1. Home
  2. Board Operations
  3. Minutes
  4. Minutes 10/12/2004

Minutes 10/12/2004



GOVERNING BOARD
OCTOBER 12, 2004
MINUTES

An executive session, and a strategic conversation of the Maricopa County Community College District Governing Board were scheduled to be held at 5:30 p.m. at the District Support Services Center in Tempe, Arizona, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice having been duly given.

PRESENT

GOVERNING BOARD

Linda Rosenthal, President
Don Campbell, Secretary
Scott Crowley, Member
Nancy Stein, Member
Ed Contreras, Member

ADMINISTRATION

Rufus Glasper
Anna Solley
Ron Bleed
Debra Thompson
Jose Leyba
Gail Mee for Larry Christiansen
Ken Atwater
Homero Lopez
Karen Mills for Linda Thor
Gene Giovannini
Art DeCabooter
Corina Gardea
Maria Hesse
Mary Kay Kickels
Phil Randolph

STRATEGIC CONVERSATION

President Linda Rosenthal called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and welcomed everyone present to the evening's Strategic Conversation on Shared Governance. The conversation was developed by the Faculty Executive Council. Mrs. Rosenthal then asked Faculty Association President Sandra Stuebner to come forward for further welcoming remarks.

Mrs. Stuebner welcomed those in attendance and asked everyone to "buckle their seatbelts because it might be a bumpy ride!" Members of the planning team were introduced:

Jamie Moore, SCC and President-elect Faculty Association
Jeff Ricker, SCC
Barry Vaughan, MCC
Naomi Story, MCC

Mr. Vaughan took the podium next and indicated that it was the goal that good conversation would be held on shared governance. He acknowledged the work of faculty in preparing for discussion of this important concept which affects faculty and students. Mr. Vaughan then read from the enclosed discourse paper titled "Shared Governance Revisited, A Strategic Conversation Facilitated by the MCCCD Faculty Association" dated October 12, 2004. The paper includes the following main points:

I. A Short History of Shared Governance -

A. The First Institutions of Higher Education
B. The Traditional Model
C. The Industrial Revolution and the Rise of the Management Class

II. Defining the Terms -

A. Aristotle on Teleology
B. Governance
C. Examples of Governance -

1. Biology

a. Goal - Survival
b. Principle - Evolution
c. Structure - Distributed

2. Business

a. Goal - Profit
b. Principle - Self-Interest (Egoism)
c. Structure - Hierarchical

3. Politics

a. Goal - Justice
b. Principle - Common Good (Utilitarianism)
c. Structure - Distributed

4. Higher Education

a. Goal - Teaching and Learning
b. Principle - Cooperation (Communitarianism)
c. Structure - Shared/Distributed

III. Exploring Shared Governance -

A. Models of Shared Governance -

1. Consultative
2. Distributive
3. Collaborative

B. Evaluating Shared Governance -

1. Disadvantages

a. Limits Flexibility
b. Diffuses Responsibility
c. Confuses Roles
d. Slows Progress

2. Advantages -

a. Encourages communication
b. Fosters Empowerment
c. Increases personal Responsibility
d. Expands the Pool of Knowledge
e. Fosters Creativity
f. Encourages Consensus
g. Improves Morale

3. Where do we go from here?
(Complete text enclosed.)

Mr. Vaughan then stated that it is the aim of every entity to do good. He quoted Aristotle by stating, "Every art, every inquiry, and likewise every action and occupation aims at some good; hence, the good has rightly been declared: 'that at which all things aim.'" He posed the questions, "What is our good or goal of governance?", "Governance of what or whom?" He defined the term "Governance" as being the art or process of administering the affairs of an autonomous entity and described the four models of governance which are:

  • The Biological Model
  • The Business Model
  • The Political Model
  • The Higher Education Model

He further described the types of shared governance which are:

  • Consultative - hierarchical; decisions made at the top.
  • Distributive - delegation of power according to function.
  • Collaborative/collegial - mixture of cooperation and distributed decision making power. No clear lines of demarcation.

Having done this, Mr. Vaughan then explained the first activity which would consist of the participants at each table distributing a bag of candy based model noted on the 3X5 card at their table. Report outs were done at the end of this activity.

Mr. Vaughan then introduced the second activity which consisted of the participants distributing the candy according the shared governance type noted on their 3X5 card. Report outs were done at the end of this activity.

Discussion was held to capture the themes of the comments made during the reports of the two activities. The following comments were made:

Disadvantages of Shared Governance in Higher Education

  • Too bureaucratic
  • Governance limits flexibility
  • Diffuses responsibility
  • Too many stakeholders
  • Confuses roles
  • Slows progress (committees, committees committees)

Advantages of Shared Governance in Higher Education

  • Encourages effective communication
  • Fosters empowerment of individual stakeholders
  • Increases personal responsibility
  • Expands pool of knowledge and creativity
  • Fosters institutional creativity/evolution
  • Encourages consensus
  • Improves morale
  • People feel good about being part of the organization

The following questions were discussed next:

1. What are the necessary conditions for Shared Governance?
2. Give examples of how the MCCCD currently reflects the values of Shared Governance.
3. What should be MCCD's Shared Governance model?
4. How can we encourage and sustain Shared Governance in the MCCD?
5. How do we know if Shared Governance is working in the MCCD (ongoing assessment)?

The following responses were made to question #1:
· Mutual respect
· Non-adversarial environment
· Empowering authorization
· Non-mandated
· Each feels valued
· Shared responsibility and accountability
· Accountability has to be real
· Shared input
· Willingness
· Trust
· Acknowledgement of big picture
· Right people on the bus
· Reduce fear of change
· Understand process
· Assumption of a continuous cycle
· Educate to the second power
· Institutional memory

The following responses were made to Question #2:
· Reports
· Administrative regulations
· Hiring selection process
· Board retreats
· Leadership breakfasts
· Culture
· Memorandum of understanding regarding meet and confer is a good example
· Faculty in charge of curriculum but done through collaboration
· Freedom in content balanced by learning and accountability

The following responses were made to Question #4:
· Necessity of involving people in asking questions about what is best for college
· Is student voice included?

The following responses were made to Question #5:
· Students are still coming. Is community satisfied? Ballot in November will be clue.

Reconvening

Jamie Moore concluded the conversation and made the following comments:

"Thank you for coming and participating this evening. It is our hope that after this evening, we have a better understanding of the history of shared governance, some of the issues that have surrounded it, the various models and types of shared governance. Clearly it is in the best interest of this district and the major stakeholders not only to continue to talk about shared governance, but day by day to make a conscious effort to learn our respective obligations clearly, learn where we must cooperate and then communicate effectively so that our efforts are seamless in service to our students.

Last year, Chancellor Glasper gave a call to shared governance. The faculty offer their unwavering commitment to continue to change the culture of this district, and appreciate those efforts that have been made for more inclusive governance thus far. We appreciate that stereotypes are not broken and new relationships are not forged overnight.

By 2020, our student body will double in size. Maricopa must be ready for the challenges and opportunities that will present themselves. We will be teaching and learning in many of the old ways, and many new. We must, all of us, look to each other as professionals, abandon our assumptions, be willing to embrace change, offer each other the trust and respect required for shared governance to work, for our district to fulfill its mission.

So we offer a challenge for a commitment to shared governance. We want in this district a new culture: If you are a faculty member who believes that the administration and governing board are not the professionals they are, who will cling to the notion that the governing board and administration are "the dark side" that it is "us" and "them" and that "they" can never be trusted, then we invite you to get more involved-hands on-- so that you can make a difference, get to know administrators and governing board members as people and as professionals-- or we invite you to step aside. Because it's a brand new culture.

If you are an administrator or governing board member who believes that faculty are anything less than the professionals they are, who believes the "disappearing faculty" want all they can get for as little as they can offer, who believes that the most important function of this institution is NOT teaching and learning, we invite YOU to participate more fully, to get more involved, get to know faculty as people and as professionals-or we invite you to step aside. Because it's a brand new culture.

In the end we need everyone's best efforts and their most professional behavior.
We need everyone's time, energy and the gifts they can offer. We need to hold ourselves and others accountable when we see disregard for shared governance. We need a willingness to let go of the old and embrace the new. We have long believed we are the best district in the nation; tonight, but we don't need the will to believe; we need the courage to find out."

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting concluded at 8:30 p.m.

———————————
Dr. Donald R. Campbell
Governing Board Secretary