JUNE 10, 1997
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.
Nancy Stein, President, Ed Contreras, Secretary,Donald R. Campbell, Member, Gene Eastin, Member, Linda B. Rosenthal, Member
Paul A. Elsner, William Waechter, John Schroeder for Ron Bleed, Rufus Glasper, Alfredo G. de los Santos Jr., Janice Bradshaw, Mary Vanis for Larry Christiansen, John Cordova, Art DeCabooter, Stan Grossman, Homero Lopez, Tessa Martinez Pollack, Linda Thor, Patty Johnson for Arnette Ward, Madge Valladares for Phil Randolph, Marian Tadano for J. Marie Pepicello, Gina Kranitz for Raul Cardenas
EMPLOYEE GROUP REPRESENTATIVES
Conrad Mills, Gerry Bradshaw, Pat Case
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 6:35 p.m.
(A-1) CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF BUDGETS FOR 1997-98 - MARICOPA COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Dr. Rufus Glasper introduced Debbie Thompson who presented an overview of the information provided in the 1997-98 budget item. Mrs. Thompson presented information regarding the fund growths, including the uses for the increased General Funds such as the opening of the East Mesa campus and the City Corridor, forty new faculty, business cost increases, flex benefits due to more staff, technology, and salary and professional increases. There were no questions or comments.
(A-2) CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF BUDGETS FOR 1997-98 - GATEWAY COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOL
Dr. David Curd presented an overview of the budget. He indicated that the budget did not reflect the funding for special and vocational education, as those counts were not in, and that these numbers would be added at a later time. Funding from the legislature includes, per student, a $200.00 increase for capital and $39.00 for maintenance and operations. Mrs. Rosenthal noted that revenues were not indicated on the budget item. Dr. Curd indicated that the revenues are the same as the expenditures and concurred with Dr. Elsner that the format used is the same as the submission to the State Board of Education.
(B-1) NOTIFICATION OF TAX INCREASE
Dr. Glasper cited A.R.S. 15-1461.01 and indicated that the proposed property tax increase, which reflects a primary rate increase of .09 percent, would equate to an increase in the property tax on an $80,000 home by $1.53 or $.03/week.
Dean Miller, representing the Arizona Tax Research Association, came forward to speak in opposition of the tax increase. He indicated that the District had raised their property tax rate forty percent since 1990, with a FTSE increase of seven percent for that period of time. He also spoke to the funding received by the District from the legislature, including an additional $2.5 million. Mr. Miller indicated that there is currently a movement in the State of Arizona to eliminate property tax. He asked the Governing Board to adopt a tax increase of $.96 and direct the District to use cash reserves and extra state funding. Dr. Elsner thanked Mr. Miller for coming forward to express his views, but commented on ATRA's opposition to the Bond, which was supported by the community. Dr. Elsner also provided information that since 1977 and a tax rate of $.92, the District had increased to ten colleges and from 38,000 to 96,000 students, while continuing to offer and increase services to the community. Dr. Glasper provided FTSE growth information, discussed the A.R.S. that allows for increased funding due to FTSE growth, and related that the State has under-funded the District by approximately $30,000,000. He indicated that the proposed tax increase was a prudent measure in line with the District's growth and under-funding by the State. In response to an inquiry from Mr. Contreras, Dr. Glasper confirmed that the $2.5 million in funding from the State is one-time money. Mr. Contreras inquired as to what would happen to the rate on the bonds if the District's cash reserves were lowered. Dr. Glasper responded that insurance would be purchased and the District's position would appear to be less stable from the bond perspective.
The Public Hearings adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
(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 1997-98.
Don Campbell moved that Governing approve, through a roll call vote, Maricopa Community College District's increase in primary property taxes for Fiscal Year 1997-98. Mrs. Stein called for the roll-call vote - Don Campbell - aye; Ed Contreras - aye; Linda Rosenthal - aye; Gene Eastin - aye; and Nancy Stein - aye. Motion carried 5-0.
(A-2) PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 1997-98 BUDGET ADOPTION - Adopt the proposed Fiscal Year 1997-98 Current Unrestricted Fund, Current Auxiliary Fund, Current Restricted Fund, and Plant Fund Budgets totaling $592.6 million as submitted at the public hearing and special session June 10, 1997; 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 that this is the first opposing vote she has made to a proposed District budget. Mrs. Rosenthal indicated that she was not opposed to Funds One, Three or Seven, but she was opposed to Fund Two, in which $700,000 was set aside to fund performing arts centers that had not yet received approval by the Governing Board.
Ed Contreras moved that the Governing Board adopt the proposed Fiscal Year 1997-98 Current Unrestricted Fund, Current Auxiliary Fund, Current Restricted Fund, and Plant Fund Budgets totaling $592.6 million as submitted at the public hearing and special session June 10, 1997; 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. Rosenthal was opposed.
(B-1) PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 1997-98 GATEWAY COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOL BUDGET ADOPTION- Adoption of the proposed Fiscal year 1997-98 Charter School Annual Budget for the GateWay Community High School in the amount of $1,248,285.
Don Campbell moved that the Governing Board adopt the proposed 1997-98 Charter School Annual Budget for the GateWay Community High School in the amount of $1,248,285, conditional on receiving the additional funds from the State for special and vocational education which was not yet indicated in the proposed budget. Motion carried 5-0.
The Special Meeting adjourned at 7:08 p.m.
WORK SESSION DETERMINATION OF MONITORING PROCESS FOR PRIORITY ENDS IDENTIFIED FOR 1997-98
Donna Schober presented the three ground rules and the goals for the session, those being for the Governing Board to discuss and come to consensus on
- the ends statements to be monitored in 1997-98;
- what is not clear about each end statement;
- what should be measured with each end; and
- how each end will be monitored.
Mrs. Schober provided background information regarding what occurred and what was accomplished at the May 13 meeting which was held to identify the priority ends for the 1997-98 Fiscal Year. The Policy Governance Transition Team reviewed the information gathered at that meeting and developed a worksheet distributed prior to this work session to the Governing Board to assist them in the identification of the ends, measures, and process. Options suggested were to monitor all or some of seven ends identified at the May 13 meeting. It was noted that one way to monitor some of the ends would be baseline data reports for the first year and the progress made to be addressed at a meeting in the following year. Some ends could be monitored solely by written reports. A concern was raised by Mr. Eastin that the Outcomes for Students 1.a. may be difficult or impossible to monitor. He questioned how to determine whether or not students participate in diverse activities. Mrs. Rosenthal suggested that the wording be changed from "Students will participate" to "will have the opportunity." She noted that several requests have been received from students to include diversity issues in the ends statements. Of the seven ends, Governing Board members were asked to identify what ends they felt to be a priority for the coming year. Four of the seven ends were selected. Following are those ends and discussion on them regarding clearness, monitoring and measuring issues:
OUTCOMES FOR STUDENTS
(1.b) Students will complete certificate and degree programs with skills appropriate to the current needs of employers.
What is not clear?
- The end is very clear that private sector employers are to determine what skills are needed. What should be measured?
- How many students and how well did they do?
- Could use GPA.
- How well is student matched with his or her skill to the employer's needs?
- Employer satisfaction needs to be measured along with student skill level How should it be measured?
- Employer surveys
- Job placement data based on certificate completion
- Internships and those continuing
- Focus on specific employment areas that have growth patterns
- Areas that the District is focusing on such as semiconductor, banking, financial services, allied health
- Could receive reports on one or two a semester
- Each college could report on two or three random programs
- Could select one field a year A concern was raised regarding selecting only a few programs. It was suggested that faculty be asked for their advice. The suggestion was made that a segment be added to the occupational advisory committees for one year to provide baseline information.
- Evaluation occurs every day, as the colleges go through intense scrutiny every ten years for accreditation, and half of the District's colleges have gone this process in the last three years. It was suggested that if so much is being done, perhaps only a mechanism is needed to bring the measurement together. The advisory committees could be viewed as the mechanism.
- Student success guarantee
- Surveys from advisory committees
- Annual evaluations
- Written reports
OUTCOMES FOR STUDENTS
(1.d) Graduates from degree programs will demonstrate competence* in communication (reading, writing, speaking, listening) aesthetic appreciation of literature, art, and music critical thinking problem solving computing Competence would need to be defined either by individual colleges (now required by NCA for assessing student academic achievement) or by reaching consensus as a district.
What is not clear?
- Too involved
- Too many things to measure
- Suggestion that competencies should be limited to communication, critical thinking, problem solving, computing
- These are what the business world wants and all students need
- Wait a year to measure
- Cannot just knock out a determination of the number and what kind of competencies we can expect from students
- Faculty in instructional councils participated in a program and their responses are now being gone through. Might consider adding more competencies after their report.
- Determine what the value is for each of the competencies
- Some faculty feel the aesthetics are very important
- Multicultural competencies are very big in the market place
- We need to equip our students
- This end reflects more of a flavor of how we teach. For example, problem solving not simply math, but teaching student to become a more adaptable, well-rounded person
- North Central wants to know not only if a student did well in a 101 course, but if he/she has success beyond
- Competency issues are being handled in instructional councils
- They are continually working on these issues Ending Suggestions for This End - ON HOLD - Colleges and instructional councils looking at institutional effectiveness and student achievement indicators - have three colleges and the instructional councils provide reports. Let them suggest how many competencies are needed.
- One evening should be set aside solely to receive the presentation on this end.
OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE OF MARICOPA COUNTY
(2.) The Universities will receive competent, qualified students who completed 24 or more credit hours at Maricopa Colleges. Due to time, this end will be discussed at a future meeting
OUTCOMES FOR ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS
(4.) The Elementary and Secondary Schools will enjoy cooperative partnerships with Maricopa Colleges designed for successful retention and articulation of students. Due to time, this end will be discussed at a future meeting.
A plus/delta was conducted.
Smooth, Productive, Ended on time, Very good facilitator (Donna Schober), Students present
The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.