Minutes 09/20/2006 | Maricopa Community Colleges

GOVERNING BOARD RETREAT
SEPTEMBER 20, 2006
MINUTES

A retreat of the Maricopa County Community College District Governing Board was scheduled to be held at 8:00 p.m. at the Room 515 of the Rio Salado College Tower in Tempe, Arizona on September 20, 2006 pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice having been duly given.

PRESENT

GOVERNING BOARD
Scott Crowley, President
Ed Contreras, Secretary
Linda Rosenthal, Member
Jerry Walker,Member
Don Campbell, Member

ADMINISTRATION
Rufus Glasper, Chancellor
Teresa Toney
Pete Kushibab
Gloria Smith

CALL TO ORDER
The session was called to order by Chancellor Glasper at 8:23 a.m. who explained that the agenda and copies of discussion items were included within the blue packets provided. Primary discussions would be conducted by President Scott Crowley and Maricopa Governance Director Teresa Toney. These discussions would be followed by the Monitoring Retreat topic and a media update.

Chancellor Glasper expressed he was pleased to have the opportunity to engage in a discussion based on self-evaluation. Self-evaluation can be an excellent tool if used to cover broad aspects. Everyone has strengths and the strength of a Governing Board should be to strengthen communications with the community. Since we worked with the Vision, Mission, and Goals Statements, we have come a long way. As Governing Board Members, there is an awesome responsibility to our stakeholders. By asking the perspectives of all colleges, Dr. Glasper stated that the Board can gain a broader awareness of what is being done in our communities and what is happening in this Valley. Demographics are growing much faster than had been anticipated and there are a number of questions that Board Members could ask and might help as this conversation is held:

Is the Board prepared to lead our colleges in the future and in a global society as students transition to universities and the workforce?
What can the Board do to help provide that direction?
Does the Board realize the responsibility that they carry as Board Members collectively, as well as individually?
Are the Board’s practices best practices?
Does the Board avoid making common mistakes?
As the District grows in size and complexity, we know that thing are different and the way this Governing Board operates today is different. Review of Governing Board travel indicates that travel taken relates to Maricopa’s mission. Conferences and events attended attest to this.

Dr. Glasper spoke about a book he recently gave to the Board and members of CEC called “The Ultimate Question” and indicated that he had posed the question, Would our students recommend our college to their friends? This is a thought that should be kept in mind if we consider having a survey conducted.

Board President Scott Crowley followed with remarks that this had been his first exposure as a Governing Board Member and walked right into this process of looking at the different perspectives of Board Members and Members of CEC. CEC works with Dr. Glasper but he was interested in finding out how we could support them in working with students. He felt it was important to hear CEC’s perspectives and finding out best practices as to how the Board could help them and help students. With this introduction, he then turned the meeting over to Teresa Toney.

Teresa Toney commented that she would be speaking about the results of the self-evaluation competed by members of the Board and also discuss best practices. Two items had been handed out which included the self-evaluation tool and charts showing how responses had plotted out and how they compared to last year’s results. Discussion was then held on results pertaining to Questions 21,
22, 23, 24, 25, 3, 9, and 18. The following bulleted comments were made:

Question 21:

Teresa asked what was missing and what could staff or Government Relations do to help Board understand the budgeting process?
Mrs. Rosenthal commented that because she serves on FAC, she has no problem understanding how we get our money and what it is spent on. What staff hands out at Board Meetings is very helpful. Budget stuff is very helpful.
Mr. Crowley indicated he had quite a learning curve.
The reason there is a six year term for Board Members is precisely because of the time it takes to become familiar with members getting to know how things operate.
Dr. Glasper stated it might be helpful to put together a presentation by Government Relations on the process of how a bill becomes law and how the budget comes together. Other issues that could be discussed would be the curriculum process, the development of a trustee handbook that would speak about HR, Government Relations, Affirmative Action, Curriculum, the process of going from the Vice Chancellor to Governing Board levels.

Question 22:

Need more letter writing.
CEC has indicated that would like Board to be advocates for their communities.
Have reception for new legislators, Board and staff to put names and faces together
Have a session honoring those who have helped state and Maricopa community colleges
Would like to see Government Relations connect Board Members with members of the legislature in partnership with CEC.
We need to have listening sessions such as we did in the past.
We need to visit other Governing Boards.
We need high school connections.
We need to invite community to our listening sessions.
Focus should not be self-serving but to get feedback.

Question #23:

Mr. Crowley indicated he is in a different place because he is now going to school and can’t attend conferences. Feels a score of 3.6 from a 4 last year is still a good number.
Mrs. Rosenthal stated that some boards never go. Former Chancellor Elsner encouraged this board to attend conferences and keep informed. She encouraged other board members to avail themselves of The Chronicle of Higher Ed online.

Question #25:

Perhaps institute book discussion into meeting formats.
Dr. Glasper suggested getting one of two books for discussions. There are good summaries on the web.
Need input from the community on what they see as the issues.
Mr. Walker questioned what the five categories of constituents were (taxpayers, students, K-12, Public and Private universities, ?). He stated that only about 25% of the Maricopa County are interested in the community colleges. How do we appeal to more?
Need to do a better job of engaging community and outreach. There was supposed to be a P/R activity.
Mr. Crowley commented that strategic conversations are not the hot topics of the month. We are not giving an opportunity to plan a hot topic when strategic conversations are planned a year in advance. Mrs. Rosenthal responded that it takes time to bring these events together.
Questioned what was meant by this question.
Mr. Crowley stated that constituents are different in different districts.
Mr. Walker suggested comparing to total population in district.
Dr. Campbell questioned how do you get population to get more involved in more things? Not only do people not know about community colleges, they don’t know about other things.
Mr. Crowley spoke about having a marketing campaign to emphasize district as a whole and not just the individual campuses.
Dr. Glasper commented that we are having more activities on the campuses involving parents and students.
The second Tuesday format on meetings is at issue.
Mr. Crowley prefers 4:00 p.m. meetings. Participation is more important than having the same people always in attendance.
When asked who else should be engaged, responses included Board of Regents, School Board Officers
Mr. Contreras commented that he would like to see more students and some meetings with High School teachers. Focus has been internal versus external. Need to do outreach and need to go to seniors. Seniors are strong partners of ours.
Periodically meet with high school boards or Maricopa County School Board Association.
Need a forum on K-20

Discussion regarding reading of material

Mr. Walker stated that he was involved in too many things and thus did have time to read everything he received.
Dr. Campbell commented that before he ran for the Maricopa, he should have looked into the time involvement to be a good board member and what else it entailed.
Mrs. Rosenthal stated that there is no money for personal assistants.
Mr. Walker commented that he wanted things synthesized and concise statements on materials.
Other board members indicated that in order to understand what was being voted on, complete information was needed and it needed to be read.
Mr. Crowley asked if other board members were in agreement that no additional staff was needed and seeing this to be the case, no further discussion would be entertained.

Question #3:

E-mail has helped in getting more information.
Chancellor should get a copy of information sent to and from board members.
Primary contact should the Chancellor. He should be the central focus.
Point of contact should be Dr. Glasper.

Question #16:

One-on-ones have helped. Newsletters are being sent out.
Mr. Crowley indicated that his phone calls are always put through.

Question #9:

The power is through three votes.
There is influence but no authority

Question #18

Dr. Campbell commented that everyone has differences but majority votes determine what is carried forth. He asked if board members were satisfied with a score of 2.6
The score is reflective of having the right to have an opinion. As a whole it is reflective of our perspective of working together in spite of differences.
Mrs. Rosenthal has seen a very big difference in the climate of the Board. Not everybody is calling Jerry Walker Jerry but rather Mr. Walker. He has displayed hate speech and she will not speak with him.
Mr. Crowley stated that in spite of differences the business of the Board needs to be done in a very professional manner.
Mrs. Rosenthal stated she is not happy with the climate of the Board in terms of the ability to enjoy each other’s company. So long as she hears the type of statements Mr. Walker makes, she will not have anything to do with him.
Dr. Campbell stated that the business of the District needs to be done within the policies of the Governing Board. That is what we are responsible for and what we are here to do.
Board Members could be involved in fund raising. They need to be asked to attend meetings. Some involvement must be considered appropriate without meddling or micromanaging. Committee work should be done by District and involve Board Members in meet and greet activities. There are advantages to serving on committees but there must be a balance between participating in pinning’s, ceremonies, etc., and work committees. When Board Members select a Chancellor, that person is selected because there is confidence that this individual can do the job.
Dr. Glasper indicated that he has given permission for Presidents to communicate with Board Members.