1. Home
  2. Board Operations
  3. Minutes
  4. Minutes 05/09/2000

Minutes 05/09/2000




GOVERNING BOARD
May 9, 2000
MINUTES


An executive session, special meeting and strategic conversation of the Maricopa County Community College District Governing Board were scheduled to be held at 5:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. respectively 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.

PRESENT

GOVERNING BOARD
Gene Eastin, President, Donald R. Campbell, Secretary,Nancy Stein, Member, Linda B. Rosenthal, Member

ADMINISTRATION
Raul Cardenas, Phil Randolph, Bertha Landrum, Ron Bleed, Pete Kushibab, Gina Kranitz, Gail Mee for Larry Christiansen,John Cordova, Art DeCabooter, Oscar Gibbons for Stan Grossman Homero Lopez, J. Marie Pepicello, Linda Thor, Alberto Sanchez for Tessa Martinez Pollack Arnette Ward, Fred Gaudet

ABSENT
STATE BOARD
Nick Balich

GOVERNING BOARD
Ed Contreras

ADMINISTRATION
Rufus Glasper

CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by President Gene Eastin.

EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Governing Board met in executive session, notice having been previously given.
The meeting recessed at 5:31 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 6:30 p.m.

SPECIAL MEETING

(I.A.) CONSIDERATION OF EMPLOYMENTS, RESIGNATIONS, RETIREMENTS AND TERMINATIONS – Dr. Randolph recommended that the Governing Board approve the Employments, Resignations, Retirements and Terminations with the addition of Jean E. Revie’s Service Date of August 21, 2000 and the reassignment of Dr. Raul Cardenas as the Vice Chancellor of External Affairs beginning July 1, 2000.

MOTION MOTION NO. 8963
Linda Rosenthal moved for approval of the Employments, Resignations, Retirements and Terminations with the revisions. Motion carried 4-0.

(I.B.) LEVEL FIVE REVIEW AND DECISION OF FACULTY GRIEVANCE – President Eastin stated that the employee has withdrawn the grievance; the Chancellor’s final decision will stand. President Eastin requested approval to withdraw the item.

MOTION
MOTION NO. 8964
Don Campbell moved to withdraw the review and decision of faculty grievance and accepting the Chancellor’s decision as final. Motion carried 4-0.

(II.) SPECIAL REPORT – Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Dual Enrollment Financial Model.

Linda Thor, member of the committee and president of Rio Salado College, presented the Board with a report and presentation on the Dual Enrollment Financial Model.

This committee was formed last Fall by the CEC after concerns expressed by the Governing Board regarding dual enrollment. Ad Hoc Committee is one of two committees formed, the other is the Instructional Quality Committee which will be reporting to you in the near future.

The committee is comprised of 3 college presidents, 3 deans of instruction, a controller, the general counsel, a college fiscal officer and 2 faculty members. Homero Lopez and Linda Thor served as co-chairs.

There are currently 2 financial models used within the District for dual enrollment.

Balanced Exchange ( The Wash Model) - invoices are exchanged between the college and high school or high school district. The college bills the high school for the tuition for the students that are enrolled in the dual enrollment classes. In turn the high school bills the college in an amount equal to the tuition and the bill is for the services that the high school has provided. No funds are exchanged, only invoices.

Student Pay Model (Student Pays Tuition Model) - typically the student’s parent or guardian pays the tuition for the dual enrollment course to the college. The college then compensates the high school for services the high school has provided. Money is exchanged in this model - money from the student to the college and then to the high school. This model can lead to competitive bidding among our colleges.

The Governing Board charge to the committee was to develop one financial model that eliminates competitive bidding among colleges and is legally and financially sound.

Issues addressed by the committee were:
- Who pays tuition (the student or parents or should the school)
- Mixed classes (college credit or high school credit)
- Reimbursement rates (what is an appropriate amount)
- Perceived double-dipping (both high school receives state aide - college FTSE)
- Support of economically disadvantaged students

The recommendation of the committee is that we revise the Intergovernmental agreements between MCCCD and all participating School Districts to:
- Require that a student must be enrolled in at least four high school courses before enrolling in a dual enrollment course
- Require that all students in a dual enrollment course must be enrolled for college credit, advanced placement or honors student designation
- Require that all students, their parents or guardians, pay tuition unless the school district provides scholarships
- Standardize the reimbursement rate to high schools at $1000 per annualized FTSE plus an additional $300 per annualized FTSE for use of computers and occupational labs. This reimbursement rate is tied to the adjunct faculty salary and benefits rate, facility rental rate, and indirect cost @ 8%
- Ask districts to make a good faith effort to reinvest funds received in the dual enrollment program and/or in scholarships for economically disadvantaged students to enroll in dual enrollment courses

The summary of the new model is:
- Tuition is paid
- Standard reimbursement to high schools
- No bidding among colleges
- Legal
- Financially sound
- Supports economically disadvantaged students

The next steps would be:
- Revised to IGA to High School Districts
- Revised IGA to MCCCD Board for approval

There was some discussion and questions from the Governing Board and also the audience.

STRATEGIC CONVERSATION

The Strategic Conversation began at 7:00 p.m.

STRATEGIC THINKING, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING, AND THE DISTRICT’S CAPITAL NEEDS

Lionel Diaz, Facilities Planning and Development, introduced the topic for the conversation, “Does the District need another G.O. Bond program?” Gina Kranitz discussed strategic thinking, planning and implementation of issues in regard to planning for a new capital campaign. Arlen Solochek discussed the bond planning and alternative capital funding. He recapped the uses of the 1994 G. O. Bond; the uses for a new bond and the amounts of money needed. He questioned whether we need to expand or hold steady. Do we need to expand geographically? How do we fill the financial gaps without another bond? Are we going to continue to compete with other institutions? Also questions on FTSE, faculty, technology, distance learning, personnel, all of these questions to help stimulate thinking, discussion and action. Other sources and alternatives were discussed.

Lionel summarized the above, gave an overview of “who” is accountable? He also gave a breakdown of the time schedule for the next bond, with a total time start to finish: 36 - 48 months.

    Reasons to consider another bond are:
  • The new economy is global
  • Changes in the education marketplace
  • World-wide competition
  • The use of technology is pervasive
  • Collaboration - new partners
  • New perspectives
  • New initiatives and new markets
  • People are the most important ingredient
  • District and college planning, coordination
  • Assertive implementation

Education is going to be different in the 21st century. We need to encourage thinking and looking in a new light - what is the District doing to capture new emerging markets? Is this a District-wide effort and does it need to be? We need to think strategically and plan comprehensively. Some of the concepts we need to consider are financial stability, facilities and the equipment that goes with it; the use of technology, all which supports faculty and administrative staff that serve our customer - the students and the students are across the globe.

The feedback from the small group discussions follows:

GROUP ONE:
“New Markets for the Maricopa Community College District”
Facilitators: Ron Bleed and Janet Gesin

    1. Who, what and where are the new markets?
  • The ‘have nots”
  • High school graduates/drop-outs
  • Re-training/re-careering (specialized)
  • Intel, etc. upskilling – Maricopa needs to plan to meet their needs
  • Community colleges are new graduate schools – professional certificates
  • Industry certification – teach course, assessment tools
  • Seniors (family and workplace re-entry)
  • Recent arrivals (ESL)
  • International, out of borders
  • Incarcerated individuals (rehab with education), prevention, alternative to incarceration
  • Adult education
  • Charter schools

    • 2. What are the products and services that will attract these new markets?

  • Flexible, customized education
  • Support services needed
  • Not all delivered (on campus, in person)
  • Advisement is needed
  • Contract/purchase/partnership of services instruction
  • Move product/service to client
  • Industry can provide Maricopa with most
  • Partnerships in delivery
  • Education isn’t always best delivered by industry
  • Industries willing to share in the cost

    • 3. What resources, methods and techniques are needed to capture our share of the market?

  • Human, fiscal, technology, knowledge
  • Flexibility
  • Out-of-box thinkers/responders
  • More non-16 week courses

    • 4. Who leads the initiatives to identify, attract, and capture the new markets? Do the Colleges collaborate or continue to compete for FTSE?

  • Every employee
  • Colleges should collaborate more

GROUP TWO:
“Responding to Changes and Strategic Planning Issues”
Facilitators: Donna Schober and Pete Kushibab

    1. What are some of the changes in the educational marketplace to which Maricopa must respond?
  • More people, more demands
  • More “diversity” – global
  • More technology
  • Competition
  • Different manners of delivering, instruction – different learning styles
  • Transportation challenges
  • More demanding/savvy customer
  • Role playing in employment
  • Need for remediation
  • Implications of AIMS testing – positive and negative
  • More rapid re-training
  • Employers do their own training
  • Impact of immigration
  • Longer life spans
  • Dozens of micro-niches, e.g. physically challenged

    • 2. What are the next steps needed to move from discussions to the development of comprehensive strategic plans for the following? (The answers can include theoretical, political, or practical issues.)
    a. Academic, educational, instructional issues and student services
    b. Staffing issues
    c. Using technology in all areas
    d. Planning for capital needs
    e. Maintaining financial stability

  • Target potential growth – geographically, populations, need for renovations, state of technology
  • Need someone in charge, i.e. project manager
  • “Common sense research”
  • Major public relations initiative – justify
  • Prioritization, assessment
  • District and college-wide planning
  • More student input
  • Use of outside experts
  • Tough questions – values, institutional vision
  • Data-driven, expert-supported, strategic planning under-girded by vision

    • 3.Does this group have any other issues or questions you would like to address?
    Highlights:

  • Changes in educational marketplace: Dozens of micro-niches
  • Next steps – Discussion to plans: Data-driven, expert-supported strategic planning under-girded by vision

GROUP THREE:
“Strategic Planning, Facilities Master Plans and District Growth”
Facilitators: Arlen Solochek and Gary Eberhard (Shelley Randall)

The group responded to the following questions in a generalized manner, not answering a specific question, but answering to all questions as a whole:

    1. Should the District just use the same planning process that was used for the last bond, or should the District start with a fresh look at educational instruction and the tolls required to support it?
    2. What is the relationship between the District-wide strategic plan and the college facilities master plan?
    3. Considering the limited financial resources, should the District adopt a no-growth, or a slow-growth philosophy? Should the District continue to expand geographically or should growth be limited to the existing sites?
  • Faculty (college) occurring at, including
  • Bricks/technology – what is the mix?
  • Driven by colleges’ facilities master plans
  • Update master plans
  • - Perhaps a total review/new plans
  • - College by college
  • - District-wide
  • Do we build from previous or start anew (master plan)?
  • Aging facilities, limited resources
  • Maintenance of existing facilities, i.e. parking lots – renovating existing, new lots/garages
  • Not just a decision between growth/no growth
  • Program oriented
  • What is the balance between technology and buildings? Learning using technology
  • Students first model
  • What is the standard? Is there an equity issue between colleges?
  • Building by building, valuation/assessment compares to needs
  • What impact will risk assessment have on the plan, also student academic achievement?
  • Centralized distance education?
  • Distance education needs – administration/instructor accessibility
  • Hybrid of classroom and distance, not necessarily either/or
  • What is the impact of distance learning to “in-seat” enrollment
  • What is the impact of the next technology breakthrough, i.e. web?

The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.

Return to Governing Board Minutes