this item.
In response to Mr. Eastin's inquiry if any of the items under the service organization enhancements could be eliminated, Dr. Glasper stated that it is possible to eliminate any of the items on the list, dollar amounts can be attached to any of the items, and that information can be provided. In response to Mr. Eastin's inquiry as to which item would be most advantageous to eliminate, Dr. Glasper indicated that recommendations for priorities are coming before CFAC. Mrs. Stein expressed concern that regarding an increase in tuition, and noted that not all students have financial aid available to them. Dr. Elsner indicated that the administration is trying to meet the Board's mandates and achieve the goals as determined in the Governing Board's Ends statements. Board support and funding is needed to achieve those goals. Dr. Elsner asked for guidance from the Board and asked for direction should the Board change their goals.
(VII-A) Budget Analysis Report Fund 1 - General Unrestricted Fund For the Seven Months Ended January 31, 1997
ENDS STUDY END: OUTCOMES FOR UNIVERSITIES
Universities receive competent, qualified students who have completed 24 or more credit hours
Bertha Landrum provided an overview of the Ends Study and introduced the invited guests. She then introduced Dr. John Porter, Director of Institution Research, Arizona State University, who provided data on enrollment trends regarding transfer students from the community colleges to Arizona State University and comparison data on ASU students who had enrolled at the university as freshman. Dr. Porter indicated that the information presented was a result of many years of data exchange between the community colleges and the university. Data reflected that students who transfer in their junior year do as well at the university as students who enrolled in the university as freshmen, but there does appear to be a transfer shock during the first semester for the transfer student. Lower division transfers to not appear to have as great persistence. Dr. Campbell inquired if tracking of students is done by race and sex, as many minorities somehow get lost in the community college system and do not move forward. Dr. Porter indicated that tracking is done by race and sex and that it appears that the number of these groups successfully transferring is growing.
Linda Hawbaker, Glendale Community College, provided a presentation on how the university data exchange is used in institutional effectiveness measures to improve transfer information. Ms. Hawbaker discussed the process developed to obtain feedback information to the colleges on transfer students. Information is tied to core indicators. First, a selection is made of students to track and then matching of those students to ASU data information in the data exchange. A report is given back to the department requesting the information. Parameters for the selection of students are provided by department chairs, those parameters being by major code, by one or more courses, or a series of courses. She provided a sample request from the Biology Department at Glendale Community College, which was to track students who completed Biology 181 and 182 at GCC with a stated minimum GPA for a given number of credit hours. Ms. Hawbaker provided the data that was derived from the tracking. Gender and ethnic percentages information was made available. Also available was information on a comparison of the students' GCC GPA's to their ASU GPA's. Mrs. Rosenthal expressed her interest in faculty's reaction to the process.
The group broke into small groups to discuss two questions:
What cooperative partnerships should two-year and four- year, public and private colleges and universities, pursue to provide a comprehensive system of higher education for Arizona?
1. Programs to reduce academic shock at transfer.
2. Move "hot lines" for exchange of information regarding offerings, advisement, degree requirements.
3. Enhance articulation between colleges.
a. Look at transfer partnership degrees (whole degrees)
b. Further develop consistent course numbering
4. More 2 + 2 programs.
5. More 4 + 2 + 2 programs.
6. Better feedback loop for students back to the community colleges.
7. Provide more upper division courses in community college facilities.
8. More four year representatives on community college campuses.
9. Faculty in-service/training sharing.
10. Increase advisement skills at the community college.
1. Transfer for partnership 2 + 2.
2. Faculty and staff exchange opportunities.
3. Joint outreach to high schools.
4. Arizona general education curriculum (in process...).
5. Joint admission (@ home too).
6. K - 20+ thinking.
7. CBO partnerships + higher ed. (also churches and religious organizations).
8. General education transfer center.
9. Private university participation in Articulation Task Force
10. Strengthen partnership w/corporate "colleges."
11. Non-credit workforce development.
Groups Three and Four:
1. Advisement of students - especially determining "best campus" for student based on student needs and exposure to programs.
2. Faculty and professional staff sharing, cooperation.
3. Better sharing of external resources. Examples - speakers, programs.
4. Joint efforts aimed at K-12.
6. Implement recommendations - transfer. Articulation Task Force.
7. Share resources, collaborate on planning - especially for new institutions.
8. Sharing opportunities to purchase shared technology, developing common interfaces amongst technological systems, especially student services data.
Identify the most important transfer issues that should be addressed in the next two to three years.
1. Community colleges should provide complete and consistent data to the university.
2. More common data bases for exchange of all information to the university.
3. Expand electronic transfer data to more universities.
4. Community college feedback to universities for reverse transfers.
5. TV/Tech exchange of courses both ways.
6. Provide good access and parking for all students.
7. Early communication of degree requirement changes.
1. Curriculum reform.
2. Transfer pathways.
3. More support for transfer students.
4. Clear definition of roles in partnership.
5. Deal with AAS.
6. Student-centered scheduling.
7. Distance learning - credits. Recognize increasing #.
8. Advising!! Partnership.
9. Technology support - transfer and cost!
Groups Three and Four:
1. Give students more information about options in a more deliberate manner, especially "swirling" students - natural progression.
2. Focus on helping students determine majors.
3. Financial aid changes and increasing costs of education.
4. Course applicability system - on-line.
Irene Wright presented the prototype of the Course Applicability System, a project developed in partnership with Miami University in Ohio, which will be of great assistance to student advisement. Examples given for the system, which will be available to students on-line, demonstrated how they could "plug" in their own information or "what if" information to see how their credits will transfer, if they will apply to a given major, or what courses are required for various majors. She indicated that much work has been done on this project - every course in the public institutions, and for some private institutions, have been articulated. The system opens the door wide for articulating by course, group of courses, from a two-year institution to a four-year institution, from a four-year institution to a two year institution, and between two-year institutions. A contribution made by Arizona was making this system Web-accessible. Don Puyear has indicated that the Governor has recommended $300,000 in funding for this program.
Due to time, not formally conducted.
NEXT BOARD MEETING
The next Governing Board meeting will be as follows: A Strategic Conversation on March 11, 1997
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.