GOVERNING BOARD
JUNE 9, 1998
MINUTES
An executive session convened at 5:30 p.m., pursuant to A.R.S. ¤38-431.02, notice having been duly given.
A public hearing, special meeting and work session of the Maricopa County Community College District Governing Board was scheduled to be held at 6:30 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
Ed Contreras, President
Linda B. Rosenthal, Secretary
Gene Eastin, Member
Donald R. Campbell, Member
Nancy Stein, Member
Administration
Paul A. Elsner
William Waechter
Ron Bleed
Rufus Glasper
Bertha Landrum for Alfredo G. de los Santos Jr.
Pete Kushibab for Janice Bradshaw
Mary Vanis for Larry Christiansen
John Cordova
Art DeCabooter
Stan Grossman
Homero Lopez
Tessa Martinez Pollack
Jim Van Dyke for Linda Thor
Arnette Ward
Phil Randolph
J. Marie Pepicello
Raul Cardenas
Absent
State Board
Nick Balich
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by President Ed Contreras.
Executive Session
President Contreras called for a motion convening an executive session, notice having been previously given.
MOTION No. 8769
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 6:30 p.m.
Public Hearings
(A-1) CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF BUDGETS FOR 1998-99 - MARICOPA COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Dr. Elsner provided overview comments on the proposed 1998-99 budget. The overview included highlights of items within the proposed budget that are directly related to issues that were presented in another presentation made in 1996. Many of these issues reference back three to four years in time and have long term, deep strategic aspects.
Dr. Elsner addressed the following items in the proposed budget.
- Tuition Increase. He provided the rationale for the need to increase tuition in relation to the level of funding received by the the District from the legislature.
- Policy Governance. Dr. Elsner commended and encouraged the continuing dialog by the Governing Board and administration on the policy governance concept and development. He noted that the model adopted by the Board will through the dialog truly become a Maricopa model that all can agree on.
- Healthcare Reform. This item was orginally funded at $540,000 in the proposed budget, but was was cut back to $250,000 in order to provide funds for other projects and initiatives. Should the requirement for more funding become apparent for this initiative, Dr. Elsner committed to bringing the funding for it back up to the $540,000 level by using the three percent unexpended fund in the District balances.
- Arts Connections. Dr. Elsner recognized the Governing Board for previously passing a fifty cents increase in student fees for a performing arts center at Chandler Gilbert Community College and indicated a hope that similar funding would be approved for centers at Paradise Valley Community College, South Mountain Community College and Estrella Mountain Community College in the following years (one per year). New initiatives include an arts connection proposal which will provide for a multi-media arts and entertainment training facility at Scottsdale Community College and an agreement between the Maricopa and Yavapai Districts for a Sedona arts venue which will be forthcoming to the Governing Board for approval at a later time.
- Thirty-three New Faculty. Up to thirty three faculty will be hired in the next year. This item includes two new faculty to be hired at each campus.
Dr. Glasper provided an overview of the history of the District's budget process, the basis and rationale used in the preparation of the proposed 1998-99 budget, and spoke of the District's strong financial condition and stability. Dr. Glasper discussed the $51 million in funds left this year, which is sixteen times more than where the District was five to six years ago. He also discussed timing and planning for the funds required to open one million more square feet of classroom and campus space, along with staffing and expenses, by the year 2002. Dr. Glasper overviewed the process followed to get the District to the strong financial condition it is in today. He asked that should anyone have questions to bring them forward.
Debbie Thompson provided an overview of the revenue sources, allocations in the budget by category, and provided comparison data to the previous year. Mr. Contreras asked for questions from citizens in the audience. The slides from Mrs. Thompson's presentation are included the minutes file for this meeting.
Bill Bruno came forward to speak regarding the proposed 1998-99 budget. He inquired if there were management indicators available. Dr. Elsner responded that there is an evaluation process which is tied to the Governing Board's Ends Statements. He explained that the Board is currently going through a quantifying process with the Ends and referred to the Information Item on the evening's agenda, which is presented as a first reading for Ends identified recommended as priorities for monitoring in 1998-99. Mr. Bruno referred to the pie charts on B-15 and B-16 and noted the decrease in the pie for instruction from 1995-96 to the proposed budget for 1998-99. Administration as a piece of the pie reflects an increase in the same time period. Dr. Glasper noted the numbers do not reflect actuals, and indicated that, in fact, funding for instruction had not decreased.
Mrs. Stein indicated that she was pleased to see in the budget provision for more full time faculty and also provision for needs for the smaller colleges. She noted that she would like to see more focus on meeting the students' needs without increasing tuition.
(A-2) CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF BUDGETS FOR 1997-98 - GATEWAY COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOL
Dr. Andy Bernal presented the budget and noted that the amount presented reflects an estimated amount at this time. In response to a request from Mr. Eastin, Dr. Bernal indicated that the high school has met the number of students it is chartered for. It now has a waiting list for students who wish to enroll. Many of the high school graduates received full tuition and expenses to the state universities.
(B-1) NOTIFICATION OF TAX INCREASE Dr. Glasper presented the recommended tax incease which was duly publically noticed per Arizona State Statute. Dr. Glasper noted that per statute, the public notice for the proposed budget was published in the Tempe Tribune. Should the Governing Board wish the ad to also be placed in the Arizona Republic, the cost at this time would be $36,000 to run the notice for two days.
Bill Bruno came forward to object to the proposed tax increase. He questioned the necessity of a tax increase of the primary tax rate, as additional tax funds in the amount of $12.7 million will be available due to increased assessed valuations from the previous to the current year. He also noted that FTSE increased approximately three percent. Mr. Bruno also recommended using a major portion of interest earnings to lower the secondary tax rate.
The Public Hearings adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
Special Meeting
(A-1) LEVY 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 1998-99. Mrs. Stein expressed concern regarding the tax increase and questioned the justification of the increase in relation to a three percent enrollment growth. She suggested that it may be possible to reduce opearational costs without compromising the quality of education provided.
MOTION No. 8770
Gene Eastin moved that Governing approve, through a roll call vote, Maricopa Community College District's increase in primary property taxes for Fiscal Year 1997-98. Mr. Contreras called for the roll-call vote: Linda Rosenthal - aye; Don Campbell - aye; Gene Eastin - aye; Nancy Stein - no; and Ed Contreras - aye. Motion carried 4-1. Mrs.Stein was opposed.
(A-2) PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 1997-98 BUDGET ADOPTION- Adopt the proposed Fiscal Year 1998-99 Current Unrestricted Fund, Current Auxiliary Fund, Current Restricted Fund, and Plant Fund Budgets totaling $614,205,746 million as submitted at the public hearing and special session June 9, 1998; and authorize the expenditure of budgeted revenues realized or designated fund balances within the total amount budgeted for each fund. Regarding her opposing vote to the budget, Mrs. Rosenthal indicated concern regarding the designation of two new faculty to each college when some campuses are not increasing enrollment. She also expressed disappointment that sufficient funds were not allocated to the health care inititative budget.
MOTION No. 8771
Gene Eastin moved that the Governing Board adopt the proposed Fiscal Year 1998-99 Current Unrestricted Fund, Current Auxiliary Fund, Current Restricted Fund, and Plant Fund Budgets totaling $614,205,746 million as submitted at the public hearing and special session June 9, 1998; and authorize the expenditure of budgeted revenues realized or designated fund balances within the total amount budgeted for each fund. Motion carried 3-2. Mrs. Rosenthal and Mrs. Stein were opposed.
(2.a) PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 1998-99 GATEWAY COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOL BUDGET ADOPTION - Adoption of the proposed Fiscal year 1998-99 Charter School Annual Budget for the GateWay Community High School in the amount of $1,401,769.
MOTION No. 8772
Gene Eastin moved that the Governing Board adopt the proposed 1998-99 Charter School Annual Budget for the GateWay Community High School in the amount of $1,401,769. Motion carried 5-0.
Information Items
(2.a.) Proposed Adoption of Priority Ends for Monitoring, 1998-99 (First Reading)
Under Suggested Measures for (1) Outcomes for People of Maricopa County, "Cost of tuition compared to national norms." Mrs. Stein asked for asked to who the comparison would be made with. Dr. Elsner clarified that the comparison would be with other community colleges. Under (5) Outcomes for Students Who Transfer, Mrs. Stein expressed concern on how to measure success and also quality. Response was made that an effort is made to look at students who transfer with substantial hours. Mary Day will be working with the District institutional researchers to develop a survey. Dr. Campbell indicated that if the District's students qualify to move on to accredited colleges and universities, that may be considered an indicator of success
The Special Meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
Strategic Converstion : STRATEGIC ISSUES REGARDING FUNDING AND FTSE
Rufus Glasper presented the anticipated outcome for the conversation, which was to receive recommendations for desireable characteristics of a resource allocation system. Debbie Thompson presented slides regarding funding sources. Dr. Homer Lopez led the group in answering three questions. The group elected to not break in small groups, but brainstrom the questions together.
The results of the discussions as as follows:
EXERCISE ONE: List the desirable chracteristics of a resource allocation system.
The group provided the following list of characteristics:
Reflects quality of programs
Timely adaptability
Operates continuously in good and bad times
Clarity and consistency
Level of accountability
Allows for input to bring about change
Compliments long term planning for initiatives
Consensus among stakeholders about characteristics
Fair and takes into account the different populations
People should be happy with the system
Readily understandable
Reflects quality
Meets needs of students, not staff
Supports vision, mission and strategic direction
Allows for input for major initiatives and measureable change
Provides for full support for development of new institutions
Tied to plan for for new revenue generation
Support from leadership from the top as well as the bottom, demonstrating commitment
EXERCISE TWO: List any obstacles to such a system.
The group offered the following list of obstacles:Combination of growth and decline
Manipulation of system
Individual cleverness and creativity
Multi-college system as opposed to multicampus system
Excessive competition for funds
Unwillingness to concede to decisions that
Absence of recognition of systemwide needs rather than individual college needs
Focusing only on outputs, not inputs
Lack of systemwide strategic direction
Lack of clear plan as to how to get employee consensus
Unwillingness to make tough decisions when opportunities are offerred
Lack of standardized data collection measures
Difficulty in reaching consensus on definitions of characteristics
Measures are not unrealistic (FTSE not comprehensive, outdated, generalized)
Too much time, too few funded initiatives
Comfort level with current system
Fairness issues - criticism
Inability to tie the theory to the practice of policy governance
Inordinate amount of time and resources that go into the process
Costs obligated - fixed expenses
Participation of all stakeholders in creating new system
District seen as an expense versus as an investment by legislature
Lack of clarity in communicating the process for allocations
Employees - allocations very little for things other than employees
Question raised - why more obstacles than desireable characteristics?
EXERCISE THREE: Give the information gathered above how should the system address the following, in other words, not all FTSE are the same:
"Hard to serve" populations
High cost programs
Programs with different delivery systems
Traditional populations
Rapid growth areas
Changing demographics
The group offered the following feedback on the question presented above:
Programs with different delivery programs
Internet/distance learning
Lab vs lecture
Open entry/open exit
Concurrent enrollment
Traditional populations
Immigrants
High school graduates
"Ozzie and Harriet's" children
Rapid growth areas
Geographic
High influx of certain populations
High birth rates of certain populations
Computer-based industries
Huge change of new careers and industries
Managing change
Cost differential negatively impacts some
Definition of "traditional population?"
Computer-based/technology - new jobs/careers - skills
Immigration
Unallocated discretionary budget (flexibility for leadership for risk taking, research and development, new initiatives)
Pool of funds strategically allocated annually
One time moneys for one one year or multiple
Replicate successful programs (such as charter schools)
Identify causes of obstacles - move them to "challenges"
Not always agreement on mission of the community colleges - need to sort this out
Differential tuition for high cost/low cost programs
Evaluate existing programs, benchmark them. If not effective, drop them
Colleges have good ideas for research and development - use them
Changing demographics include increasing senior population
Need direction on priorities - revenues and expenses to set tone
The group agreed that a similar meeting should be held again in September or October of 1998 for further discussion and that it would be important for members of the Chancellor's Financial Advisory Council to be present.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
Linda Rosenthal
Secretary