MARICOPA COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
JULY 24, 2008
A meeting with the Maricopa County Community College District Governing Board was scheduled to be held at 11:45 a.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.
Don Campbell, President
Colleen Clark, Secretary (Via telephone)
Linda Rosenthal, Member
Jerry Walker, Member
Scott Crowley, Member
Karen Mills for Linda Thor
Mike Napier, Faculty Association Chief Counsel (Napier and Associates),
Tracey Lewis, Faculty Association Media Consultant (PRfect Media).
The regular meeting was called to order at 11:58 a.m.
WELCOME & INTRODUCTIONS
Chancellor Glasper welcomed everyone in attendance and asked that they introduce themselves to Governing Board Member Colleen Clark who joined the meeting via teleconferencing.
FACULTY ASSOCIATION PRESENTATION
Dr. Vaughan thanked everyone for giving the Faculty Association an opportunity to sit down and find a way to move forward on an issue that was important to their employee organization, specifically ideas relative to language in the RFP. He stressed that there was no objection to the recommended RFP language for department/division chairs and occupational program coordinators but the Faculty Association did have a procedural concern. Because time ran out, timely ratification by faculty did not occur. In the interest of moving forward to get language into the RFP for the next year, a letter of intent to open negotiations this year has already been sent as they would like to discuss procedures that will go into effect in September or October for 2009/2010’s RFP. In the meantime, faculty will work on college plans that will mirror this. Department Chairs and Occupational Chairs’ duties vary from college to college. Procedures are not in place. Need to get the language into the RFP. What is print date for RFP? Usually letter is sent by September. Other option would be to reopen negotiations. If this is done, it will require special ratification from faculty. Not sure if this timing will work. This is complicated. First option would be speedier.
Governing Board Member Scott Crowley asked how this situation got to this point. From his viewpoint, it is important to establish the ground rules. Timeframe was drawn short and he is not sure why this happened. He asked how this all transpired as he wants good faith bargaining.
Dr. Vaughan responded that there were lots of issues on the table this year and it will be important to work backwards in setting the timeframes to work with.
Dr. Solley commented that the administrative team was very transparent throughout the Meet and Confer process. Six meetings were spent discussing this language and no resolution was reached. Team members were advised that as per Section 7.4.7 of the RFP, outstanding issues are the authority of the Governing Board. The Governing Board has authority to resolve issues.
Mr. Walker commented that according to state statutes, the Governing Board has final authority. They can do anything as long as it is within this practice.
Dr. Vaughan commented that this was a very narrow viewpoint.
Dr. Solley remarked that the administrative team woked very hard to resolve the language issues and to follow the direction of the Governing Board. The compromised language that the Governing Board wanted in the RFP had been shared with the Chancellor. The bigger issue concerns the role of the Governing Board when there is no resolution as per 7.4.7.
Dr. Vaughan commented that the clause that follows that binding agreement requires faculty to vote along with the Governing Board. If not, the Governing Board can then say something and then this ratification must take place.
Dr. Solley stated that the interpretation is that the Faculty Association has more authority than the Governing Board.
Mr. Walker stated that it may be narrow, but it is the law.
Mrs. Rosenthal commented that the Governing Board has final authority.
Dr. Vaughan stated that the RFP is a contract and is binding.
Mr. Walker stated that it can be challenged. Governing Board has final authority. It can accept or reject.
Mr. Crowley commented that the language has been approved and must be ratified.
Dr. Vaughan stated it will take approximately three weeks to ratify.
Mr. Crowley commented that the compromised language they agreed to was in good faith and that the administrative team carried out the wishes of the Governing Board. He said he sees the specifics but does not want to get caught up with these. He recommended posting and moving forward with language and expects the College Plans to be modified by December 2008.
Dr. Vaughan stated that the letter of intent for negotiations for 2009-2010 has been sent to the Governing Board and the Chancellor.
Dr. Reilly commented that the old team should be reopened for the two items. Ballots will be sent out to faculty first day of accountability with a request to have then back in two weeks (by September 5).
Dr. Solley indicated that Al Crusoe is waiting for resolution before sending the RFP to print for 2008-2009. First day of faculty accountability is August 18th.
Mr. Crowley commented that it should not be posted on website until September 1. Deadline is ten days before.
Dr. Reilly stated that dates were specified.
Mr. Crowley recommended pushing these forward during 2008-2009 to allow more time for the Governing Board to review.
Dr. Solley stated that administrative team for 2008-2009 was in place but acknowledged that the Chancellor will determine the team members.
Mr. Crowley stated that when all employee groups came forward, proposals were not known. Did not want this to come to a grievance. This should be in place by September 1 because of good faith.
Dr. Vaughan suggested a short public meeting to talk about outstanding items and perhaps a meeting once a month to speak about special items. More communication is better than less.
Ms. Clark remarked that the Board needed to be amiable to all groups and not favor one group over another.
Dr. Campbell asked if it was possible to give additional time to other groups?
Dr. Glasper remarked that this conversation should not be taking place because it was inviting the Governing Board into Meet and Confer process and this would violate the RFP.
Mrs. Rosenthal agreed that the Governing Board should not get into negotiations. The Team reports and receives direction from Governing Board. There appears to have been calendar problems not communication problems.
Mr. Crowley indicated that total disclosure was in place. Ms. Clark agreed that the administrative team shared information with the Governing Board.
SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
Dr. Glasper commented that he will check with General Counsel Pete Kushibab to see how we move ahead. Everyone will check calendars to see when they can meet.
Agreement to have a special meeting of the Meet and Confer Team to TA the compromised language.
RFP to be posted by September 1 or 15.
Final ratifications to be mailed August 18 to faculty plus ten working days. Will need majority to ratify. If not, then it would be a different issue. Intent is clear.
Grievance: Does this need to be extended? Dr. Vaughan stated grievance is moot point.
Mr. Kushibab stated he would e-mail Dr. Vaughan regarding an extension of the grievance—the grievance would be held in abeyance. Faculty plan to withdraw the grievance when the recommended language is TAed and ratified.
Dr. Glasper stated he would move ahead for a team to be named.
Team will schedule next meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m.
Governing Board Secretary