1. Home
  2. Board Operations
  3. Minutes
  4. Minutes 08/08/2000

Minutes 08/08/2000




GOVERNING BOARD
August 8, 2000
MINUTES



An executive session and strategic conversation of the Maricopa County Community College District Governing Board were scheduled to be held at 5:00 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
Fred Gaskin, Phil Randolph, Anna Solley, Rufus Glasper, Ron Bleed, Raul Cardenas, Pete Kushibab, Gina Kranitz, Larry Christiansen, Ken Roberts for John Cordova, Ginny Stahl for Art DeCabooter, Stan Grossman, Homero Lopez, J. Marie Pepicello, Fred Gaudet, Linda Thor, Alberto Sanchez for Tessa Martinez Pollack,Patty Johnson for Arnette Ward

ABSENT
GOVERNING BOARD
Ed Contreras

STATE BOARD
Nick Balich

CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by President Gene Eastin.

EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Governing Board met in executive session, notice having been previously given.
The meeting recessed at 5:01 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 6:33 p.m.

SPECIAL MEETING

(I.A.)
EMPLOYMENTS, RESIGNATIONS, RETIREMENTS, AND TERMINATIONS - Approve the employments, resignations, retirements, and terminations as recommended in the item.

MOTION

MOTION NO. 8982
Linda Rosenthal moved that the Governing Board approve the employments, resignations, retirements, and terminations as recommended in the item. Motion carried 4-0.

(I.B.)
AWARD OF CEC LIFE INSURANCE POLICY - Amend MCCD’s current group plan with ReliaStar Life Insurance Company to include the current Chancellor’s Executive Council’s (CEC) Life Insurance Program. The cost of the life insurance for the CEC group will be a monthly premium of $4,640.40. The initial term of this contract will be from July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001. (The Term is retroactive to July 1, 2000 to include the Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Student Development). The District, may at its discretion, exercise up to four one-year option periods, for a total contract not to exceed five years. Also, approve that the reserve balance from the current CEC life insurer, First Colony, be deposited into an endowment account to be used to pay future premiums for retired members of CEC in the Life Insurance Program. (The current reserve balance with First Colony is estimated to be $120,000). Mrs. Stein inquired as to the length of time retired CEC members would be covered by the insurance. Dr. Campbell recommended that an executive session be scheduled at a later date to discuss this concern, and Dr. Glasper was charged with looking into the issue.

MOTION

MOTION NO. 8983
Linda Rosenthal moved that the Governing Board approve the amending of MCCD’s current group plan with ReliaStar Life Insurance Company to include the current Chancellor’s Executive Council’s (CEC) Life Insurance Program. The cost of the life insurance for the CEC group will be a monthly premium of $4,640.40. The initial term of this contract will be from July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001. (The Term is retroactive to July 1, 2000 to include the Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Student Development). The District, may at its discretion, exercise up to four one-year option periods, for a total contract not to exceed five years. Also, approve that the reserve balance from the current CEC life insurer, First Colony, be deposited into an endowment account to be used to pay future premiums for retired members of CEC in the Life Insurance Program. (The current reserve balance with First Colony is estimated to be $120,000). Approval is for the first year only. Motion carried 4-0.

(I.C.)
INSTITUTE FOR GLOBAL ETHICS CONSULTING CONTRACT - Approve a consulting contract with the Institute for Global Ethics for an amount not to exceed $150,000. This contract is for conducting a survey of Maricopa County and the subsequent development of a Code of Ethics for the entire Maricopa system. It will include a roll out of the Code to Maricopa Community College constituents through a training program as well as the development of methodologies for incorporating the Code in various formats throughout the colleges. Dr. Glasper provided a slide presentation of the background and work performed leading to the recommendation. Discussion was held regarding the value of using an outside contractor for the recommended services. Concern was expressed regarding the cost included in the contract for training and the cost involved for reassigning district employees from their current positions. Reasoning for the use of O’Neill Associates for the survey and the survey process to be followed was discussed. Dr. Gaskin noted that Dr. Glasper had received a charge from the Board to develop a code of ethics statement for the district. He identified training as an important component of the process and the need for outside assistance in that regard. More consideration could be given to the training component. Mrs. Rosenthal suggested that the recommendation be revised to approve a dollar figure of “not to exceed $100,000” for the survey and contract and reconsideration be given to the training component. Mr. Eastin expressed his reasoning for his opposition to the revision. He noted that Dr. Glasper had received a charge from the Board to perform the duties under the recommendation and he was not opposed to the recommended services, including training, for $150,000.

MOTION

MOTION NO. 8984
Linda Rosenthal moved that the Governing Board approve a consulting contract with the Institute for Global Ethics for an amount not to exceed $100,000. This contract is for conducting a survey of Maricopa County and the subsequent development of a Code of Ethics for the entire Maricopa system. The recommended training component is to be reconsidered. Motion carried 3-1. Mr. Eastin was opposed.

The special meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.

STRATEGIC CONVERSATION

EMPLOYMENT ISSUES
Ann Barrett introduced the conversation as an opportunity to discuss four issues that are shared across employee groups. The team leaders – Ann Barrett, Scott Kozak, Rick DeGraw, and Dorothy Strait – made brief presentations on each of the four questions that small groups would brainstorm. Below are the issues presented for discussion and the feedback which resulted from the small groups.

Group One: Facilitator – Scott Kozak
What criteria should be used to establish the annual Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA)?

  • What index is used to set the MCCD budget?
  • How was the pay scale developed? PSA vs. MAT
  • In MAT, one is hired for experience, not education? Should be part of COLA index.
  • What are employees willing to give up for COLA?
  • Look at alternate forms of compensation.
  • MCCD must become more politically active – both at business and government levels.
  • Would a COLA index be attached to flex benefits?
  • An index should be used! But, which one.
  • IPD – is used by the district because that is what is used by the legislature.
  • MCCD is caught up in what the legislature is doing to primary schools.
  • Time would be saved if MCCD used an index by not negotiating “imaginary”, “wishful” numbers.
  • What role does market demand play in the whole issue of using an index?
  • Should a different index be used for a position that has a market demand?

Group Two: Facilitator – Dorothy Strait
What would trust and respect in the workplace look like at MCCD?

  • Why did this come up?
  • Employees with problems.
  • Tones of voice used.
  • Want to eliminate fear in the workplace.
  • Levels of trust.
  • Trust involves subjective judgment.
  • Feedback is needed.
  • This is an invisible problem.
  • Is the problem due to a lack of skill? Lack of supervisor training.
  • Problem at MCCD with job training.
  • Problem of the perceiver. Perception is reality. Individual/subjective.
  • The problem is not all top down.
  • Communication. Common courtesy. Attitude. Openness/honesty.
  • Clear sense of integrity.
  • Predictability of behavior.
  • Leadership vs. facilitation.
  • Ability to play several roles.
  • Chair Academy selections.
  • Denial of permission for PSA involvement. Work duties prohibit involvement.
  • Issue should match core values.

Group Three: Facilitator – Rick DeGraw
Should an incentive based compensation system be considered for MCCD? What are the benefits? What are the concerns?

  • Cannot be “what’s in it for me.”
  • Align with the goals of the district.
  • Does it become a part of the base?
  • Formula needs to be developed.
  • Considered for all employee groups?
  • Funding formula.
  • Gauge for success - the organization, the employees, and other organizations.
  • Miami Dade previously implemented for faculty.
  • More time for managers.
  • Training for employees – what’s critical?
  • Service vs. production.
  • Awards for performance not just money.
  • Recognition – pat on the back.
  • How do we measure?
  • What are we measuring?
  • Districtwide strategic planning.
  • Provide the equipment, tools needed to be successful.
  • Make employees feel valued with the skills to be successful.
  • Keep process from overwhelming the whole project.

Group Four: Facilitator – Ann Barrett
Long-term employees at the top of their salary grade currently receive an annual COLA increase. Should other options for rewarding long-term employees be considered?

  • Periodic raise that becomes a part of the base pay ( five years – 10 years).
  • Does the district values its long-term employees? Does district want long-term employees?
  • Honor people who do “good” work but do not want to move up.
  • Add a step to the pay scale.
  • Differential salary scale for specific employees.
  • Performance-based compensation – an issue which should include long-term employees.
  • Other than money provide other benefits, such as childcare, flex time, vacation time, etc.
  • One time stipend.
  • Upward openings are not numerous.
  • Mentoring program that moves people up. Have a proactive mentoring program by MCCD.
  • Cash awards for taking classes.
  • If COLA was equal to true cost of living, steps might not be needed.
  • Look at options unique to each person.
  • Look into data at who is at the top of pay scale.
  • Training for specific jobs.
  • Provide for internships and apprenticeships following training.
    Barriers
    • Resources – limited. Tuition is a primary source
    • Training, etc. require time from job duties
    • The time of the mentor
    Moving
    • Age at the top – need to know what effect age will have.
    • Like to work here. Support options.

The group was thanked for attending.

The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.

Return to Governing Board Minutes