Minutes 06/08/1999

An public hearing, special meeting and strategic conversation of the Maricopa County Community College District Governing Board were scheduled to be held at 6: 0 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.

PRESENT

GOVERNING BOARD
Linda B. Rosenthal, President, Gene Eastin, Secretary, Nancy Stein, Member, Ed Contreras, Member Don Campbell, Member

ADMINISTRATION
Paul Elsner, William Waechter, Bertha Landrum for Alfredo G. de los Santos Jr.,Rufus Glasper, John Schroeder for Ron Bleed, Janice Bradshaw, Raul Cardenas, Larry Christiansen, John Cordova, Irwin Noyes for Art DeCabooter,Stan Grossman,Homero Lopez, J. Marie Pepicello Carol Scarafiotti for Linda Thor, Tessa Martinez Pollack, Arnette Ward,Phil Randolph

ABSENT
STATE BOARD
Nick Balich

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

EXECUTIVE SESSION
No executive session was held.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

(I.A.1.) CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF BUDGET FOR MARICOPA COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 - Rufus Glasper noted that this budget was the largest presented to the Governing Board for approval. There was a wider distribution of this budget as it was printed in the Arizona Republic. Debbie Thompson provided a presentation of the budget, noting changes made and details by Fund. Mrs. Rosenthal called for questions or comments. No citizens came forward. In response to a concern raised by Mr. Eastin regarding the institutionalizing of grants, such as MATEC, Dr. Glasper indicated that the matter needed to be examined and recommended that a District position be developed in that regard. Mrs. Stein indicated that she still had a concern regarding the tuition and fee increase that had been previously approved and recommended that the District look at its resources and how they are expended. Dr. Campbell recommended that approval of the budget on a two-year cycle be looked into in relation to state funding. Advantages discussed for a two-year approval period were predictability and the better expectation for changes.

(I.A.2.) CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF BUDGET FOR ISAAC CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000- Ernesto Ramirez presented the budget. No citizens came forward with questions or comments.

(I.B.) NOTIFICATION OF TAX INCREASE- Dr. Glasper presented the notification of tax increase. No citizens came forward with questions or comments.

The Public Hearings adjourned at 6:20 p.m.

SPECIAL MEETING

(A.1.a.) EVY TO INCREASE TAXES - ROLL CALL VOTE - Approve through a roll call vote (as required by Arizona State Statute), Maricopa Community College District's increase in primary property taxes for Fiscal Year 1999-00. In accordance with relevant statutory and Constitutional provisions, the Maricopa Community College District is proposed to increase primary property taxes on existing property. This proposed increase is 2%, which equals $3,348,845 in additional property tax revenues. Mrs. Stein indicated that she could not in good conscience agree to an increase in taxes as recommended and suggested that the District budget be looked into for cost effectiveness.

MOTION NO.8870
Gene Eastin moved that Governing approve, through a roll call vote, Maricopa Community College District's increase in primary property taxes for Fiscal Year 1999-00. Mrs. Rosenthal called for the roll-call vote: Don Campbell - aye; Ed Contreras - aye; Gene Eastin - aye; Nancy Stein - no; and Linda Rosenthal - aye . Motion carried 4-1. Mrs. Stein was opposed.

(A.1.b.) PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 1999-00 BUDGET ADOPTION - Adopt the proposed Fiscal Year 1999-00 Current Unrestricted Fund, Current Auxiliary Fund, Restricted Fund, and Plant Fund Budgets totaling $642.9 million as submitted at the public hearing and special session June 8, 1999; and authorize the expenditure of budgeted revenues realized or designated fund balances within the total amount budgeted for each fund.

MOTION NO.8871
Don Campbell moved that the Governing Board Adopt the proposed Fiscal Year 1999-00 Current Unrestricted Fund, Current Auxiliary Fund, Restricted Fund, and Plant Fund Budgets totaling $642.9 million as submitted at the public hearing and special session June 8, 1999; and authorize the expenditure of budgeted revenues realized or designated fund balances within the total amount budgeted for each fund. Motion carried 4-1. Mrs. Stein was opposed.

(A.1.c.) PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 1997-98 GATEWAY COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOL BUDGET ADOPTION - Adoption of the proposed Fiscal Year 1999-00 Annual Budget for the Isaac Charter School as presented.

MOTION NO.8872
Don Campbell moved that the Governing Board adopt the proposed Fiscal Year 1999-00 Isaac Charter School Annual Budget as presented. Motion carried 3-2. Mr. Eastin and Mrs. Stein were opposed.

The Special Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.

STRATEGIC CONVERSATION
The Strategic Conversation began at 6:32 p.m.

STRATEGIC ISSUES REGARDING FUNDING AND FTSE
John Cordova introduced the conversation and provided the anticipated outcomes for the evening, those being: 1) Identify strengths and weaknesses of Maricopa leadership and the particular challenges faced by that leadership; 2) Identify the threats and opportunities posed by the Internet and other distance delivery learning systems; 3) Identify emerging issues for community colleges nationally and for Maricopa; and 4) Identify changes that would most improve community colleges. The input from this conversation will be synthesized and used as the groundwork for a follow-up conversation that will be held in September of 1999. Marie Pepicello provided information on a national project, "New Expeditions," which was referred to in the background material. A purpose of the project is to look at the visions and strategic directions of community colleges nationally. The questions to be addressed by small groups at this meeting are aligned with the questions addressed by the focus groups under the New Expeditions project.

The questions given to the small groups and the input provided are as follows:

SMALL GROUP DISCUSSIONS

1. What are the strengths and weaknesses of Maricopa's Leadership Group, and what particular challenges face this group?
   Facilitator: Rufus Glasper
   Recorder: Carol Scarafiotti
   Strengths
   • Size
   • Diversity within employee groups
   • Employees want to do what is best for Maricopa (We provide time for leadership of PSA and faculty groups)
   • Employee groups police themselves well
   • Humor

     Weaknesses

   • MAT group too broad, too diverse (not as many similarities as other groups)
   • Absence of collaboration across groups and within groups. Read newspaper - adjunct faculty and full-time faculty - 2 major groups - could be strength and weakness
   • Difficulty maintaining focus on certain issues
   • Communication does not reach all groups (drivers, influences, issues)
   • Still does not know what it means to be a learning organization
   • Leadership is defined too narrowly
   • Leadership groups exist beyond policy groups

     Challenges

   • Size - we are too big!
   • Communication - how do we create a United Nations of employee groups?
   • How do we increase opportunities for more forums that bring leadership together?
   • Too much dominating and not enough participating
   • Obtain a consensus definition of leadership - is it employee, employee groups, problem solving groups?
   • Change of pace, fear of reconfiguring employee group
   • How do we influence the valuing of employee given our size? Loss of individuality
   • International and national image of leadership group and how do we live up to our reputation?

2. Do the Internet and other distance learning delivery systems pose more of a threat or an opportunity for Maricopa? Why?
   Facilitator: Arnette Ward
   Recorder: Donna Schober
   Threats
   • Increased competition with other colleges and within our own colleges (haves vs. have not)
   • Is not personal, can be very isolating
   • Older students may feel threatened by computers
   • Redefines community
   • Potential to isolate people during chaos is alienating and difficult to assess, will be precarious time - don't dispense with human communication and rely too much on technology
   • Dollars for budget will increase because faculty learning curve is high.
   • Technology as master
   • No access to technology makes it a have vs. have not society/class

     Why?

   • There is financial rewards - all want a piece of the action
   • Not interacting with humans and communicating in person
   • May feel excluded if not comfortable with technology and may not have technology of their own
   • Technology raises questions and new definitions so fast - so is threatening re: speed, reliable info?
   • Students do not learn at a distance as well as "hands on" lab situation - specific subject areas - public speaking and communication
   • Especially a problem if over used
   • Fear people won't come to colleges

     Opportunities

   • Financial - make money, serve unique populations
   • Inclusitivity - allow access to rural and disabled students or those "disenfranchised"
   • Opportunity to redefine "personal" and "isolating"
   • Redefines "community"
   • Include incredible resources and info into the classroom on Internet (expands richness)
   • Expands feedback to students
   • Opportunity to be learners (faculty, staff) gives different viewpoint
   • Use technology as servant - open doors vs. do what tell it to do
   • Think about access issues (new and different technologies)
   • Gain skills for jobs

     Why?

   • It is the future and present for the students
   • Community is now the entire world
   • All must learn about technology because it's part of the world today (can be negative, too, because this change may not be good in long term)
   • Help shape Internet course to ensure quality of course, etc.
   • Faculty wants to use "living" document and be up to date and reduce dependence on costly text vs. teaching critical thinking books
   • Helps students if suits their learning style vs. threat to them if don't like technology, helps them increase their skills (e.g. time management)
   • But student may take more classes to complete a degree
   • Creates different reasons to come to campuses (come to discussion groups, new ideas, etc.)
   • More through degrees more efficiently

3. Are there any emerging issues for Maricopa that you see? Please prioritize those.
   Facilitator: Tessa Martinez Pollack
   Recorder: Herman Walker
   • Leadership*
   • Demographics
   • Declining Resources*
   • Diversity of demo
   • Competition privileged sector
   • Growth Population
   • Aging faculty/staff/managers
   • Technology*
   • Accountability - all levels*
   • Rapid change in technology
   • Funding performance* (BAS)
   • Legislative accountability
   • Retirement (massive) possibility
   • Changing student (consumerism)
   • Distance Learning
   • Need diverse teaching method
   • Funding models (state and internal resources)*
   • Funding models (location)*
   • Facilities growth
   • Growth - types of growth (e.g. specific population)
   • Collaboration* (vs. competition)
   • Alternative Delivery Systems (competitors e.g. Sylvan, U.P.)

     Definition of accountability

   • Criteria
   • Documenting to someone that we are doing what we say
   • Who pays? Who benefits?
   • Mission - centered
   • Who sets standards? (citizens, students, others)

4. If you had a magic wand and could change one thing, what would you change that would most improve Maricopa?
   Facilitator: Homero Lopez
   Recorder: John Schroeder
   • More collaboration
   • Balanced exchange between various policy groups to enhance creativity and productivity
   • Create sense of community - institutional respect and honor for individuality resulting in less (no) fear. Don't live divided - open sharing without judgement.
   • Time for reflection - both group and individual
   • Increased trust
   • Engagement - with each other including students and community. Currently limited by our personal "silos"/self imposed boundaries
   • Reduce/Eliminate elements of dysfunctionality
   • Simplify (organization, procedures, etc.)
   • Improved balance between individuals and group
   • Reward system
   • Encourage wholeness rather than perfection
   • Do something instead of talk about it

PLUS/DELTA

Plus:
• Arnette as facilitator
• Good ideas
• Great questions/suggestions for improvement
• On time
• Marie's position paper
• John and Marie's coordination
• More faculty members

  Delta:

• Worker's comp claims
• No public input & communication

ADJOURMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.