*********************************************
DISCLAIMER: THIS CART FILE WAS PRODUCED FOR COMMUNICATION
ACCESS AS AN ADA ACCOMMODATION AND MAY NOT BE 100% VERBATIM. THIS IS
A DRAFT FILE AND HAS NOT BEEN PROOFREAD. IT IS SCAN-EDITED ONLY, AS
PER CART INDUSTRY STANDARDS, AND MAY CONTAIN SOME PHONETICALLY
REPRESENTED WORDS, INCORRECT SPELLINGS, TRANSMISSION ERRORS, AND
STENOTYPE SYMBOLS OR NONSENSICAL WORDS. THIS IS NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT
AND MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED, PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
THIS FILE SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED IN ANY FORM (WRITTEN OR
ELECTRONIC) AS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OR POSTED TO ANY WEBSITE OR
PUBLIC FORUM OR SHARED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE
HIRING PARTY AND/OR THE CART PROVIDER. THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL
TRANSCRIPT AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON FOR PURPOSES OF VERBATIM
CITATION.
*********************************************
January 29, 2024 Study Session...
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: I'm going to call this virtual study
session to order. Thank you all for being here.
Our first order of business is board policies. There are a few
that have minor changes and a few that have substantial changes.
Does anybody want to speak on any of these?
>> ANDREA: Jeff, I let them know that Dolores was running a
little late.
>> MR. JEFF SILVYN: Okay, thank you. Well, with respect to the
board policies that I think the chair was just speaking about, these
have just gone out to the governance groups and will shortly be
posted for public comment. We wanted to see if the board had any
particular questions or thoughts while we're soliciting additional
input from the different employee organizations, and then expect
these will come back to the board, depending on the timing of the
comments, either at the -- well, probably the March meeting for
approval, but in the meantime, in case the board had any significant
input on any of them, we just wanted to make sure there was ample
opportunity to consider that before we bring it back to the board for
further discussion and a vote.
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: Well, I didn't see anything that was
concerning. I think I'd prefer to let our people have a look at and
give the input.
>> MR. GREG TAYLOR: Yeah, I agree. When I was scanning through
them, there wasn't anything that jumped out at me as particularly
alarming, but part of the reason we have that review process is they
may see things that we don't, so I'd love to see what all that public
feedback is.
>> MS. MARIA GARCIA: I'd like to say something.
I'm not quite sure how the review process is working, because
from what I recall in the past, Jeff, we did not have a 21-day review
on any board policy. When Elaine Simmons came in and helped us with
the changes, we wrote them up, we said what we wanted, and we voted
on them, and that was it.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Hey, Maria, you might be talking about our
board bylaws. Am I correct there, Maria?
>> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Yes.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: So we're not going to talk about those
right now. We're not going to talk about the board bylaws right now,
Maria. We are going to talk about some board policies that are up
for change like board policy 1.25 and some others. That's not on the
list that they're asking us to look at today.
But how we did board policy 1.25, we presented it, it went to
AERC, and then it went to Faculty Senate, Staff Council, all of the
different groups. Then after all of those groups talk about those
board policies and make suggestions and tweak it, then they put a
policy that's been in draft form and they put it up for all college
employees to do a 21-day comment. That's online. That's a little
bit different.
But what you're talking about, I think that's right, when you
guys made the changes last year or two years ago, whenever that was
to the board bylaws, there was no 21-day comment, because the only
people that get to vote on that is the board.
>> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Okay. So you're saying that the policies
that we're looking at now are policies that affect the employees, so
they are the ones that get to review them and have a say in them,
right?
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Right. So there is one on grading and
students' attendance. There is one on admissions and registration.
So there are three that have no changes, maybe ten that have minor
changes, and then the financial aid has substantive changes.
Maybe, Jeff, maybe somebody would want to talk to us, I notice
that in one place FAFSA was removed from the beginning of that board
policy, and then there is a slight mention to it later on. I'm sure
that the people at the college who know about all of these things,
they have the experience and the expertise to make sure that we're
writing these where it's going to be beneficial for the college to
run smoothly and efficiently, but if they want us to understand why
were those substantive changes made, maybe they could just do a
quick, you know, if there are federal laws that are requiring it
or -- it would just be good to know why those big changes were made.
>> MR. JEFF SILVYN: Sure. And just to, I guess, cover something
that was mentioned before, one way to think -- so you're right. I
think everyone is right. There is a difference in the way the bylaw
changes were handled versus these. One way to think about it that
helps explain that is the bylaws are the rules the board sets for
itself, right, so they really apply entirely or almost entirely to
the board. So we don't have the same kind of input process as we do
for these kind of policies, as other board members were mentioning,
because they affect how different areas of the college actually
conduct their business.
So we want to make sure that the people that are affected by them
have an opportunity to share their perspective and make sure that
we're thinking through all the implications, so as you were saying
before.
So the short answer to this is I do believe the changes were made
to more closely align this with some of the changing federal
requirements, but we could certainly have maybe David Donderewicz or
someone like that who is the head of the financial aid office come in
and kind of walk through them so that it's very clear why they were
making these particular recommended changes.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Thank you.
I did have one other question on board policy 3.32, student
attendance and participation. My concern is, and I might not have
read it completely -- I mean, I read the whole thing, but I might not
have understood it completely. But toward the end it says that after
the drop add period, student doesn't attend for 14 calendar days,
they will be dropped.
I'm just thinking back to my days as faculty. I taught some
five-week classes, so if the drop add period is the first three or
four days of the class, and somebody doesn't show up for the next two
weeks, that is, you know, what is that, 40% of the class.
So, you know, a regular 16-, 17-week class, if they don't show up
the first two weeks, it's still serious, don't get me wrong, but it's
different when they miss an 12.5% compared to 40% of the class for
those courses that aren't offered full term if it's a shortened
class.
So I had some concerns about that. I mean, that's the only one
that I have any experience or expertise. I just maybe hope somebody
would think about that, because it does matter how long the class is,
what the term is.
Do we still teach five-week classes at the college?
>> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: No, not very many, if at all. It's
eight weeks. We have the FastTrack, which that depends on what it
is, but we've got the 8 weeks and we have the 14 weeks and 16.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Even for the eight-week classes, right, if
someone misses two of eight, it's way different than if they miss two
of 16.
>> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: Yes, definitely.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Maybe that may need to be reworded if it's
not good enough for those faster-paced classes.
Do any other board members have any comments or questions on
these board policy updates and proposed revisions?
>> MS. MARIA GARCIA: No. The only thing is you will be posting
all the comments, correct?
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Yeah, they always do that, yeah.
>> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Okay. Good.
>> MR. JEFF SILVYN: We will assemble all of the comments into
one document that will be posted, and certainly be glad to separate
e-mail that to the board just to make it easy for everyone to be able
to see the comments.
>> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Okay, thank you.
>> MR. LUIS GONZALES: Sounds good.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Great. Thank you.
Moving on to item 2.2, board policy 1.25. I think Dolores wanted
to comment on some of that.
>> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: Certainly. Yeah, thank you, Chair
Riel. It's good to see all of you. Greetings from Phoenix. I'm
here with AC4 with the different Arizona community college presidents
and chancellors.
I wanted to talk a bit about 1.25 and my perspective, and I just
appreciate all the work that's been done from the employee groups and
management in collaboration. We have two very similar versions,
version A, which is more the employee group, and version B, which is
management. They're practically identical except at the very, very
end, and I just wanted to comment on my perspective as the leader of
management.
One other thing, before I start, we did, in January, beginning of
this month, we had a retreat with the board and with leadership and
faculty, staff, and administration, to talk about shared governance,
and it was a retreat, a half-day retreat facilitated by David
Borofsky and Eddie Genna, and it was excellent.
I think we can all say, the board members were there too, it was
a very fruitful discussion on shared governance and collaboration. I
just wanted to start off by thanking everybody for that.
So as the Interim Chancellor and leader of management, I have
some comments. I continue to support our shared governance model
that assigns the decision-making authority to the appropriate body or
person for different areas of responsibility, and that takes and
values the input from all stakeholders, whether it be students,
faculty, staff, administrators, or community members, as well.
We use that information to make informed decisions, and that is
shared governance, taking everybody's input into consideration when
making decisions with policies, et cetera.
I feel that in our current system, the board has the critical
responsibility to make decisions about the strategic direction, the
overall framework of the college, and to make sure that the goals of
the college are accomplished.
The board also has a critical oversight role to hold the college
accountable, and that includes the chancellor, hold that person,
whoever it is, to hold that person accountable, making sure that the
policies are applied and that the respective team members are
accomplishing the goals that have been set and achieving those.
So the chancellor and the administration are responsible and
accountable for determining how the college will achieve those goals.
I see more the board as seeing the big picture, the what, and the
why. While administration or management does the how. That's the
operations. Not the board. The board, as I said, is the what and
the why, and then we, in turn, follow the strategic direction of the
board and make those things happen.
So I see ourselves as subject matter experts who have been hired
for specific areas to oversee and to make sure we collaborate with
our teams and get things done as they need to be.
Then the board holds the chancellor accountable through the
chancellor's goals, through key metrics, updating the board members,
whoever's in the seat of the chancellor.
So the version of BP 1.25 recommended by management aligns with
the values of our shared governance model. Once all of the input
from the stakeholders has been considered and reflected in our
version of 1.25, then the chancellor and/or their designee is
responsible to make the best decisions of the institution.
This puts the final decisions and day-to-day responsibilities on
those at the college, the individuals who have been hired and charged
with the management and oversight of college operations, as I
mentioned, the subject matter experts.
I think we have that currently. We have an excellent employee
group with AERC, with All College Council. All College Council has
included students, faculty, staff, administrators. AERC as the
leaders in faculty, staff, and administration, as well.
There are a couple of things I wanted to share, and I don't know
if it's Andrea, if you're going to help me share, could you please
show the spreadsheet, the AERC spreadsheet that's tracked?
>> ANDREA: Yes, I will.
>> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: So this is an excellent way of
tracking the different resolutions or the work that AERC has been
doing. AERC is all the employee groups, that they meet regularly.
Once that opens up, we can take a look at it.
>> ANDREA: Can you see it?
>> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: No. We see your file.
>> MR. LUIS GONZALES: Yes.
>> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: At least I can only see the file.
>> MS. MARIA GARCIA: I see the file.
>> ANDREA: Okay. Give me a second.
>> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: So you'll see all the wonderful work
that they have been doing in collaboration, and you'll see that the
majority, seems like everything is going well, so once we get that
image, we can see that.
>> ANDREA: It's showing I'm sharing.
Glenn, can you help me with this one? Do you have a backup copy
that maybe you can share?
>> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: You're sharing, but we can only see
your file.
>> You have to open up that specific tab again.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Andrea, I had the same problem yesterday
when I was presenting to the League of Women Voters of Arizona, and
in Zoom, when you click to share screen, they give you options what
you want to share. So you have to click on the document that you
want to share, not -- there you go.
>> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: There you go. There you go.
So there's a drop-down menu, if you can move that. You can see
all the different resolutions that the team has talked about. Thank
you. Then slide it down, you can see what's gone through 21
comment -- I mean, it's a fabulous way of tracking it.
I want to get to the part where we can see how things were done
well, what kind of like a ranking there is. Keep sliding over,
please.
There we go. Okay. So see the little, in green, and then there
is a red one? Those are tracking about how successful the work was
in AERC. You see there was one that was difficult. But the rest
were either well, or if you scroll down, you will see some that are
okay.
But that's part of the process, right? The employee groups get
together. They discuss the issues, the policies in depth with the
co-chairs of the group. Then, as a result, that's the result of
their work.
So we can stop sharing there. Thank you, Andrea.
That's just an example of how I think the group is working.
Also, I guess I'm wondering what it is the issue that we're trying to
solve. Maybe it's something from the past but not necessarily for
the future. So I think things are going well right now.
The other thing I wanted to share with you too is that I did talk
to our HLC liaison, Dr. Linnea Stenson, and also to our HLC
consultant, Sandy Veltri. They both feel this is good work we have
done with the two versions, but that the authority should be given to
the chancellor or president, depends on the institution, that the
board gives that authority. The board has the overarching strategic
direction, as I mentioned, and then give that authority to the
chancellor, whoever that is, to make the final decision because of
their collaboration and work with the stakeholders.
If we also take a look at the other Arizona college presidents
and chancellors, I think we have a chart there that we can share,
Andrea, if you can put that up, because I wanted to know, what are
the other colleges doing in the state of Arizona? What is their
stance on this? Is it the board that decides, makes the final
decision, or is it their president or chancellor?
>> ANDREA: Glenn, can you help again with that, please? Thank
you so much.
>> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: Thank you. I know it's tricky. I'm
in a different environment here too. I'm unable to share my screen.
>> Andrea, what's the file name for that?
>> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: It's a chart. I can't remember the
name.
>> ANDREA: Yeah, it's called -- oh. Hold on one second. One
second.
>> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: While you're looking for that, I can
chat a little bit more.
So as I was saying, what's important to remember is that the
board not get into the operations of things, and that's a standard
practice from HLC. So what I wanted to share is that, for example, I
think it was the last meeting, board meeting or couple board meetings
ago, there was discussion about the HR committee, advisory committee,
and the external relations and enrollment committee.
It seemed like it was too operational for the board members to be
a part of it, so it was decided amongst the board members that they
would no longer be a part of it but that the college would take care
of those issues and update the board, of course, periodically.
So that's an example of, because if you do go with version A,
there is going to be a lot that's operational that will be going to
you a lot. But that's why we have the people working at the college
who are the subject matter experts that can take care of that and
then share and update you as needed.
I saw something in the chat. Let's see. Oh, okay. Great.
So anyway, well, I can tell you verbally while they're looking
for it. Verbally, so we looked at the various Arizona community
colleges, and it's only one that has the board making the final
decision. All the others are either the president or the chancellor
that makes the final decision. So that's what that chart was
showing. That's okay if we don't show it.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Which college is it that allows the board
to decide?
>> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: It's Maricopa Community College, and
it's different in the sense that the Maricopa board approves faculty
hiring and the board approves staff and adjunct faculty hiring. So
it's kind of split. But all the other ones are that the board has
it, Arizona...
>> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Can I say something?
>> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: Yes.
>> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Okay. Well, as we all know, we would not
have gotten into this problem had our leadership in the past not been
so dictatorial and so controlling. It's not that we want to have a
final decision on things, you know, that are disciplinary or raises
or just looking into things, but we need to be aware of them, because
we want people to be treated fairly.
You know, I'm saying that, you know, have demoting somebody for
whatever reason and having to take a $26,000 cut in pay, there is
nowhere in this country that that's acceptable, nowhere. And nobody
stood up for that. And is that the right thing to do?
So in my view, you know, I think the new people are doing a great
job in evaluating things and trying to be fair, but we're not trying
to run and, you know, be involved in all this, because it comes down
to the chancellor making the decision and only if and when they don't
agree can it go to the next level, because if it's agreed upon within
all its members, then hopefully it won't come to us.
Isn't that the way you read it, Theresa?
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Yes. I have some comments, too, but I'm
going to wait until Dolores is done.
>> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Okay.
>> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: I'm almost done.
The other piece, and thank you, Board Member Garcia, for
mentioning that, but that's why it's crucial for the board in
identifying when you hire the new chancellor, the long-term
chancellor, that it's someone that you trust and someone that you
feel can do the job and hold that person accountable.
So because I know we are talking about past things, but we are
now looking at the future. So I think it's important, as you look
for a chancellor, what it is that, the characteristics that you're
looking for.
Then just the last thing I wanted to mention about the Higher
Learning Commission, and we won't show it on the screen, because I
think it's too difficult, so Andrea, you can stop sharing that, I
wanted to mention core components 2A, 2C, and 25C. I do have a
printed version maybe I can read quickly to you.
So 2C is the Governing Board of institution is autonomous to make
decisions in the best interest of the institution's compliance with
board policies and to ensure the institution's integrity. 2C5 says
the Governing Board delegates day-to-day management of the
institution to the institution's administration and expects the
institution's faculty to oversee academic matters.
Then the last thing I'll quote is from assumed practices. I
wanted to mention the relevant one here. That's under assumed
practice A9. The Governing Board has the authority to approve the
annual budget and to engage and dismiss the chief executive officer.
So again, it's the budget and the person that reports to them
directly who is the chancellor, interim or long-term, permanent
chancellor.
So with that, I just wanted to share my thoughts with you. I
know we'll have a robust discussion, and it's important because this
is an important topic to discuss, and I know that we'll have the vote
in February.
So I wanted to ask you if there is anything that I can do or that
my team can do to help answer questions or any additional information
that you need prior to the vote in February.
Okay. I'll stop there. Thank you.
>> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Well, you know, I'm going to say that, you
know, the ODR is still not fixed. You know, people are still -- we
have a history of not giving people due process.
I, for one, cannot accept that continued pattern. And I think
it's going to take a while for you, or whoever comes in, to fix that.
You know, there is still retaliation going on. I mean, we heard it
in our meetings.
So I want to do what's right for the college, and that's the only
reason I'm in here. Autonomous to do my job. I'm not influenced by
anybody except myself to ensure that, in my mind, I'm doing the just
thing for all. It's like I used to tell the chancellor, if you can't
do it for all, you don't do it for one, and vice versa. Very simple.
So I think, you know, I've got to say that I really felt
comfortable with the meeting that we had with Eddie Genna and Dave
Borofsky, because they're a great source in helping us. And I also
believe that our new board, that they're doing what they need to do.
I sincerely appreciate them. It's a lot more open. It's not
retaliatory, because nobody wants that.
You know, and we should be professionals, bottom line. So I
still feel that there is still other things that need to be taken
care of, so I would have to accept version A. That's my feeling.
And I'll stop.
>> MR. GREG TAYLOR: I have a question for my clarification. I
don't know if Board Member Garcia or maybe Jeff or Dolores, maybe I'm
misunderstanding what BP 1.25 does, but it seems to me this only
brings, in the scenario the things we brought to the board, the only
thing it really covers is policies and procedures.
So the kind of things that Maria was raising around like
disagreements and disciplinary action or whatever, that wouldn't be
applicable in here, right? Maybe I'm misunderstanding or maybe it's
broader than I thought it was, but I just want to make sure I'm
understanding it right.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Well, I think you can look at it a couple
of ways. When people have been dismissed, and I think that's what
Maria was talking about, that is a procedure, right? There is a
specific procedure that that whole thing has to go through.
You know, just the fact that we're still hearing from these same
people concerned that their Civil Rights haven't been, you know,
honored and respected, but you're right, firing a person isn't what
this board policy 1.25 talks about at all, right? It's just the
procedures and the policies for the working situation of our
employees. Yeah.
>> MR. GREG TAYLOR: So in that scenario, if there were a
disagreement, hypothetically, what would be brought to us in that
scenario would just be the disagreement about the language and the
procedure. It wouldn't actually be a disagreement about whether the
procedure had been applied to a particular situation? Because those
are different.
I just want to make sure that I'm differentiating that correctly,
because I think the only thing that would be brought to us would be,
like, the written procedure. We would not be seeing anything having
to do with employee discipline or whatever in terms of how the
procedure is actually applied?
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Yeah. And so I'm not 100% sure that this
is an example of what you're talking about, but when I was an
employee, we had, like, 197 days of accountability, and it was
contiguous, day one all the way through the day of graduation.
And now I heard last year that they had days of accountability
and they stopped, and then there was maybe one day that you weren't
being paid because it wasn't a day of accountability, but the next
day was graduation, which was a day of accountability.
And so some people might say that, you know, when you're paying
somebody for a job, and to say we need you to work all of these days
but we're not going to pay you for this middle day in between, if I'm
accurate on that, that might be a contentious thing that they would
want to discuss and, you know, compromise and get it worked out well.
The thing is that if this doesn't come -- I mean, the reason we
were elected to be on this position is because we have five voices,
five opinions, five people that are willing to listen to the
situation and the outcome, the possible outcome, compared to one
person making the decision.
You know, I mean, I think that that's got to be worth something
that, you know, we are elected to do this job. We're elected to
follow state laws. And that's why Maricopa Community College does
the contracts. I think Chancellor Duran-Cerda mentioned that they,
you know, do each of those.
The reasons they see those contracts and they approve the
individual contracts is because it's a state -- you know, it's a
state mandate that the board shall do this, right?
Now, when we give authority to the chancellor to do something, we
are giving away what we are required by law to do, and we're saying,
okay, chancellor, you or your designee, take it over, right?
>> ANDREA: Theresa, I'm sorry. I don't mean to cut you off, but
we lost Ms. Garcia a couple of minutes ago, so she's missing a lot of
this and I think she needs to hear it.
Can you give her just a minute to get her back on?
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: You bet.
>> ANDREA: Thank you.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Hasn't the weather in Tucson been lovely
the last four days? Oh, my goodness.
>> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: Gorgeous.
>> MR. GREG TAYLOR: Although my phone tells me the rain and the
50 degrees are coming back towards the end of the week.
>> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: Oh, no.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: I have been using all my powers of positive
energy, you know, wishing and hoping for good weather. My niece is
getting married on Sunday, the 4th, and so it's an outdoor wedding.
You know, a week ago, it did not look good, but the last couple of
times I have been checking, it says it's going to be sunny that day.
Cold but sunny. So that's a good tradeoff.
>> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: Congratulations to your niece.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Thank you, yeah, we're excited for her.
>> ANDREA: Ms. Garcia is here.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Okay, great. So anyway, do any other board
members want to comment before I say my piece?
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: I do.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Okay. Go ahead, Wade.
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: I thought I understood this before we all
started talking. Now I'm not so sure.
I think Greg brings up some legitimate points. If somebody were
to ask me to explain the parameters of what falls within this policy
and what the policy governs, I don't think I could answer that
question.
Maybe it would help me more if we could talk about the
operational decisions that are within the policy and those that are
outside the policy, similar to the question that Greg answered. I
kind of would like to talk about specifics if we have the time.
In other words, a disagreement and employee discipline, in or
out. A person thinking that they had their rights violated, is that
in or out? An interpretation of a policy by a department head
through the chancellor's office, is that in or out? And if it's in,
does that mean we're making the final decision, and if it's out, does
that mean the chancellor makes the final decision?
So I'm really kind of confused about what the parameters that
this policy addresses.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: So I know Jeff Silvyn and Aubrey Conover
are on the line, and both of them are very well-schooled in this
topic so they could answer those four questions that you just asked.
>> AUBREY CONOVER: Yeah, I can give it a shot.
So I think the way to think about it is, you know, in the context
especially of AERC, we are looking at a policy. We are not looking
at what happened to individual X other than if a concern is brought
forward about how something is applied, we take a look at the policy
and say, is there something in the policy that we need to change to
make sure it's being interpreted correctly by all those involved?
So we would work through that policy and make sure that's very
clear the steps that should be taken so that both employees and the
people interpreting the policy see it in the same vein.
What would happen in this case, if it came to you all, it would
be the policy that would be coming to you. So, for example, one that
we have had lots of conversations that I like to bring up, is whether
or not employees should wear name badges. There are different
thoughts on that subject, whether or not that should be required by
employees to do so.
Currently the policy is that they are required to wear the name
badges when they are on campus. If someone did not follow that
policy and was held accountable by their supervisor, that would not
come to you.
But if the employee groups wanted to come forward and say we
don't agree with this policy, we want it changed so wearing the name
badges is an optional thing, that would then come to the board if
they took on that oversight role of policy.
In the case of the application of our discipline process, our
code of conduct, an individual who is unhappy with how they were
treated within that process would not come through this procedure.
They would work through our appeals process within the college to
have that addressed.
However, if someone said I think the way that we do discipline
needs an additional step within policy that allows things to be dealt
with at a different level, that would be brought to AERC. We would
work through it and determine whether or not another level should be
added, and if there was disagreement between the management and the
employee groups, that policy as a whole with options of whether or
not to add another step would be brought forward, if that makes
sense.
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: A follow-up question to that, do I hear you
correctly, Aubrey, the board would not be hearing individual cases?
>> AUBREY CONOVER: Correct.
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: What happens when the employee feels that
the AERC is not representing them and they have a disagreement with
that representative group?
>> AUBREY CONOVER: Oh, that's interesting. So I'm not aware of
any -- so we have never had an opportunity that I'm aware of where we
have had a complete disagreement with an employee.
Now, we have had some issues come to us where part of our role is
to say thank you for bringing this to us, but this really doesn't
fall under policies and procedures, and we give them resources and
direct them to the right outlet where they can immediately appeal an
individual decision or something along those lines.
Now, we sometimes have disagreements within the employee groups
and we try and talk through them and come to consensus. Usually
there is consensus amongst things, but at some point, if we got to a
point where we couldn't agree, not specifically between the employee
group and management, but let's say full-time faculty don't agree
with staff or even amongst them and we couldn't come to an agreement
or consensus, that also, if things were to change, would come to the
board.
Right now, the different information, as with a policy where it's
a disagreement between management and employees, all would go to the
decision-maker, the administrator, that too would all go to the
decision-maker, administrator, or in this case, if we were to shift,
to the board.
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: So, for example, if that name-badge example
you used were to go like this, the employee goes to the employee
representative group, says I want to wear mine upside down, and I
think I should be allowed to do that, and the employee group says no,
really, that's a good policy, you need to comply, and then the
employee says, now, wait a minute, I think I should be able to go
talk to the board --
>> AUBREY CONOVER: That would probably not follow under this
procedure. Now, they might come to public comment --
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: Wait, wait, wait. You don't have the rest
of question.
>> AUBREY CONOVER: Oh, sorry.
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: Who makes the decision who the employee goes
to, next step?
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: That's already a policy. I mean, there is
a policy. If you have a disagreement about how you were treated, and
it's not always, you know, in the -- it's not always that you got in
trouble, right? It could be that your class was canceled and you
were, you know, made to take this class, right?
And if there is a disagreement, or whatever it is, there is a
procedure of who you talk to first and it goes up. You know, it's
usually, as a faculty member, it was our department chair or our
dean. If they couldn't solve it for us, then it was escalated. And
it could go to, you know, the AERC, I think is where it would go now.
No? Jeff is shaking his head.
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: Wait a minute. Wait a minute.
>> MR. JEFF SILVYN: If I might, I think we're mixing together
again --
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: No, you might not. I want the floor.
I don't think you came close to answering my question, because
you've gone back talking to a department head. I'm talking about
what happens when the employee has a disagreement with the employee
representative group and decides that they need to be heard by the
board.
Who makes the decision on whether or not they will be heard by
the board? Not the department head. That's something that doesn't
even come into this. That's not the question I'm asking.
Does this policy address that?
>> MR. JEFF SILVYN: Yeah, sort of. So let's say an employee
says here's the current policy, I don't think that's the right
policy, we should change the language, like in your example. Right?
The employee could propose that idea to the chancellor's office
or the unit responsible for that area and say, I think you should
make this change in policy. Regardless of whether AERC agrees with
me, the administrator would consider that.
If the administrator and AERC both agree that's not an idea we're
going to advance, then the employee's ability to get the policy
changed would be every employee can write to the board members, can
show up at public comment, and they would pitch their proposal to the
board directly.
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: So whose job would it be to interpret this
policy to an employee in that situation?
>> MR. JEFF SILVYN: So that's why I think we're mixing things
up. What AERC works on and what BP 1.25 is about is about the
development of policy and procedure language. The application of
that language, the implementation, how it applies in a specific
situation, is up to the relevant supervisor or decision-maker, with
one caveat: The employee handbook says that the interpretation of
the provisions in the employee handbook is ultimately up to the chief
human resources officer.
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: Okay. So what I hear you saying is that if
an employee believes that their rights have been violated or they
have been treated in an inhumane manner, or something like that, this
policy doesn't handle that, and therefore, the employee cannot go to
the board? The board does not get involved in that conversation?
I want to make sure everybody hears this interpretation. If
somebody comes to a board member or writes us a letter saying, I was
mistreated, and I didn't get my day in court, that doesn't come to us
under this provision in the policy? Am I hearing that?
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Well, yes, I mean, that's how it's been for
the last year. They don't come to us, right? It's not our place to
talk to employees about, you know, specific things. That's the
administration's job to take care of it.
But board policy 1.25 is not that. Board policy 1.25 is talking
about a structure where employees have this shared governance
activity through AERC, and that's that organization that, that
committee that has a bunch of different people from all different
levels in the college. All of the different work groups are involved
in there. And they work and they collaborate and they make these
decisions.
It used to be called Meet and Confer, and that was back in the
days prior to 2013 when the unions at the college, PCCEA, AFSCME, and
ACES, where they were given the right to negotiate on all employees'
part. So I heard -- well, anyway, I won't say that.
So it was a negotiation between those groups and an
administrative team designated by the chancellor, and they worked and
they came together and they did their best-bet thing, and when they
finalized it, or even if they didn't finalize it, that product came
to the board just for final approval. It was a board decision.
Back, I think it was in 2015, that stopped, and when that stopped,
unions have not been the negotiating power.
Now, mind you, there are a lot of amazing people in these unions.
That spreadsheet that Dolores showed you, that was designed by Makyla
Hays, one of my fellow math faculty members. She did it, she
designed that, because there were all sorts of things that were not
getting done that were not coming to completion, that were not being
successful. They would spin their wheels in these meetings, and so
much was talked about and worked on.
Anyway, that was purely Makyla Hays working hours and hours and
hours to figure out how to do that spreadsheet. By the way, just as
an aside, she wanted to present it as one of the things for one of
these Bellwether awards or one of these awards, and the college
turned her down, which I thought was amazing considering so many
different groups are using this spreadsheet now.
But...
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: Theresa, what you just said had nothing to
do with my question.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: But what you said, Wade, about if somebody
is disagreeing with the union and the employee group, can they come
to the board? There is no disagreeing with the union, because the
union doesn't get to say what happens in any way, shape, or form,
except for different union members' participation in AERC.
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: So I will ask this question again.
So the board is not going to hold -- it sounds like the AERC is
somewhat of a hearing officer group, and their decision is somewhat
final as far as the employee is concerned.
But I will ask this question again, because I'm having trouble
understanding it, so please bear with me. The board will not be
hearing a concern from any employee on any topic unless they agree at
some point in time that the board policy's incorrect? The board
policy is incorrect?
>> AUBREY CONOVER: So remember, employees can always come to
you, whether it be public comment or not, but in terms of the
structure of how this is done, the policy would be the piece that
would come to the board for action.
If an employee comes to the public comment and complains about a
policy or how it's interpreted, the board can always direct the
chancellor to please take a look at this, follow up on this concern,
but this BP 1.25 is looking at the policy itself, how it's
structured, how it's worded, does it need to change on the policy
level, not how it's been interpreted in one individual's case.
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: I heard that. I don't read that into it,
but we have had three or four people give me an interpretation, and I
hope this stays so that it's consistent, because the policy, the way
I read it, doesn't say that.
So then when that gets to the board, is there a requirement for
the board to hear that?
>> AUBREY CONOVER: To hear a policy change?
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: From an employee. What I hear --
>> MS. MARIA GARCIA: If they don't agree.
>> AUBREY CONOVER: Correct. If an employee has a concern about
how they were treated within a policy, that is not designed to come
to the board. We have an appeals process and other techniques within
the institution. That does not preclude them from coming to public
comment or writing a letter to you all, but the structure is
structured in a way that it should not come to the board.
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: I'm talking about ultimate decision-making
authority. I'm not talking about public comment or anything along
those lines.
So then one step further, if the employee were to come to the
board outside of this process, according to our own policy, the board
would not hear that person other than their official statement --
>> AUBREY CONOVER: Correct.
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: -- correct? Anybody?
>> AUBREY CONOVER: Yes, that is correct. You are correct.
>> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: That is correct.
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: So then what, the board would say to the
employee, thank you very much, have a nice day?
>> AUBREY CONOVER: Well, and they could say, they could -- you
know, if an employee came with a concern, whether it be in public
comment or a letter, and the board received that, it would
probably -- and Jeff can correct me if I'm wrong -- would be
appropriate for that concern to be shared with the chancellor so she
could, she or he, could direct it to the appropriate investigatory
administrator to make sure that all policies and procedures were
followed.
The board would not make a decision and say, you are correct, I'm
going to reinstate you at this level or whatever the case may be.
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: Okay.
>> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Well --
>> MR. JEFF SILVYN: The distinction that Board Member McLean I
think is trying to make is it is accurate. So if BP 1.25 is changed
the way that the employee representatives to AERC are requesting,
then does final decisions about what language goes in a policy or
procedure would come to the board. Disagreements about how that
policy was applied to a specific employee would not come to the
board. BP 1.25 is about the development of policy language or
procedure language, not about the application to a specific employee.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: But Jeff, it's not coming to the board.
The policy language, the procedure language, is not coming to the
board if there has been a consensus, if AERC has decided on it.
>> MR. JEFF SILVYN: Right. But to Board Member McLean's point,
the final decision-maker, if the change is adopted, is the board,
because if there is not disagreement, it will change who makes the
final decision. If the employee group version is adopted by the
board, then the board will be the final decision-maker when there is
a disagreement about what language should go into a policy or a
procedure.
>> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Let me state something. And I could be
wrong. Listen to this. Okay.
So an employee has a problem. It goes to the right channels.
People see it, AERC and so forth, all the members get together. And
yet that resolution is considered unfair, but that was the decision
that was made.
And it's being promoted by the leadership and the directors, and
the employee isn't happy, because policy really wasn't followed for
everybody fairly. I mean, there are instances at this college right
now where some people are treated better than others.
I guess, you know, we're not supposed to know about all that
stuff, but I think what we're trying to get to at the very end of
this, policies that we have need to be applied to everybody, and
everybody needs to abide by them, and they need to be fair and all
employees need to be treated fairly.
I think that's what we want.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: I think we're sort of getting away from
what board policy 1.25 is. Board policy 1.25 is the document that
has the policies and procedures that show working conditions and
roles and responsibilities for different employee groups, right?
That's what the document that we are going to be talking about
is. So what happens is the difference between the two versions, they
are both the same. AERC, all of the different employee groups, talk
about problems, talk about policies, change things, make them better,
do all that sort of stuff. They try to negotiate this policies and
procedures, the faculty handbook, I'm sure there is a staff handbook,
there is all sorts of things like that.
What's going to happen, the only difference, there is a
disagreement, either the chancellor makes the decision or the board
makes the decision. There is no disagreement, either the chancellor
is going to approve it or the board's going to approve it.
The difference between these two options, in my mind, is when it
comes before the board it is not our part to nitpick and do all the
little things. So we are going to take the advice of the AERC group,
and if they agree, we are just going to say, yay, we agree too.
If there are disagreements, we are going to listen to the two
different groups, say, sort of what we are doing right here with the
A version and the B version, right, and then we are going to come to,
after hearing comments and hearing ideas, we are going to come to our
decision as a board of what we're going to do, as will the
chancellor.
So it's the same thing. The difference is we were elected to do
this job. If we give authority, if we delegate our authority to the
chancellor, we're giving away what we were elected to do to the
chancellor.
So let me just mention a few things real quick. Dolores talked
about there is a procedure for making sure that the chancellor does
what it is the board wants to have happen, right?
I'm going to say that that does not work very well at the
college. We're going to talk a little bit more about it when we get
to our midterm board assessment.
But just a couple of quick things. This board policy 1.25 has
taken way too long. It should have been done within six months, and
the fact that it's almost going to be an entire year before we vote
this thing one way or the other shows that when the board says
something, it doesn't happen quickly.
We had the same problem with the search committee for the search
firm to find a chancellor. It was supposed to be three to five
weeks, and it didn't even start until seven or eight weeks out.
Anyway, I'm tired of people weaponizing HLC. We had that really
nasty letter from former board members where they weaponized HLC, and
I sort of feel that the administrators who are supporting the
administrator version are also weaponizing HLC.
When we had the Governing Board be the final signoff authority on
this for decades, it was never a problem with HLC. It wasn't a
problem for HLC where Maricopa, the only community college that we
are very similar to -- we're not similar to a small rural college.
We are a big community college.
So I don't think that even though it's been mentioned by many
people that HLC is against us, they can't be against it. There are
colleges and universities across the nation where the board does this
final approval.
Lastly, we always, the college always -- well, there are other
educational institutions. Many of the elementary -- I mean, K-12
school districts do it this way. Maricopa does it this way. JTED,
Pima County JTED does it this way.
The reason that it goes to the board and not to the CEO is
because we're not a business. We are an educational institution, and
we know that oftentimes having, just like AERC, when they work
through and figure out these problems, they come to a better
agreement instead of just one person making the decision.
And it's the same thing for these two different versions. Would
you rather a board that's elected to do this job negotiate and figure
it out and do what they feel is best, or do you want one person doing
what they feel is best?
Okay. I'm done talking. Any other board comments?
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: I have some more.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Okay.
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: I disagree with a considerable amount of the
things you just said. But I guess right now, I want to reiterate,
and specifically, Maria, I want you to hear me say, this policy does
not have the board ensuring that every employee is treated the same.
This policy does not have disgruntled employees coming before the
board for relief. It doesn't have the ability of an employee to
complain about the supervisor or department in the college and have
the board have a hearing and make a determination on whether or not
there is value to the concern.
So you need to understand that, Maria. Because a lot of the
things you said tonight, this policy is not necessarily designed to
address that.
>> MS. MARIA GARCIA: So in other words, unfair termination
should not be part of it, correct?
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: That's what I hear.
>> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Or demotions?
>> AUBREY CONOVER: Theresa, you're muted.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Board policy 1.25 does not talk about
unfair terminations. So it's not in that manual or that idea, right?
What goes in here is the basic procedures and policies of how we
expect our employees to work, the roles and responsibilities we
expect them to undertake and to do with due diligence, and that sort
of thing.
What we are talking about here in board policy 1.25, it's not
about hiring and firing people. Those are other board policies.
Those are other APs. So what we are talking about is just AERC is
figuring out this package of policies and procedures that affect
employees and employee groups.
Version A says if there is any disagreements, it will go before
the board for the board to hear the different sides and the different
angles, for the board to make a decision.
Version B says the chancellor can do whatever she or he wants.
They may listen to AERC, but they don't have to because it doesn't
say that in there, right? It's the board -- what was it?
>> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: Decides -- they make it due to a
well-informed process, and that's the AERC 's input, right?
So whether it's the chancellor or the board, it's with the input
of AERC. So it's not just, for example, the chancellor or interim
chancellor, it's not just that one person making a decision. It's a
well-informed decision by the input of AERC.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: I think that goes without saying, right?
That's why we have AERC. They're the experts. They may know -- I
hate to say it, but they may know better than the board and they may
know better than the chancellor what's happening in those kind of
areas, right?
That's why we have shared governance, right? When you have
shared governance, instead of having one person be the authority --
it's like a patriarchal father, right? Instead of having that one
guy that says this is how we're going to do it because I'm the dad
-- my dad was like that, by the way. Instead, when you have a
shared-governance model or more fair-to-employee groups, right, it's
that the work, energy, and the discussions that they put in matter,
and they matter the final outcome.
When it's coming to the board, that will be the case, AERC's
decisions, whether they always agree or whether they don't. Let's
say they all agree, right? It can go to the chancellor in version B.
If something isn't what that person wants, that chancellor could
change that. As a board, we can't do that, right? We are taking the
recommendations of AERC and we're going with, if there is a
disagreement, we are going to be listening to their presentations to
us.
Anyway... we'll have to figure this all out before three weeks
from now when we have our board meeting and where this will be live.
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: So I have one more comment, I think, and
then a question.
So in that scenario, one thing that differentiates the AERC with
the management side is that AERC technically, legally, fiduciarily
does not have any accountability, and the chancellor and management
do. So this shared decision-making is not necessarily a level
playing field.
My question is let me give a scenario that may or may not occur.
So everybody gets together, they go through the process, and it comes
down to a disagreement in Meet and Confer on salary and fringe
benefits. The AERC's position is we want a 3% raise. The management
position is we're prepared to give you a 2% raise. AERC's position
is we want spousal partner insurance. Management says we can't
afford it.
Then that would come and sit on the board table. We would make
the decision on those two issues. Is that correct? Is that a
correct scenario?
>> AUBREY CONOVER: No, because I think what you're referring to
are more budgetary, so you're making those decisions separately from
this through the budget recommends that David Bea puts forth and the
decisions that you all make on that.
So the only one that potentially could come to you, but it still
would be a budgetary, the spousal -- let's say when we -- yeah,
here's a great example. When we expanded the tuition...
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: Aubrey, how about you use my example?
>> AUBREY CONOVER: Well, so the spousal -- the wage example,
whether or not there is a disagreement in percentages, would not come
through AERC, because that's not a policy or procedure. That is a
compensation benefit that's tied up in the budgetary process that you
all decide on at that high level.
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: So salary negotiations is not in Meet and
Confer?
>> AUBREY CONOVER: No, since we --
>> MR. JEFF SILVYN: Well --
>> AUBREY CONOVER: Sorry. Go ahead, Jeff.
>> MR. JEFF SILVYN: -- but it is, Aubrey. So AERC does provide
input into the budget process related to compensation, but regardless
of which version of BP 1.25 you pick, the final decision about what
the college is going to spend on payroll and benefits will go to the
board. That's how we do it now. It will continue regardless of the
changes.
So they are not treated exactly the same in AERC, in fairness to
Aubrey, but AERC, that's one of the changes we made last year
actually to make sure, because AERC didn't feel comfortable they were
having enough opportunity to input into the compensation part of the
budget, so we actually changed that to increase that.
But they do provide input into compensation, but because it
ultimately affects the budget of the college, those decisions do go
to the board now and they would continue to do so regardless of which
version the board approves.
>> AUBREY CONOVER: Because even if AERC agreed to, like, a 20%
raise, because we're all feeling generous with each other, that's not
going to stick unless the Board of Governors says, yes, we've found
that money and we are onboard.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Real quick question. When Dr. McLean was
talking about this, he said AERC versus administration, AERC versus
administration a couple of times. That's not the case at all.
AERC is a committee of employees from all of the different
-- Aubrey, you're a co-chair with, is it Makyla Hays is the faculty
co-chair?
>> AUBREY CONOVER: Uh-huh.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: So that committee is made up of people from
all of the different work strata, classes, I don't know what we call,
work groups, right?
So AERC is not against the administration ever. My assumption is
that, Aubrey, you get your marching orders from the chancellor. The
chancellor would say, hey, Aubrey, I want you to focus on this, I
want you to try to make sure everybody understands this from the
administration, I would assume that Dave Bea tells you his own things
from, you know, the business side. Jeff tells you things from the
legal side, right?
So you are being informed from the administration. So it's not
an us versus them. The AERC is the group that works collaboratively,
cooperatively, to find the best decisions for the college.
>> AUBREY CONOVER: Yeah. And that's why really, honestly, it
works so well. Because really, everyone's interests are the same
direction. We may slightly disagree about how to get there
sometimes, but that is the focus.
There could be and has been, not very often, once in a blue moon,
disagreements between employee groups. We try to work through those,
and again, almost always comes to consensus. But there may be a time
if this were to shift that differing views brought before you all,
management may have a version, full-time faculty may have a version,
staff may have a version, there may be different interests that are
presented to you with pluses and minuses.
But yes, you are absolutely right. We are all in it together
trying to make the best possible outcome.
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: A comment to my fellow board members. Just
so we understand, it's fine and dandy that David Bea tells -- I
wouldn't want to be you, Aubrey. Sounds like you're in the court
with lots of responsibility. (Laughter.)
So we all understand each other, that budget process either in
the beginning, the middle, or the end, revolves around taxation and
student tuition.
This vote on this board member is going to be to not make any
monetary decisions until there is a consensus with the board on those
two issues: student tuition and taxation.
So the process can move down the road, but last year, I
acquiesced and voted for a budget that required a taxation increase
and a student tuition increase, and that will not happen again with
me. Because I think the revenue determinations have to be made
before the expenditure determinations. Those are going to be tough
decisions.
>> MS. MARIA GARCIA: I agree with you.
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: And the Meet and Confer process may or may
not involve those conversations, but the only ones that can truly
make decisions on that is the five board members.
>> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Yes.
>> AUBREY CONOVER: And just to stress Jeff's point, one of the
things that we really focused on this year, because there was concern
last year, is to make sure that all the employee groups have multiple
opportunities to meet with David Bea to understand where we are
financially currently, what options might be out there for them to
express their priorities relative to their different employee groups,
what they would like to see if funds are available, and understanding
the bigger picture of what we're facing with the big decisions that
you all have in these areas.
So those conversations have been going on, they will continue to
go on, and we will try and get you all -- well, we will get you all a
summary of their thoughts and inputs so that you understand where
they're coming from as part of your conversations.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Any other board members want to comment?
>> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Right-size the organization.
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: (Laughter.)
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Okay. Hearing no others, we will move on
to section 2.3, the board's midyear assessment.
>> MR. LUIS GONZALES: One last comment.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
>> MR. LUIS GONZALES: Couple of words that came out and stood
out, it comes back to us in reference to having a full consensus but
more important being informed.
I know that both the AERC reference to the issues and concerns
that we have, they're done before it reaches to us, and I think the
policies you mentioned, Mrs. Riel, the policies are there, or the
checks and balances that they need to meet for any employee that's
disgruntled or having any issues or concerns. I think one of the
things that we need to look at, it was mentioned a while ago, is the
big picture.
The big picture mentioned a while ago we need to look at, and the
two main big pictures are the taxes but also the budget in reference
to what's going to be the impacts in reference to moving forward, but
more important, what have we done for our employees. We have done
quite a bit this last time around, but what can we do more for our
students, as well, too.
I think that's one of the areas that I feel that we need to look
at, as well, too, regarding the services and programs, as well. What
are the big things, and we'll come back to it and I will be very
verbal about it in reference to the biggest items that we have that
we need to look at in order to really pass a budget that's going to
be fair for everybody. Not only promoting the whole community
college but also promoting our students, as well, too.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Thank you. Okay.
Andrea, can you guys post that midyear assessment document?
>> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: Andrea, what's showing is the chart
of the Arizona community colleges.
>> ANDREA: Yeah, I sent them the one we're supposed to pull up.
I'm waiting for them to do that.
>> Give me one second.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: I mean, the board, I e-mailed it to you
last week. Basically it was just to talk about, you know, how
effective we have been as a board, areas that were good and areas
where we need improvement.
So what I thought was we could all write a comment, one positive
and one comment that needs work, for each of those areas that the
AACCT -- there we go. Thank you.
So the board functions are listed there. Say one positive
comment and one area where you think we need to show more growth or
more work. That's for that first section, for the board functions.
If you could scroll down to the second part of the assessment,
these were our goals for this '23/'24 and also say one positive thing
that we're doing right in the correct direction and one that we can
work harder on or do, we need to do more.
Sadly, I was talking to one other board member, and I said, you
know, I sort of feel that not a lot has been accomplished on the
board goals. So, you know, maybe one thing that we need to do is we
might want to let how we hear about the chancellor's goals each board
meeting, something is talked about, maybe we need to go through these
and do the same thing for us where we talk about what has happened in
these goals and what hasn't happened yet and where we need to go and
where we need to start.
How does that sound to all the board members, doing one positive
comment, like a strength, and then a weakness? Or I can't remember
what those other words for SWOT were. Strength, an opportunity, and
a weakness and a threat. Those sort of things.
What do you think? Any comments on that?
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: Theresa? I would be willing to do that.
And then in regards to the reporting on the Governing Board
goals, I don't think we're capable of doing that. We don't have the
resources, and we don't speak in a common voice, that's for sure.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Yeah.
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: I'm wondering if maybe we couldn't ask the
chancellor to have someone, not necessarily her, but someone, say, do
a little bit of homework for us, and I will pick on No. 4, capital
plan, and say the board hasn't done anything.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Right.
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: Not met -- pardon me?
>> MS. MARIA GARCIA: We can't do anything on that.
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: Well, that's my point, Maria.
So to have somebody else, you know, say to us -- I think we have
to operationalize each of these goals in some way, shape, or form. A
report on capital assets or the three- to five-year capital asset
plan for review or recommendation that needs guidance from the board
on future strategic plan, how it interacts with capital plan. I
mean, something like that which, unless one of us wants to step up
and do a lot of work and may or may not have any expertise in this
area, maybe a staff member could help us do this.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Yeah, and I guess that's my point. None of
these were, you know, a job description for a volunteer employee,
right? These are all job descriptions of things that administration
and faculty and staff have to do at the college, 100% of these, in my
opinion, right? None of these were, you know, things that we were
going to do.
So I think either we need to revisit these, because, you know,
accreditation, for example, the college is doing a lot of things on
accreditation, right? We're having mock trials. They have been
having their HLC round tables. That's not the name that they are
calling it. I think we did one in August, September, October,
November, December, January, yeah, the next one is February 15, I
believe.
So, you know, the college has been doing a lot of things to make
sure we get top-notch marks on the HLC visit. So I think No. 2 is
fine. But I don't think any of the other board goals, you know, I
don't think much has been done on any of these. That was just my
thought.
>> MR. GREG TAYLOR: I mean, I think there is more to be done,
but I don't know that I would agree we haven't done -- like that
first one, we did A, Interim Chancellor, didn't always happen on the
timeline that we wanted, but we do have those things. There is a
plan. It's in motion. We are in the process of reviewing and
revising board policies. We just did that today.
Seems like we are making progress on 1. 2, I think the way it's
written is referencing what we, as individuals on the board, are
going to do, as opposed to what the college is going to do, and we
started that. We had at least one or two presentations at the board
meetings around HLC. We have been scheduling meetings coming up
through the year. We have that HLC conference trip where some of us
are participating. I think all of that falls under No. 2.
I mean, for enrollment goals, I don't know that we have
necessarily established a goal, but I could certainly say we are
monitoring enrollment. I mean, that's how the dashboard works,
that's how the reports we get on a regular basis work.
Yeah, so maybe we need to talk about what the goal actually is
for where we want to see it as opposed to just increasing.
But anyway, I think there has been work done on a number of
these. I agree with what was said about No. 4. I don't know that
we've really done a lot about capital assets, but my hope is that's
part of this budgetary process we are launching into now where we'll
talk about capital plan, capital assets.
And then, you know, No. 5, the progress towards the -- I mean, I
think part of that is the chancellor's goals but also kind of the
long-term strategic planning that we are going to have to launch
into.
So I don't know. I guess I feel like we are making progress on a
number of these. They're not done, but I'm not as pessimistic about
it, I guess.
>> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Well, I have been, because I think that the
timelines that we would have liked to have happened didn't happen,
and I'm really concerned that we're not going to get this job done
before my term ends.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: So as far as doing the comments, what do
you think, like, maybe two or three weeks, think about them and get
them to Andrea by the end of February?
>> MS. MARIA GARCIA: All right.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Andrea, would that be all right if we just
send our comments to you?
>> ANDREA: Yeah, that's fine.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Thank you. Is that okay with the board
members?
(Agreement.)
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Moving on to section 3.1, a motion to elect
two board members to serve on the chancellor search advisory
committee.
Do I have a motion?
>> MS. MARIA GARCIA: So moved.
(Seconded off microphone.)
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Which two people do you want to nominate,
Maria?
>> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Well, I would be like to be on the
committee, but I think, and I'll leave it up to the other board
members, but I think that you should be on it, and I think Wade has a
lot of experience. If he can put the time into it, or if he wants to
share it with me, it's up to him.
Luis, are you interested at all?
>> MR. LUIS GONZALES: I wish I could say yes, but no, I can't.
I'm unable right now.
>> MS. MARIA GARCIA: You know, I would support Wade, because I
think that he has a lot of experience and he knows what to look for.
He kind of keeps us straight.
I do like you, Wade.
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: Thank you, Maria. (Laughter.)
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Greg, do you have any desire to be on that
committee?
>> MR. GREG TAYLOR: No, although I have some thoughts in general
about us having people on that committee.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Okay. So I think the motion that we heard
was for me and Wade to be on the committee.
Is there a second?
>> MR. GREG TAYLOR: I heard Maria and Wade.
>> MR. LUIS GONZALES: Maria.
>> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Second.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Maria, did you want me and Wade to be on
the committee?
>> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Yes. I prefer you both.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Okay. So now, to discuss that, Greg, I
think we'd like to hear what you have to say. Wade mentioned to me
that this isn't going to be -- we're not going to be the chair of
this committee. We're not going to be telling everybody what to do.
We are there to listen and to observe and to make sure that, you
know, that it's happening in a timely manner, right, unlike the prior
one.
Just to be able to come back to the board, to tell all of you
what we heard and, you know, who they are talking to, that sort of
thing.
>> MR. GREG TAYLOR: And that's fair. I just -- I don't think we
should be on that committee at all. I think that we are the final
decision-making committee, all five of us. It's not like that search
committee is going to make a decision that we are not approving or
that we are not narrowing down.
I genuinely see it more harm than good for us to participate in
that committee. I think we should stay sort of an objective second
step, and if we want to record the sessions like we did with the
search committee and have the option for board members to listen to
the presentations and do all of that, but I think the risk, whether
intentional or inadvertent of us putting our thumb on the scales for
that committee one way or the other to operate, I think that is worse
than the other things that are describing.
So I do not think that any of us should participate in the actual
committee itself. I think we should wait for the committee to make
its representation, and then we are involved as the final
decision-makers on ultimately making the hire.
>> MS. MARIA GARCIA: I'm going to add a little bit too about
what Greg said. In the past, the board was involved in the selection
of the chancellor.
I know that this last time when this happened, a lot of people
that were on the committee left because they were upset about what
was happening. I'm specifically talking about the Native Americans,
because they did not appreciate what was going on.
In the end, there was one board member that moved to bring Lee in
and advocated and did everything they could. So by me telling you
that, what he's saying is that these kind of things could happen
again and we'll have to decide what the best way is.
That's all. That's all I can bring up.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Luis?
>> MR. LUIS GONZALES: I agree that we need to really be very
careful in reference to our positions like they mentioned a while
ago. We are the ultimate decision-makers in reference to hiring the
next chancellor, whether it be him or her. But I think it's going to
be a little bit -- it's not going to be looking too good for any of
us if we're involved in the process. That's what I'm trying to say.
I think it's going to be kind of a risk.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Wade?
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: I think Greg brings up some good concerns.
I'm wondering if maybe we shouldn't ask our search consultant for
advice on this.
>> MS. MARIA GARCIA: That's a good idea.
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: What they have seen in the past as far as
what's been positive and perhaps a negative in regards to the
perceptions of the outside community, looking in.
>> MR. LUIS GONZALES: And what has been the practice, as well,
too.
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: Yeah. I mean, we're paying them good money.
Maybe they should advise us on this.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: So I spoke with the board chair for
Foothill-De Anza Community College. We all know that college, right?
They took Lee Lambert.
Anyway, their board members, all of them, were on the committee.
At that point, when he was talking to me, he said, you know, I just
want to remind you that this is solely the board's responsibility to
choose the best possible candidate.
So from my perspective, especially having experienced what we
experienced since the end of October, I do think it's necessary that
we are on that committee. We don't have to talk, and I know that you
think, oh, Theresa's not going to be able to do that, but I do think
that if we are not on that committee, the timeline's out of our
hands, the number of people that they interview are out of our hands,
where they advertise, out of our hands, whereas if we're on that
committee and we hear something come up, you know, we don't have to
make our opinion known in that committee, but we can talk to the
people that we're hiring, right? They're working for us. They're
working for the board. They're not working for that committee.
I just think the fiasco that we had with this last, I think that
we are -- you guys always say I'm being naive about money. I think
we're being very naive that it will go without a hitch if we're not
aware of what's going on.
>> MR. GREG TAYLOR: I think, though -- and I appreciate that
concern, Theresa, and I share it. I don't think we have to be on the
committee to do that. I mean, I think that we can make a motion and
pass it that says the committee has to have its three final
recommendations or whatever by X date, and then so it comes to us.
And once we have those recommendations, we can call those colleges
and do all those things. It doesn't require us to be on the
committee that's making those recommendations to do all of that
vetting.
I mean, we should. I think that's a step in the process. I just
worry that even well-intentioned, that our participation in the
committee itself will somehow bias or influence the folks who are
there to try to make otherwise objective recommendations to us.
Like I said, we can have an honest disagreement on where we think
the risks lie, and I think your heart is in the right place. I just
think we can do that without having also have those risks.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: I just want to point out that we did give
the college a three- to five-week timeline, and Wade did say we
wanted between three and six firms that we were going to look at.
None of us would have known at all that nothing had happened if I
hadn't called my friend for another reason -- I needed to decline a
dinner invitation, and I said, oh, by the way, how's it going? She
said nothing had happened. And that was December 1st.
So we said in October, had I not made that phone call, we
wouldn't have found out for the next maybe month or so.
All I'm saying is Maria and Luis and I want this to be done with
this five board members. We want to find this person before the
November election. And there is a chance that it won't happen if the
same kind of shenanigans happen. I think we're being derelict in our
duties if we don't participate.
Anyway, anybody else want to say anything?
>> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Should we make a motion?
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: You already did, so I will call for the
vote.
All in favor to have Theresa and Wade be nonvoting members on
this committee, be there just to observe and to hear and to bring
back to the board what's happening, say aye?
(Ayes.)
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Any opposed?
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: Nay.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: So three, four, and two against.
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: Four and two against?
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Three ayes and two nays.
Wade, I appreciate your -- you were the one that suggested this
the last board meeting that we needed people on the committee. So
since you are saying nay, would you rather not be on the committee?
Should we put Maria on instead of you?
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: Well, first, I'd like to say I do keep an
open mind most of the time.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Oh, yeah.
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: Greg brought up some good concerns I
honestly hadn't thought about. Over the years, I have learned that
if you're going to delegate, you have to delegate. That's what we
have done with these committees, this committee.
It's a real cross-representation of our community. I'm thinking
no matter who represents us, that there has to be a comment made to
the committee that we're in an oversight role so we can report back
versus a participatory role that we're going to be included in the
conversations.
So maybe we need to define those positions as observers or ex
officio or something like that, if that's what the board has decided
to do.
>> MS. MARIA GARCIA: That's fair.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: But, Wade, do you want to be that one
person in the ex officio, nonvoting member, or would you rather --
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: If that's what the board wants, I will do
it.
>> MS. MARIA GARCIA: All right. You're in.
>> DR. WADE McLEAN: Thank you, Maria.
>> MS. MARIA GARCIA: You're welcome.
>> MS. THERESA RIEL: Anything else for the good of the cause?
Then we'll adjourn this meeting. Thank you.
(Adjournment.)
*********************************************
DISCLAIMER: THIS CART FILE WAS PRODUCED FOR COMMUNICATION
ACCESS AS AN ADA ACCOMMODATION AND MAY NOT BE 100% VERBATIM. THIS IS
A DRAFT FILE AND HAS NOT BEEN PROOFREAD. IT IS SCAN-EDITED ONLY, AS
PER CART INDUSTRY STANDARDS, AND MAY CONTAIN SOME PHONETICALLY
REPRESENTED WORDS, INCORRECT SPELLINGS, TRANSMISSION ERRORS, AND
STENOTYPE SYMBOLS OR NONSENSICAL WORDS. THIS IS NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT
AND MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED, PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
THIS FILE SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED IN ANY FORM (WRITTEN OR
ELECTRONIC) AS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OR POSTED TO ANY WEBSITE OR
PUBLIC FORUM OR SHARED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE
HIRING PARTY AND/OR THE CART PROVIDER. THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL
TRANSCRIPT AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON FOR PURPOSES OF VERBATIM
CITATION.
*********************************************
《QQ三国》官方论坛
农银汇理基金
全球最大的博彩平台
荣威汽车官网
威尼斯人平台
北京财贸职业学院
Macau-New-Portuguese-capital-contactus@f5bh.com
皇冠体育博彩
太阳城官方网站
在线赌博
365-Sports-contact@yuke100.net
Crown-Sports-support@gl428.com
科学松鼠会
博彩平台
360音乐
太阳城娱乐城
鄂尔多斯人事人才网
网赌平台
路由器技术网
花匠网
盐城房产网
租客网
三网科技
广州民航职业技术学院
搜易贷
珠海易登网
青岛理工大学琴岛学院招生与就业信息网
中国临朐
亚杜股份
一点点创意
乐信短信平台
玉溪天气预报
穷游机票
起名网
站点地图