>>Chair Greg Musil: Good evening. Welcome to the April, 2016, meeting of the Johnson
County Community College Board of Trustees. Will you help me start the meeting by joining
me in the Pledge of Allegiance.>>I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United
States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.>>Chair Greg Musil: Thank you. Roll call and
recognition of visitors.>>Ms. Terri Schlicht: This evening’s visitors
include Roberta Eveslage, Mary Gerdes, Ralph D. Gratolla, Dusty Sease and Charles McCallister.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Welcome. The next item on our business is the open forum. The open
forum is a period at each meeting for members of the community to provide comments to the
Board. There will be one public forum comment period during each regularly scheduled board
meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes unless a significant number of people plan
to speak, in which case the Chair can reduce that amount. In order to be recognized, individuals
must register at the door before each board meeting and prior to the open forum agenda
item. When addressing the Board, registered speakers should be respectful and civil and
should not address matters related to individual personnel matters with the college. As a practice,
the college does not respond in this setting when the matter concerns personnel issues
or matters that are being addressed through our grievance or suggestion processes or are
otherwise subject to review by the college or the Board of Trustees.
Our only listed speaker today is John Rives, who is also the president of our Student Senate.
Welcome, John. And I understand this is his open forum comments and later we will have
his Student Senate report as a separate matter.>>Mr. John Rives: Ladies and Gentlemen of
the Board of Trustees, members of the administration, faculty, staff and student body. I will be
standing up in a few moments, as you have said, to give my monthly Student Senate report,
but I’d like to give a particular emphasis to what I have to say now.
Over the past year we’ve had many conversations about the safety of our campus; but only a
couple of times have I mentioned what I believe ought to be done in regards to this issue;
and as president of the student body, I now feel compelled to address the Board of Trustees.
240 years ago our forefathers fought for and won liberty and overthrew a tyrannical king.
Our Declaration of Independence claimed for us the unalienable rights of life and liberty.
A few of those most basic liberties were later outlined in the Bill of Rights, which is inseparable
from our Constitution. The second of these rights is the right of
the people to not only keep, but also to bear arms. The Constitutional rights of the people
are being threatened and idleness does not become us.
The battle for liberty usually has not been fought with guns on the battlefield, but with
words. In Congress or in our state Legislature, or in our city council chambers or even in
this very room among the Board of Trustees. The choice is now before you. Will you uphold
the basic liberties our founding fathers fought for? Or, at the bidding of faculty members,
will you send a representative to Topeka to lobby against these liberties? These same
teachers threatened to resign should we be allowed our liberties. But I tell you, we
do not need teachers, we need our unalienable rights. We should not be alienated from our
constitutional right to bear arms. Even Patrick Henry, who said “Give me liberty or give me
death”, did not support the Constitution until it included the Bill of Rights. And there
was Benjamin Franklin who said “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase
a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”. Alas, there are those
at this college who desire to make that trade. So I and my fellow students plead with you.
Do not undermine our liberty. Press on in the defense of our freedom and do not act
against it or in favor of tyranny. In fact, affirm our right to carry guns on this campus
before July 1st, 2017, because the Constitution guarantees us this liberty. Thank you very
much.>>Chair Greg Musil: John, are you speaking
on behalf of the Student Senate or on behalf of John Rives as a student at the college?
>>Mr. John Rives: I can’t say I’m representing the Student Senate; but I do believe I represent
many students.>>Chair Greg Musil: Okay. I know we’ve done
surveys on campus and that’s why I wanted to make sure I understood because I think
some of our student surveys have indicated concern about the issue of weapons on campus;
but, obviously, we appreciate your comments and your perspective on that.
>>Mr. John Rives: Thank you.>>Chair Greg Musil: Thank you. We now have
Awards and Recognitions and we have some pretty impressive recognitions today for some student
athletes and some of our coaches and administrators. So, is that — Dr. Sopcich.
>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: Thank you, Trustee Musil. I’d like to defer to Dr. Randy Weber. Randy.
>>Mr. Randy Weber: Yeah, I’m here because our athletic director is currently at region
and conference meetings out of town. So I am going to do some recognitions on behalf
of athletics. First, we have four recipients here this evening
that I will be discussing. But our first recognition, we have another schedule conflict, and it’s
our baseball coach, because he’s got a game out on the field. But it is important for
us to note that our baseball coach, Kent Shelley, received his 900th career win earlier this
spring. And I think that that was something that they wanted us to recognize. Since he’s
not here and we’ve got a full agenda, I’ll skip the rest of the bio; but his 900th career
win was a big achievement for both he and his team so we’re excited about that.
(Applause)>>Mr. Randy Weber: I’m going to move — next
I’m going to move on to our student athletes that we have who have received recognition
for their efforts on the court this year. First — I’ll bring both of them up right
now. Erica Nelson and Danzel Wright. Erica is a sophomore on our women’s basketball team
and Danzel is a sophomore on the men’s team so they both have expired their eligibility;
but in doing so, they accomplished some pretty good feats. So Erica is the 27th player to
become NJCAA All American 1st Team, 12th under Ben Conrad. She’s a 16th All American in the
women’s program — excuse me — I’ve consolidated some stuff here so I’ll have to apologize.
She’s the 12th under Ben Conrad. She was named to the 10th player WBCA All America 1st Team.
She helped the program’s first undefeated season this year at 30 wins and zero losses
in the regular season. And they finished their season at 31-1. She was also selected 1st
Team All KJCCC District II and Region 6. She led the Lady Cavaliers in a number of statistical
categories. Her 16.6 points per average ranked third in the Conference and she was a Conference
leader in assists. Her freshman season, Nelson was a key performer in Johnson County’s run
to the national title. In the tournament, she averaged 14.5 points, 7 rebounds and 5.8
assists. Nelson is also a part of the winningest class in team history. In her two seasons,
Johnson County posted a 65-3 record. Erica Nelson.
(Applause) Erica, I’m going to put you on the spot. You
did say you didn’t want to say anything. Just tell them where you’re going to school next
year.>>Ms. Erica Nelson: The University of Florida
Gulf Coast.>>Mr. Randy Weber: Our second recipient — we’ve
got a couple of them. I’m going to try to get through them pretty quickly. Is Mr. Danzel
Wright. Danzel was named 1st Team and MVP of the Division II Kansas Jayhawk Conference.
He’s leaving Johnson County as one of the most prolific scorers in the program’s history.
His freshman season, Danzel set a new freshman scoring record with 665 points. This year,
he poured in 591 points, which averaged 19.1 points per game and finished with 1,256, second-most
in JCCC history. He’s the 12th player ever to score over 1000 points in a career at the
college. In ’15-’16 — so this year — he led JCCC in the Conference in scoring, ranked
second in 3-point percentage, second in 3-point field goals made, first in free-throws, first
in free-throws made and fourth in assists. For all of this, he was recognized as a 1st
Team All American. Danzel. (Applause)
I don’t think he wants to talk. You haven’t decided on a school yet, have you?
>>Mr. Danzel Wright: No.>>Mr. Randy Weber: All right. But he’s going
to find a good one. All right. Our next recipient is our women’s
basketball coach, Coach Ben Conrad. So, for the second consecutive year, Johnson County
Community College head women’s basketball coach, Ben Conrad, will be receiving a national
Coach of the Year award. This year, Conrad has been named the 2016 United States Marine
Corps/WBCA Junior Community College National Coach of the Year. He was presented the prestigious
Pat Summitt Trophy at the annual WBCA awards on April 5th in Indianapolis. The Marine Corps
and the WBCA trophy, named for legendary University of Tennessee coach, to the United States Marine
Corps/WBCA national Coach of the Year annually in each of the six membership divisions. NCAA
Divisions I, II and III, NAI, and Junior/Community College and High School. The WBCA is proud
to name Ben as the 2016 Coach of the Year, said WBCA Director Danielle Donehew. Ben was
selected as a winner by his peers after leading his team to an exceptional season. The WBCA
recognizes and applauds his leadership example that can be seen in his student athletes,
institution and community. Conrad recently completed his eighth season at the college,
leading the Lady Cavs to a number one ranking and an unblemished 30-0 record during the
regular season. He’s amassed an incredible record during his 14 seasons at the college–
excuse me — as a head coach. 331 wins against the 125 losses, so that’s a 73% winning percentage.
But he has seen even greater heights at JCCC, leading the program to a 238-33 mark, winning
88% of his games at the college. He’s just one win shy of taking over as the All Time
Wins leader in the program’s history. Coach Ben Conrad.
(Applause) Do you want to say anything?
>>Coach Ben Conrad: I do want to thank all the administrators and board members that
are here. You guys — what you guys do for us and the value you place on what we do means
everything to us, so we really appreciate you. Thank you. And I also want to thank that
really good player right there. That was 65-3 in the last year. She did pretty good. Thank
you. (Applause)>>Mr. Randy Weber: All right. Last athletic
award of the evening is going to be for our longest tenured individual at the college,
so, Tyler, come on down. Tyler is receiving the NJCAA Service Award. Founded in 1959,
the NJCAA Service Award is the most tenured honor handed out by the association. It is
given to those, most often not an athlete, who have made significant contributions to
two-year college athletics on a national level for an extended period of time. Annually,
one Service Award can be reserved for a member of the media. No more than four Service Awards
can be presented in a given year. This year’s recipient was Tyler Cundith. He received his
award at the NJCAA meeting in Colorado Springs. Tyler is in his 25th year at the college;
24th as Sports Information Director. Coordinates all media relations for the Athletic Department’s
15 sports; and in 2008, he was inducted into the JCCC Athletics Hall of Fame. During his
tenure, he provided publicity for 11 national championship teams, 74 teams with a Top Five
finish at nationals; 96 Regional District championship teams. He has won 221 national
awards for publications and writing, including 204 by CoSIDA. He has had 104 publications
judged Best in Nation, 99 by CoSIDA. He just finished among the Top Five in the country
for total awards twelve times — or he has twelve times in his career; and led the country
four times. He served 14 years on the CoSIDA Publications Committee, served as Vice Chair
from 2009-2012; and in the fall of 2012 he was promoted to Chair. He’s also served three
years on the all — excuse me — Academic All America Committee. At the 2015 convention,
he was elected to a prestigious three-year term on CoSIDA Board of Directors. He is the
first two-year representative to serve on that Board. Please join me in congratulating
>>Mr. Tyler Cundith: I feel very fortunate to work at an amazing school. To be able to
do this for 25 years, and with the coaches that I’ve been able to work with, student
athletes and the people I work with at the college is amazing. This is a great, great
school. Thank you. (Applause)
>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: Thank you, Dr. Weber. I’d just like to thank Tyler and Erica, Danzel
and Ben for representing our college in an exemplary fashion. After seeing one of the
teams that you played this year and the behavior of that team and the coach and all, I’ve got
to tell you, Ben, your team — your team represents us in just incredible fashion, something we
can all be proud of. And thank you all for the respect of the game. That’s so important.
So, thank you very much. All right. Mr. Anderson.
>>Mr. Andy Anderson: Yes. Thank you. As you know — well, I hope you know — the college
is really well-known across the nation for our debate team. Every year they have outstanding
records. I always kind of dread — I sympathize with the coaches because they have to keep
turning out outstanding teams, and they keep doing it. This year we want to recognize Arriq
Singleton and Casey Owen, who were coached by Justin Stanley and Daniel Stout. And coaches,
you’ve got to stand up, too. Everybody has got to stand up here. As a team, they had
a 5-3 preliminary record and advanced to the doubles as the top overall 5-3 seed in the
national tournament. The preliminary rounds, they had victories over teams from Binghamton
University of New York, James Madison University, Kansas City Kansas Community College, Arizona
State University and the University of Oklahoma. Arriq Singleton was recognized as the seventh
speaker in the country. There were over 220 debaters in attendance. This is especially
impressive because he started the academic as a novice last year. This is also the highest
speaker award in the history of Johnson County Community College debate. Casey Owen finished
as the 21st speaker. He is now the second highest speaker in school history. Their accomplishments
this year have been outstanding. We want to recognize you and thank you for representing
the college so well. Thank you. (Applause)
You’ll be timed. (Laugher)
>>Mr. Arriq Singleton: All right. I’ll make this short. So, I really need to thank those
two men over there because, as you said, I was a novice last year, which means that I
just walked on to the team. This is mi first time ever. And generally speaking, the people
that we were competing against have had, you know, upwards of like seven years of debate
experience by that time. So, it was really tough. But walking on to the squad, I had
no idea what debate was about at all and, honestly, really didn’t have any direction
as far as what I was going to do academically. I still didn’t know what I wanted to do. And
those two over there provided me the opportunity to be able to explore a lot of different literature
and do some very deep research that has put me in a really interesting spot. I think that
after one of the rounds the judge came up to me and told me that I had a professor’s
level of understanding about the literature that I was reading, and he thought that I
could be a professor in the very near future, which was very eye-opening for me. And a lot
of the times people say that debaters at the top level do enough work over the year to
produce a Master’s Thesis, so, definitely put in a whole lot of work this year and it
was very academically rigorous but I think that we came out with more to take from than
just an award, but rather enough tools to be able to continue our academic careers in
very successful places. So thank you all for the opportunity.
(Applause)>>Mr. Casey Owen: I can’t really top that
very well. (Laughter)
But, of course, my thanks do go out to Justin and Dan; but most of all it would probably
have to go out to Arriq because, honestly, going into this tournament, it was a phenomenal
feat that Arriq pulled off, managing what he did and all the work he put in over the
season. But realistically, our partnership formed at the district qualifier, only a few
tournaments before. We hadn’t planned on this for the entire year. It kind of just ended
up getting scrapped together and it was an amazing experience for me to get to participate
and watch; but ultimately, it did come down to Arriq’s fundamental understanding and ability
to engage in the way he does. So, I would have to give most of my thanks out to Arriq
for his great job at this tournament and throughout the year. Thank you.
(Applause)>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: What was your sweetest
win?>>Mr. Arriq Singleton: I really can’t say
because a lot of the year, some of the people we had beaten had been almost rivals for us.
They had been very bitter enemies; and so every single one of them was very sweet.
(Laughter)>>Chair Greg Musil: Thank you all so much
for representing our college. Feel free to go practice basketball, basketball, sports
information and debate. Thank you very much. Not only did we beat Oklahoma in debate, we’re
still undefeated against them in football. (Laughter)
>>Chair Greg Musil: It’s amazing when you — I wish the rest of this meeting would be
as articulate as Arriq and Casey were. It’s impressive. And I know that faculty members
here and the faculty members throughout the campus turn out those kind of kids over and
over again. And it makes you proud to be part of the effort, the little part that we play
up here. So thank you all for what you do. John, you want to come back up and give us
the Student Senate report? Is this your final or do we still have May?
>>Mr. John Rives: Yes, it is.>>Chair Greg Musil: This is your final.
>>Mr. John Rives: Well, I would like to thank you again for allowing me to come speak on
behalf of Student Senate. We’ve had a standout year and I’ve been honored to work with many
people of this college, students, employees of this college and especially the Board of
Trustees. With just a month left in the school year,
Student Senate is still quite active working on a lot of different projects and events.
One of the last events we will be hosting this semester will happen this Monday. In
place of our regular general assembly meeting at noon, we will be hosing a town hall style
meeting with dining services. We’ve invited Jay Glatz and several other dining services
employees to meet with students and to hear their ideas and concerns.
We also have three ad hoc committees working right now. One of these committees has been
working with bookstore management to evaluate bookstore policies. And another committee
has been looking at add/drop policy and class scheduling. We’ve been working with Paul Kyle
and he’s been really amazing to work with. Great resource.
This year’s Student Senate has distributed all of the 38,000 dollars we are allotted
to different organizations on campus and there have been so many extraordinary things that
the organizations have been able to do. It’s difficult for me to select just a couple.
But I would like to mention just a few because they really are amazing.
One really cool thing is Engineering Club has been able twice to go get a behind-the-scenes
engineering tour with Elite Engineer at Worlds of Fun and, you know, both times they came
back really amazed and it’s a great opportunity, you know, for career-related tour.
The Graphic Design club hosted a senior showcase, as they do every year, for their students’
work. At this event, students are able to gain community and industry recognition and
often receive awards and jobs and Student Senate was able to help fund that also.
And the final one I wanted to tell you about was the Culinary Quiz Bowl team that we have.
They recently traveled to Hawaii to compete nationally.
So a lot of really cool things going on with clubs. And that’s just a few. That’s barely
the tip of the iceberg. A couple of weeks ago we held elections for
next year’s executive board members. None of them were able to attend tonight, but those
elected were Donny Whitton for president, Amanda Wang for vice-president, Ali Zinati
for secretary, Frank Zeng for treasurer and Alex Rowe for parliamentarian. The new executive
board will take over at the beginning of the fall semester. I’m really excited for the
new officers. I’m very confident that they’ll do an excellent job with Student Senate.
As I mentioned before, this is my final Board of Trustees report and you’ve been a great
group to work with and I’m going to miss the role of president because of all the amazing
people here. I’ve come to see that this Board really is a major part of what makes JCCC
a really great school. So thank you very much.>>Chair Greg Musil: You’re very kind, John.
Any questions?>>Trustee Jerry Cook: I do have one question.
What do you want to do when you get big? (Laughter)
>>Mr. John Rives: Well, a really cool opportunity opened. I was actually running for re-election
for Student Senate president and I lost; but because of that, a really cool opportunity
opened with a maintenance job at a summer camp that is managing and so my major being
automotive technology, that’s a really cool opportunity for me. I think I’ll continue
to pursue automotive technology and hopefully eventually open a business some day.
>>Trustee Lee Cross: Thank you for your service and wish you the very best. Thank you, John.
>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: John, always remember that many great leaders have lost elections and
have bounced back. So there’s an opportunity ahead to you.
I want to thank you for your leadership this past year. You’ve taken on some really tough
issues. You’ve been a pleasure to work with and you’ll be missed so, good luck, John.
>>Mr. John Rives: Thank you very much.>>Chair Greg Musil: I think the town hall
meetings that you sponsored through the year — and, nobody understands all the volunteer
service that you and the board gives, and some of the pure charitable things you do
that are not necessarily directly related to the campus but make us a better place because
of what the students do and your leadership was very much appreciated. We will miss you.
Every year we miss the outgoing Student Senate president. We get one that’s seemingly just
as good every year and it’s a tribute to the Senate as to who the students elect. So, thank
you and good luck.>>Mr. John Rives: Thank you.
(Applause)>>Chair Greg Musil: All right. Now, everybody
hold on to your seats, we’re going to move into something really exciting. It’s the 2016-2017
budget workshop. Rachel, we’ve had our materials for a while
and I know you’re going to give a presentation. We have opportunity for questions now, and
I know you’ll go through the timetable, with the ultimate goal of adopting a budget in
August after the official public hearing.>>Ms. Rachel Lierz: Yes, that’s the legal
budget. Actually, the management budget, though, will have an action item next month at the
meeting. Did you have anything that you wanted to say?
>>Dr. Barbara Larson: I just wanted to thank members of the Board and all of the individuals
that have contributed to getting to us this point. As you know, this is the culmination
of a lot of thought and effort by many people across the college. We have over 120 budgets
administrators that work toward this. I want to especially thank members of the president’s
cabinet for their hours of deliberation and work. And the financial services team, particularly
Chandra Russell, our budget coordinator here, and Rachel Lierz for her leadership in this
process. Rachel is our Associate Vice-President for Financial Services and CFO and she and
her staff have done an extraordinary job. So with that, I will turn it over to Rachel.
Thank you.>>Chair Greg Musil: May I ask for clarification?
I think some people hear 120 budget administrators, they think of 120 people sitting in a room
with cubicles. These are people distributed among departments all over campus that are
responsible for the budget in their area.>>Ms. Rachel Lierz: That’s correct.
>>Chair Greg Musil: So don’t want to leave the wrong impression out there.
>>Ms. Rachel Lierz: All right. Great. Well, thank you. I’d like to start our time tonight
by reviewing this document. And I think all the trustees have a hard copy. We’ll put it
up on the screen for the other folks here in the room. And we will put it on the college’s
web site tomorrow so if you’re interested in further review of the material, you’ll
be able to do so. It is kind of a long document, nearly 100
pages. So we’ll move pretty quickly through the material, hit the highlights, and then
I’d like to summarize with just a few PowerPoint slides at the end.
I’d like to begin — and I think it’s important to begin with just a quick look at the college’s
mission, vision and values. Again, these were developed back in 2014 in connection with
the college’s strategic planning efforts at the time. And, again, very simply, the reason
that we’re here tonight is just because we hope that we build a budget that best helps
the college to advance its mission to inspire learning. So that’s why we start off by sharing
that material. The next slide here — and I apologize, my
screen resolution isn’t great — is a more detailed look at the strategic goals and tasks
that we shared with this group many times. And I think as we move through the materials
tonight, you’ll be able to see some specific examples of how our strategic goals and tasks
then form some of our resource allocation decisions. Specifically we’ll talk about things
like student success initiatives under Goal 1. We’ll talk about expansion — planned expansion
of web-based instructional options for next year under Goal 2. Then, of course, facilities
utilization and facilities master planning under Goal 4 of the strategic plan. So, again,
that’s just a little bit more about how those strategic items continue to inform our budget
process as we move throughout the year. Next, on Page 6, we have a look at our preliminary
budget guidelines, and these were adopted by the Board back in December so a lot of
this material we’ve already covered. These were the initial assumptions for revenues
and expenditures, including our initial estimate of increases and assessed valuation and enrollment.
The tuition cost per credit hour has already been established and approved for next year
with the rates by residency. State aid and expenditure budgets as well. So, the only
— if you flip forward to Page 6, just wanted to highlight in bold print there, the only
two of those initial guidelines that we’ve changed have been shared with the Management
Committee previously and I wanted to mention them tonight. Those were the estimates for
assessed valuation, which we kind of went into the process saying we anticipate about
a 4% increase in the county’s assessed valuation for next year. We’ve since, based on some
more updated information, bumped that up to a 6.5% planned increase in assessed valuation
for next year. And then have also tweaked slightly our estimate for enrollment. Our
original budget guidelines, we had planned for about a 1% decrease, but have continued
to monitor enrollment trends throughout the spring semester and really feel more comfortable
now, I think, taking a little bit more conservative approach on next year’s budget and planning
around a 3% decrease in credit enrollment for next year.
The next couple pages are just a quick look at the budget cycle calendar. As Barbara mentioned,
there are a lot of people around campus involved in this process. They’ve put a lot of time
and effort into the development of the college’s budget. We started a long time ago back in
September. This is now almost a 12-month cycle. Continuous process. We fast-forward to where
we are today, April 21st, our workshop. Of course, at the May board meeting, we’ll move
forward with a recommendation on the management budget and then, Greg, as you mentioned, the
legal budget then will take approval later in the summer, in August after the public
hearing. Any questions on the calendar? All right. So moving into the numbers. We’ll
start with our revenue assumptions. And I’m primarily going to focus on the General and
Postsecondary Technical Educational funds, which we’ll commonly refer to as the PTE fund,
because that is the largest component of the college’s budget. Of course, we’re required
to maintain many different funds within our accounting system, but these are the primary
operating dollars of the college within the General/PTE fund.
So, on this first page, the pie chart, sources of revenue. It does reflect that the local
funding base for the college remains strong with the ad valorem tax revenue projected
to be 61% of total General Fund revenue next year. That’s property taxes and motor vehicle
included in that figure. The second largest component of our revenue
remains tuition and fees, which will be about 22% of our estimated revenue for next year.
And then the state aid, state funding, about 15%, which is the yellow component there on
the graph. We do have a small amount of interest and
other income, which is about $2.5 million that is the final component of the revenue
sources for the college. The next page shows the revenue sources on
a ten-year, with a ten-year history. So, you’ve got actual dollars from ’08 to fiscal ’15,
last year. This year’s budget, fiscal ’16 and fiscal ’17. So, again, I think it’s interesting
to look at the trend information over time. If you start at the top and — you can see
that four years ago, that represented about 18% of the General Fund budget. Next year
we’re planning for that to be approximately 15% of our revenue, as we saw in the pie chart.
The green component in the middle is the tuition and fee revenue, so that’s actually decreased
from about 25% four years ago to 22% planned for next year. And then the ad valorem dollars
have continued to increase, largely based on increases in growth and assessed valuation
in recent years. So, we talked about all of our sources of
revenue. Now I’d like to spend just a little bit of time kind of pulling those apart and
just a few comments about each item. Starting with the state funding plan for next
year. This schedule is received from KBOR in June of last year. We will receive a similar
notification in June of this year with our proposed ’17 distribution. You can see that
this — the amount on this schedule is $21.5 million for the college. We have continued
to approach our budget more conservatively in planning for a reduction off that number
of 5% in our budget. So when you look at the budget, you don’t see 21.5 for state funding,
you’ll see about $20.5 million planned for the General Fund. This schedule also lists
the other community colleges, technical colleges, and Washburn Institute of Technology as well.
Page 15 shows, again, what we call the tier and the non-tiered credit hour distributions
from the state or the operating grant. This is highlighted in yellow here. It also includes
a couple of other sources of funding that the college receives from the state. In the
middle of the graph, the vocational education capital outlay distribution and the technology
grant, are about $368,000. Those are components of the state’s economic development initiatives
fund. And then over to the left is the Senate Bill 155 funding of $556,000. And, again,
I wanted to point out, this is information that was received in June of last year, so
this — that’s only the Senate Bill 155 funding for one semester. You have to submit your
student census data. They check the courses, et cetera, and that was the amount of funding
that was approved for that semester. So if you were looking at the entire year, the SB155
funding would be almost double that. Does that make sense? Any questions on any of that?
Again, we’ve got the other schools listed, the community and technical colleges and — as
well. So we talked about state funding and then
moving on into the local funding. Again, this is information that I think we’ve shared before,
the ten-year history of the assessed valuation and the college’s mill levy. Got the percentage
increase included here, so, again, here is that 6.5% anticipated increase for next year.
The college’s levy we’re proposing in the budget to remain flat, where it currently
is, and this will be actually the third consecutive year for the tax levy to remain consistent.
Two charts at the bottom of the page just simply help to visualize I think over time
the fluctuations in both. All right. Moving forward, we have another
chart. This — actually, I have to admit I think this one is mislabeled. We labeled it
the General/PTE fund; but it actually does include the other components of our tax levy,
which is our capital outlay fund in green at the top and then the very narrow wedge
for the Special Assessments fund. So, again, if you look at this revenue source in total
outside of the General Fund for all funds, the ad valorem revenue will be approximately
$92 million for next year. We’ve got the tax levy kind of laid up here at the top of the
graph. You can see the increase, moving into fiscal ’14 there, slight decrease the subsequent
year and then the flat level. All right. So next we have just a quick picture
of what the estimated tax amount would be for the average — on the average appraised
value of the college’s tax levy. So, this is based on information that we received from
the County Appraiser. We simply said if the mean appraised value is increasing from 250
to $262,000, based on the residential assessment rate and a flat mill levy, would be about
$13 in additional tax next year for a residence located within the district. And, of course,
this doesn’t contemplate any of the additional levies, the school district, city or county
government. This would be the college’s component only.
All right. So we talked about the state funding sources, the local funding, and now I wanted
to spend a little bit of time on our tuition revenue projections for next year. We talked
about credit enrollment and the fact that we’ve now kind of updated our estimate, planning
around a 3% decrease. Of course, we hope to exceed that and have talked about a lot of
enrollment management and retention strategies to that effect and one of them being the metro
rate and I’ll talk a little bit more about that in a minute. But I think this helps to
kind of show over time, especially when you look at the graph here, the inverse relationship
between improving economic conditions and what we typically see at community college
enrollment, meaning that if unemployment is low, people are back to work and not in the
classroom. With that, these are again, the tuition rates
planned for next year. We’ve got the current year rates listed for ’15-’16 and then moving
into ’16-’17, again, based on residents, not only the per credit hour class, but what that
price tag looks like for 30 credit hours. So, again, we have the $2 increase for county
residents; $4 for residents of other Kansas counties; and then $6 increase for out-of-state
residents. The metro rate component being new and, of course, that is for students residing
in bordering counties in Missouri, such that they would be paying the rate of $135 per
credit hour versus the $214 out-of-state rate. Simply for comparison purposes, we’ve got
the credit hour rates for last year available for KU and K State, as well as local community
colleges, Metropolitan and KCK. Metropolitan does not currently have a metro rate. KCK’s
is 133, which is right in line with what we’re proposing for next year.
Next we have a series of graphs, and these begin on Page 21 of the ten-year history of
the tuition and fees per credit hour. So we spend a lot of time talking about, well, tuition
is $93 per credit hour. Technically, it isn’t, it’s $77 per credit hour and we have $16 of
mandatory fees. We’ll talk about those in a little bit. But I just thought this was
interesting to be able to show over time for county residents the impact of tuition and
fee increases on their price, their total price. So there hasn’t been a lot of activity
over time on the fee side. On the tuition, we’ve seen everything from a $2 increase to
a $6 increase there in the ’09-2010 time frame. The next slide is the Kansas resident, so
this reflects the $4 tuition increase for them, from $90 to $94. The fees are the same.
I think historically what you’ve seen is a tuition rate increase would have been applied
the same for all residency statuses; and this year, we tried to more intentionally look
at those separately and price those accordingly. Whereas, we saw the $2 increase for a county
resident, we’ve got $4 here for other residents of other counties; and then this being the
out-of-state rate, the $6 increase planned for next year.
All right. We talked a little bit about the required fees or mandatory fees. They’re $16
per credit hour. This is just a quick look at what those are. These are — none of this
revenue goes into the college’s General Fund so, student activity fee money, that’s segregated
to our student activity fund and that makes funds available for scholarships and athletic
programs. A lot of the student programs that we heard about recently when we were doing
our awards and recognitions, a lot of that activity is funded by those fee dollars. The
college’s debt reduction fee has been in place for a number of years. $5 per credit hour,
obviously, helps us to meet our debt service obligations on our outstanding revenue bonds.
The parking and roads fee is, obviously, to help maintain the parking garages and driving
surfaces around campus. And then our sustainability fee has been in place since the spring of
’10 and helps to provide the sustainability initiatives, the various sustainability initiatives
that we see around campus. So just a quick look at those, not a lot of change here in
recent years and nothing — no increase is proposed for next year as well.
All right. Next we have a quick look at our course fees. So, these are credit courses
only. The college currently doesn’t charge any lab fees. This is the complete list of
our credit course fees and they’re primarily centered around the floral and horticulture
programs. As you can see at the top, various of the music offerings in the middle and then
fees associated with the railroad technology programs at the bottom of the list. So, just
thought that was interesting to share. That revenue does come into the General Fund along
with the tuition associated with those courses. All right. Our next schedule is information
that’s actually provided by the college board. I know we shared this last year, that may
have been the first time that you have seen this, but this looks at the average published
tuition price by state for two-year college. And to scroll down to get to Kansas, I think
44th overall is where the average price is for the State of Kansas and really if you
look at that price, the $27.93, it’s right in line with the 30 credit hour class here
at JCCC. So that does rank Kansas among the more affordable states for two-year college.
That is all the information I have to kind of reinforce or to detail the revenue assumptions.
Did you want to pause there?>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Mr. Chair, I do have
a question.>>Chair Greg Musil: Sure.
>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Not a question, but, Joe, maybe it’s a comment. Now, back to the
public two-year colleges of the cost. There’s a lot of discussion about should community
colleges be tuition-free — I’m sorry — reduced tuition, so that the student doesn’t pay an
amount. I find it interesting that I think Tennessee is one of those states that has
tuition-free. Is that not correct?>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: Yes.
>>Trustee Jerry Cook: And yet their cost is $4,103, twice the cost almost — well, not
quite twice the cost of Johnson County Community College. I just say that to point out that
it’s misleading to me for the public to think that there’s a movement to have tuition-free
school, when yet in Tennessee when there’s no tuition charged to the students, somebody
is still paying $4,000 in that regard for two-year colleges. No questions, just a comment.
>>Ms. Rachel Lierz: Anything else before we move on into the expenses?
>>Chair Greg Musil: Certainly ask questions at each break if you want or we can save questions
and comments at the end. This is an opportunity to get comments back to the staff before our
main meeting when we will adopt the management budget.
>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Mr. Chair, I do have one comment then. It’s really not for the
staff or our administration, but I think for the public. When we look at our tuition rate
going up in the last ten years as it has, and state revenue declining, we show ten-year
history of 18% now projecting down to 15%. But I do believe we were at, at one time,
a high of 25 or 27% state revenue. And so, again, it’s just a point that as the state
revenue declines, for community colleges, the natural reaction, I guess, is either local
tax or tuition going up. And you’ve done a nice job, Rachel, of explaining both of those
points because our tuition is up about 57% if you look at the $43 rate, excluding fees,
to $77. So, again, just a comment.>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: And, Trustee Cook, that’s
kind of a national trend here as the cost for going to school has being transferred
to the individual and it’s not perceived as society — as they have historically provided
for higher education. So if you look at some of those, for example, Arizona now is zero
state funding. So you know all that has been transferred to the student themselves.
>>Ms. Rachel Lierz: All right. We’ll move on into the detail on our expenditure budgets
for next year. Similar to the revenue side, I wanted to start off with just a very simple
pie graph to show that, similar to most all other colleges and universities, the salary
and benefits remains to be the most significant component of the operating budget. That number
is anticipated to be about 76% of the total for next year. The next largest component
of our budget is what we call our current operating dollars, which is everything from
utilities and supplies to travel budgets, all of those sorts of things are represented
there in the green shaded area. And then our capital expenditure for next year is budgeted
at about $6.5 million, or approximately 4% of our General Fund budget. Leaving about
1% for debt service, principal and interest obligations from the General Fund.
Once again, similar to what we have shown on the revenue side, this is the ten-year
look at expenditure history. Again, it’s important to remember that the ’08 to ’15 figures are
actual. The ’16 and ’17s were budgeted. We will not spend that entire budgeted amount.
So when you see those last two columns on the right looking so much higher, keep in
mind, those are budgeted amounts only. We expect to expend about 93 to 95% of that total.
Over time, again, salaries and benefit costs have remained fairly consistent. They’ve decreased
slightly but remain the primary component of the budget. Operating dollars have fluctuated
16 to 19% of the budget. And then the capital expenditures were pulled back for a number
of years, you can see there in the middle of the graph, and we worked to expand that
investment in the last two years. The next chart is something that I know is
new to being included in the budget materials and I first wanted to explain all the acronyms
on top of the page. That’s always confusing. I have to read this. Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System, is the U.S. Department of Education’s survey tool that they use to
require colleges and universities to submit information on for expenditures. I think this
is interesting. We spend a lot of time, when we talk about our budget, we talk about salaries,
operating and capital. So we’re looking at accounts. This is looking at it by function.
So what function at the college are these dollars serving? And so we would expect to
see, and we do see, that instruction is the largest component. That includes the instructional
salaries and the instructional operating dollars. So this is just a different way to look at
your expenditures. This has become a management tool that we have used in the past couple
of years to benchmark JCCC against a group of peer institutions to look at our core expenditure
by FTE and kind of see how we stack up versus that peer universe. I think it’s interesting,
in this past year we’ve been able to slightly pull back on that per FTE expenditure. Certainly
hope to continue to do so in the future while continuing to make sure that the largest components
of this exercise continue to be instruction, student services, academic support, all those
student success areas that we reference in our strategic plan, KPIs, et cetera. This
helps us to measure and quantify some of that. The next couple pages are just glossary of
terms. If you’re interested into going back into the IPEDS and looking to see what is
counted in each category. I won’t spend any time on that.
Moving forward to Page 35. What we have here is a summary of all the funds. Again, I talked
primarily about the General/PTE fund. This is all the funds that the college maintains.
This is what our legal budget looks like. So we’re required to report by fund and then
this concept of unencumbered cash, to roll that forward, that being the reserve levels
by fund. So, we’ve also got our Adult SUPP fund on here, which is the Continuing Ed component,
primarily, of the college. The motorcycle and truck driver education funds are shown
here. Our auxiliary unit, which includes the bookstore and dining services. And then the
student activity fund as well. We mentioned that. Restricted and other funds includes
a lot of our scholarships and federal grant programs. That’s why that number is so big.
Those dollars just kind of pass through. They come in and go back out. This schedule basically
tells you this is what our reserves would look like at the end of next year if we were
to expend all of our budgeted dollars. That doesn’t happen. We spend — we know historically
we spend between 75% in some funds of the budget to 95% in the General Fund. So, again,
this is just a schedule that we use to prepare the legal budget and to show the activity
outside of the General Fund. Okay. This is just a quick — on the next page — where
am I? 36 in your book. Comparative budgets for General Fund — we’ve got ’15 actual,
so last fiscal year, alongside of our amended budget for this year, which was $142 million.
Our estimated actual spend for this year and then the proposed budget for next year. I
think the most important thing to notice here is kind of the change in presentation. So,
for ’16 and ’17, you’ll notice this concept of use of reserves in the revenue section
to adopt a balanced budget instead of one that’s out of balance where the reserves are
larger than the revenue. We’ve used that to illustrate areas where we’ve got one-time
planned use of reserves and to show the funding source for that.
At the very bottom of the sheet, we see the contribution to reserve. So last year in fiscal
’15 in the General Fund we contributed about 7.5 million to reserves. This year the estimate
is about 5 million. And next year that number will probably be around $3 million, even after
some reserve spending for some one-time projects which we’ll talk about here in the next slides.
Next page we have our Auxiliary fund. This is just included in here because it is the
next single largest individual fund and also it gets a lot of attention because of the
bookstore and the dining services operations. This shows their revenue and their expenditures,
salaries, cost of goods, inventory and all those sorts of things. And this does indicate
that we do anticipate to continue to spend our reserves in our Auxiliary fund operations
for next fiscal year.>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: Rachel, what percentage
of the budget do we spend on –>>Ms. Rachel Lierz: 85%. So the difference
between the budget column here and their estimated is about 15%. But we are still budgeting for
their expenditures to exceed the revenue. Okay. Next we have a schedule of the college’s
debt obligations. This represents not only the General Fund but all of the outstanding
debt at the college, principal and interest. We talked about this a lot in the past year,
it seems like, because we worked to refinance these 2006 bonds which are reflected down
here as the ’15 revenue bonds. Also issued the series 2016 general obligation capital
outlay bonds, so that line is new. But I just thought it was important to note that all
the principal and interest for all the outstanding debt is budgeted as part of the budget cycle
in each respective fund. The next slide is something that you see if
you look at the treasurer’s report every month. This is a monthly representation of the college’s
cash flow. And this is just something that we use for our planning purposes and it again
reinforces, I think, what we talk about a lot as far as December being the point in
the college’s fiscal year where our cash reserves are the lowest. And that’s simply due to the
timing of ad valorem and tuition receipts in January. So just to look at monthly cash
flow. And, again, it’s a three-year history, fiscal ’14, ’15 and ’16.
So, I would like to stop there as far as the book because the rest of the book is very
detailed. It is the budget for every cost center on campus and the detail of our capital
schedule. So all the capital items that we plan to purchase are listed in the back. If
you had any questions on any of that during your review, we could talk about those now.
Otherwise, I think we can move on to the other slides.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Any questions on the capital items listed? They get into great detail,
into chairs and desks and smaller items like that that add up to serious money, but — doesn’t
look like there are any questions so –>>Ms. Rachel Lierz: All right. And this is
just, like I said earlier, a way I’d kind of like to summarize all of that information
that we just went through really quickly. Again, highlights from the revenue side. We
talked about our total revenue is projected to grow by only 2.8% next year in the General
Fund. Primarily that’s driven by assessed valuation growth. We are actually budgeting
a decrease in tuition revenue due to the planned decrease in credit hours. And, again, we’ve
got other initiatives in place to hopefully address and exceed that projection. But that
is what is included in the budget as of this time. And we’ve planned our state funding
to remain consistent with where it is right now, which, again, it’s a planned 5% reduction
from the proposed amount. Moving on into the expenses. This is just
a little bit of extra detail on some of the salary and budget information that was presented
in the workbook. Just to note, salary budgets include an average 2.75% increase as negotiated
in the Master Agreement for faculty members, and a 2% salary increase for staff, as well
as it does provide adjustments for certain staff positions that were identified in the
compensation studies, I believe in 2013 and in 2014. So we’ll be moving to address some
of those things. The medical insurance costs included in the
budget do include an increase of approximately 10%. The college’s component of the cost increase
is about 75% of the 10%, meaning that the employees then, their approximate medical
cost increase would be 25% of the 10. And then the positions, we don’t have any proposed
increase in the total number of full time positions; however, we have funded some positions
from vacant lines within our budget as listed in the bullet points. So those include 16
full-time faculty positions, a police officer that was funded through a grant that is now
ending and that position is being transferred to the General Fund. Police sergeant position.
Director for our new Collaboration Center in the OCB space to provide some leadership
and community engagement in that new area. Six Student Success Advocates which are being
created — those positions are being created utilizing current part-time positions. And
then three full-time coaching positions being created using existing part-time spots. Yes.
>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Greg, if I may make a comment. I would like to say that we vetted
this pretty thoroughly at our Management Committee meeting, and I believe, as Rachel indicated,
the whole budget is driven by our strategic plan. You’ll recall, when Rachel showed you
the strategic plan at the beginning of the workbook, Goal 4 deals with efficient use
of resources and the task under there talks about utilization, proper utilization of faculty.
And this is a good example where we have used — we’ve reallocated positions from vacated
positions to beef up our security and safety, as well as the six Student Success Advocates
really deal with helping students in the teaching/learning process to be more efficient and effective
and to help them work through certificate or career completion. So I just wanted to
point that out that that’s a good example, I think, of the administration and staff’s
work of using the strategic plan, which sometimes gets shelved after it’s nice and glossy; but
it’s really, at this campus at least, used as a working tool to drive the budget. So
I appreciate that.>>Ms. Rachel Lierz: Any other comments on
this slide? All right. Couple of additional notes on planned expenditures for next year.
Just look at our operating lines. Those remain generally consistent. There are some known
increases that have already been built into the budget, of course, for things like insurance
premiums, some of our contracts, primarily in the Information Services area we know will
increase next year and we have a planned increase for utilities I believe at around 2% already
included in our budget assumptions. Our capital budgets, we talked about that.
It’s about $6.5 million next year in the General Fund. That provides for replacement equipment
as well as new equipment. A large component of that is spent in the IT area. We do continue
to allocate about $3 for every credit hour towards IT infrastructure and equipment related
to that. So that’s the first two items on the list.
We have replacement of existing equipment, and that’s dictated by the replacement cycles
that our folks in procurement and purchasing track for things like vehicles, office equipment,
et cetera. That’s a placeholder line in the budget.
When we talk about remodels and renovations, we had a list of many projects that were requested.
We have funded a variety of those. The largest single item, however, was the first floor
restroom in the OCB. It was about $150,000. We always budget for classroom painting and
carpeting. As you can see there on the list. And then we’ve also got a placeholder for
office painting and carpeting for next year as well. And my understanding is some of that
office carpeting is quite dated so we’re excited to be able to improve some of those areas.
>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: Does that include the FA president’s office?
(Laughter)>>Ms. Rachel Lierz: I haven’t checked. I think
it was at our last board meeting we actually talked about the faculty credentialing changes
coming forward from the Higher Learning Commission. And the question was asked if that would be
a cost of the college. And it is. And that has been estimated at $200,000 and is included
in the budget for next year. Strategic Plan Initiatives, if you think back
to the very beginning, that slide with all the strategic goals and tasks on it talked
about continued expansion of online programming, so we’ve got $172,000 identified for that,
which will provide for part-time staffing and other instructional materials to continue
to ramp up our online offerings. The Collaboration Center operating budget
is in place. And then we do have $600,000 worth of contingency funds built into the
budget to continue to address unforeseen circumstances or, really, any growth or innovation opportunities
as well that would pop up during the year next year. Those are all components of the
General Fund budget as well. Finally, we talked about use of reserves to
fund some one-time strategic initiatives in the budget for next year. And because we have
been able to contribute to reserves for the last three fiscal years, we’ve got some flexibility
within our budget to do so. So this is just a list. There are three capital items, as
well as planned year two of our Retirement Incentive Program listed here. Total is $5.3
million. The details of the Retirement Incentive Program will be very consistent with what
we experienced this year. We’re planning for maybe around — the budget is built on an
estimate of 60 folks taking advantage of that opportunity. The digital cameras I think speak
to improvements in safety and security. That not only allows us to improve our current
technology from analogue to digital, but it would add about 130 cameras to the campus.
The million dollars for classroom improvements is a placeholder amount in the budget next
year to address recommendations from the faculty and staff team that has been tasked with developing
the Classroom of the Future, and any recommendations that they might have for next year, we’ll
be able to begin to address. And then the last item, Architectural & Engineering
Services, that is simply an estimate of an 8% fee on a $25 million project, just kind
of a starting point, placeholder, if you will, to begin to address items associated with
the facilities master plan. The firm that we have engaged, The Smith Group, they were
on campus this week. They’ll be back I think May 9th and 10th. We’ll continue to receive
information from them. Hopefully late summer we’ll begin to really see what that kind of
looks like and what that feels like. And so having this included in the budget would provide
us with the ability to move forward on some of their recommendations next year.
Again, this is similar information to what we saw in the book. This is budget trend only.
We talked about the fact that in previous years the budget that has been — that was
adopted was out of balance. So the expenditures were budgeted more than the revenue but was
planned to only expend 91 or 92% of that total. We’ve switched the presentation on that, so
instead of adopting a budget that’s out of balance, we’re reflecting a contribution from
reserves to help to balance the budget to fund the projects that were listed on the
previous slide.>>Chair Greg Musil: The importance of that,
though, is that without sufficient reserves, we would be $4.2 million short this year and
$4.8 million next year?>>Ms. Rachel Lierz: Yes.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Because reserves seem to be a topic in Topeka as to whether or not
people have too much. We use those for one-time strategic goals.
>>Ms. Rachel Lierz: Again, these are the budgeted figures. So on the next slide we have the
actual. So in ’15 our budget was 140 million. The actual spending was only 91% of that or
127 million. For this year, we’ll probably expend about
93% of our budget. For next year, even with those projects identified, we’ll spend about
95% of that probably, still be able to contribute between 2 and 3 million to reserves, I think,
by the end of the year.>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: Rachel, that increase there
in the capital line, that’s due to the fact that we amended the budget midway through
the year?>>Ms. Rachel Lierz: Yes. So the 7.4. That’s
a good point. This year’s estimated capital includes not only the Performing Arts renovations,
but the OCB space was a million dollars, too. So that’s why that kind of spikes up and then
goes back down. Okay. Speaking of reserves, the next slide is a
projection of reserve balances at December 31 for each year listed. Again, if you think
back to that cash flow graph, the reason we always talk about December 31st is because
it’s the low point of the year and our policy indicates that as of the low point of the
year, we still won’t have reserves that are less than 10% of our total budget. This slide
indicates that even with planned expenditure reserves, we will still continue to be within
the board policy. That’s the General Fund. The next slide looks
at the capital outlay fund, kind of the same concept. Again, we know that we bonded against
our capital outlay revenue dollars for next year. We do have debt service as well as other
planned expenditures included in the expense numbers on the slide. But what this says that
even with a fairly — I think fairly conservative assumption in assessed valuation increase
of just 3% per year after next year, that the Capital Outlay Fund balance would continue
to grow and hopefully provide some flexibility or some funding for potential facilities plans
down the road. All right. The last slide. Remaining budget
timeline. Next month at the board meeting we’ll be asking to move forward with this
budget. This is the management budget which simply allows us to conduct business effective
July 1st. In July then, we’ll publish our notice of hearing which is the one page of
the legal budget announcing that we will hold a public hearing in August and move forward
with the legal budget at that time. So, that’s all I have. Questions?
>>Chair Greg Musil: That’s all?>>Ms. Rachel Lierz: Lots of information. Yes.
Anything else –>>Chair Greg Musil: Questions from the Board?
>>Ms. Rachel Lierz: — that I can clarify?>>Chair Greg Musil: I think it’s important
for the public that views this, those of you in the room, to raise questions with the administration
or with the Board if you have questions about the budget. Board members, I would strongly
encourage us to raise questions with Rachel or Barbara between now and May so that there
aren’t surprises as we get to the management budget in May.
I know three of the board members on the Management Committee have gone through this in detail.
The rest of us have heard the presentation for the first time. I’m going to just make
a couple comments. I’m going to urge us all to look at — this isn’t to make changes,
but I think for future, Page 13, which is the revenue trend; Page 31, which is the expense
trend; and Page 95, which is the reserve trend; and then there was another one in here on
Page 19, which is the credit hours. Because it is a concern of mine and it’s not sustainable
for this college to continue to increase revenues from taxpayers and students and other forms
and increase expenditures in all levels and have the number of students continue to go
down. It’s simply not sustainable. In addition, I think we are carefully monitoring
our reserves so that we have sufficient reserves to meet emergencies and to do the strategic
plan items that we think we’re going to need, not just for facilities planning, but curriculum
and other things. But understanding that those reserves become a target from somebody else
that doesn’t have money and isn’t as prudent and careful in their finance as we’ve been.
We’re blessed to have a community that supports us with their ad valorem taxes; but I think
we do need to be careful about looking at budgets that continue to grow, even though
they’re growing at very small percentages, when we’re projecting even larger credit hour
declines than we had thought we were back when we adopted the budget guidelines last
fall. I don’t think there’s anything necessarily to do about this, and these budgets are carefully
crafted and put together; but I think we ought to be aware of those things going forward
so that we don’t miss the fact that there are trends that we need to pay attention to.
I did look at the tuition increases and asked both Dr. Larson and Rachel for some additional
information, and I don’t think anybody up here — and we talk about it annually — is
excited about raising tuition on our students. I think we still give a good value. And if
you look at it compared to the Regents universities, we give a great value, less than a third of
K State and about 25% of what KU’s numbers are. But, when we look at that, if we’re concerned
about it, the total amount of tuition raised by our increases, $2 for a county resident,
$4 for a state resident, $6 for an out-of-state resident, is about a million dollars. So the
question I always have at budget time is if I’m concerned about that, where am I going
to find that million dollars? If I don’t want to do that, I’ve got to come up with something
else. And so, those are the kind of choices I think that we have to make between now and
August to decide — really between now and May to adopt the management budget. But, those
numbers aren’t insignificant for individual students and they’re not insignificant for
our budget purposes. Dr. Cook.>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Mr. Chair, thank you.
I agree with your assessment of the impact of declining enrollment. I will say, though,
that I think the administration and staff have worked hard at recruiting strategies
in the past. I think the inclusion of the metro rate is one we anticipate to be helpful
this fall. That should go into play. And while we’re down in credit hours, the lowest we’ve
been in ten years or more, I think we’re trying to develop strategies to deal with that. But
I do appreciate and agree with your assessment that we need to continue to look at enrollment.
That is a variable that’s very important to the full-time cost as well as revenue cost
in relationship to the expenses we have. So — but I do want to commend the faculty and
staff for taking some actions to try and counter the national trend as well as the local trend.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Any other comments? If not, thank you, Dr. Larson —
>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: If I can Trustee Musil.>>Chair Greg Musil: You may.
>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: Thank you for everything that’s been said. I do want to point out,
though, if you go back to 2011 and if you start looking at our spend over those years
up to now, the college has done a really good job of holding our expenses very reasonable,
if not almost flat. And that includes giving — managing the increases and the benefit
cost as well as increases in salary. I think the challenge has been the last couple years,
which kind of contributes to that increase, has been the need to do some things in the
capital, on the capital side of the budget where we really haven’t addressed some issues
over the years. So that has kind of driven those bottom line numbers. But I can’t say
enough for the work of everybody here on keeping the cost down, especially when it comes to
positions and salaries.>>Chair Greg Musil: Dr. Larson, Rachel, thank
you, and all the team and the 142 or 124 budget administrators scattered throughout campus
and really everybody on campus that contributes to this. I mean, wherever we can find savings
or get ideas for revenue or expense — revenue increases or expense savings, I hope people
will pass those on because it all adds up to help us do what we want to do, which is,
Dr. Cook, inspire learning, transform lives and strengthen communities.
>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Very good.>>Chair Greg Musil: All right. Thank you.
Next, equally exciting, college lobbyist report, Mr. Carter. You have something — anything
helpful to share with us? (Laughter)
>>Mr. Dick Carter: I will say in my haste to get out of Topeka, I left my entire folder
of my report and report notes.>>Chair Greg Musil: Do you want a copy of
what you did?>>Mr. Dick Carter: No. Through modern technology,
I was able to print one off in another area of campus and cobble together some of my notes.
But I did have some interesting analysis that I wanted to share with you and I did my best
to kind of put that back together. Nothing has happened legislatively since we last met.
Legislature was concluding their business, in fact, on the day that you met last month
and has been on break during the month of April. Only met today to receive the reports
from legislative budget officials and the Governor’s budget amendment on the revenue
estimates that were revised, once again, downward for this year. So I’ll go into a little bit
of that. And really, quite frankly, even though we
talk about this and have been talking about this for the past several years, there should
be no surprises. None of this should shock us or surprise us. And to that point, I’ve
included in the third page of my report a budget run that was part of the 2012 legislation
that was signed into law. And it shows you each month what — each year, rather, each
fiscal year, the expected loss in revenue that calculates up to about $4 billion by
the time fiscal year 2018 rolls around. And we’re pretty much on schedule for that. Those
revenue projections when the Bill went into place did not take into account any additional
revenues that might be infused into the budget. Of course, we were expecting a shot of adrenaline
from the income taxes that would be paid by the new jobs created. Obviously, that has
not occurred in the way that those who put together this plan had anticipated. We did
have, though, last year, the largest tax increase in the State’s history passed, which was to
the tune of 400 plus million for — as it averaged out over the course of a three-year
period, and would be inching upward. I don’t believe that many of the projections that
were anticipated there have been realized either, though we’re in the first year of
that particular program. But sales tax receipts continue to be flat or down. And keep in mind
that we increased the sales tax rate last year with that big mega tax package that was
passed. So, what has happened?
As of yesterday, economists, budgeteers, as I like to call them, have further revised
downward in the current year, $93.9 million and in fiscal year 2017, $134.7 million, for
a total of $228.6 million, which are over and above the revised numbers that came out
of November. So we continue to move downward in the revenue department. And you’ll hear
rhetoric and you’ll see quotes in the paper that we’re taking in more money than we took
in at this time last year. That very well may be true and I think the numbers can show
that; but what we don’t talk about is the cost of doing business and the fact that we
continue to have case loads. We don’t talk about the fact that we have obligations to
pay down bonded indebtedness that either is through the Department of Transportation for
a T-works program or we’ve now bonded out 1.5 billion in KPERS investments. That will
come with a price tag at some point in the near future and we don’t talk about that side
of the coin. The other thing we don’t talk about is the fact that there will be a cost
should the Legislature choose to do this, and it is one of the options presented in
the Governor’s budget amendments, and that is to securitize the tobacco settlement money.
That is a one-time take on money that we would continue to get for quite sometime. And there’s
a formula to it. But it is probably not in the best interest of the State’s finances
to do something like that. So it’s refreshing to come and listen to a budget workshop like
the one that just occurred here where you talk about the realities of what the revenue
looks like, what your expenditures look like, and how you plan for the future. If we were
doing that in Topeka, I think it would be a much different picture and a much different
report than I’m presenting today. The Governor presented three options in his
budget amendment. They all involve the sweeping of KDOT money, both in the current year and
in the next fiscal year, to the tune of about 70 million this year and 115 million next
year. They all, all three options, include a 3% continued reduction in state university
budgets. To this point I believe that community colleges and technical colleges remain held
harmless in this particular budget scenario. Although we still wait to see what legislators
will do when they come back on the 27th. There was no action taken specifically today with
respect to higher education. The budget committees did adopt some of the Governor’s budget amendments
that will move forward and be discussed when legislators return next week; but nothing
was done specifically with respect to higher education.
One of the options would be to, as I have already mentioned, securitize the tobacco
settlement money. It’s about 42 million for the State General Fund. Another option would
be to take some of the efficiency savings that they were planning to use somewhere — I’m
not exactly sure what the plan for those dollars were — but in Option 2, we see about 25 million
that could be used from the efficiency savings from the study that we spent $3 million to
find out where we could find efficiencies. The other component that I think is very concerning
in that particular option, and again, we’re talking about Option 2. Everything flows through,
that I talked about, the cuts to universities and the cuts to KDOT, this one would delay
the KPERS repayment. Keep in mind that the Legislature gave the Governor the authority
to delay the fourth quarter payment in this fiscal year to KPERS to the tune of about
$100 million, to use that money to backfill the hole in the State General Fund. They would
delay the payment or the repayment of those dollars to fiscal year 2018. So you’re just
adding another 8% on top of what we’re already paying. That’s what the legislation requires
is that there’s an 8% interest on money borrowed. Likely we’ll never see it happen. You guys
have heard this record, you know how this goes.
Then finally, Option 3 contains, again, all of the cuts that I talked about, not the tobacco
settlement, not the KPERS repayment, but targeted, targeted agency cuts throughout state government.
A little bit more difficult to work through. All three of the options at some point require
some form of legislative approval to move through the process. And so it’s going to
be a very difficult veto session once legislators return on April 27th.
I don’t think it hurts to mention that when you hear reports of the revenue estimators
and their inability to hit the mark, there’s a lot of moving parts to the legislation that
was passed, not only in 2012, but to the pieces that they measure. And some of the things
that certainly were unanticipated were the reductions, significant reduction in agricultural
income, and no one could have at the time predicted the loss in the oil and gas revenues
that the state was anticipating. So, again, those are all part of the pieces that go into
that moving puzzle, if you will, that the revenue estimators look at when they reevaluate
where we are in the state budget. I would add that for the first time in this process,
this is the first time that the numbers have been adjusted down on individual income taxes
and sales taxes. Those numbers have remained fairly strong in the estimating process. And
for the first time, I think there’s a realistic look at the fact that those numbers are in
fact coming down. And so that should, hopefully, help us, if that trend continues, to see realistic
budget projections as things move forward. What will the courts say about the equitable
fix that the school sent them at the end of March? They’ve scheduled hearings — or, they’ve
scheduled to hear that matter. I believe it’s May 8th — 10th. I’m seeing a lip sync come
across from one of the board members. Thank you. I knew it was early in May. I would imagine
that the legislators want to be out of town when that occurs. It’s anybody’s guess as
to what will happen. There are some — there’s a theory that, if you haven’t been paying
attention, you’re going to start getting lots of post cards telling you to not vote for
retention for certain judges. So there’s this big campaign that will probably overshadow
some of the legislative campaigns, quite frankly, to unseat or not retain four Supreme Court
justices. And so we have this drama that’s playing out in the court. And the real question
is: Will the court go all-in and say, no, you didn’t meet the muster that we were suggesting?
Or will they simply say: The changes that you’ve made in the law will address equitable
finance for K-12 schools? I think that’s really what we’re waiting to see that will happen
in that early part of May. If the court says no, we’re here for a special session in July,
August, September, I’m not sure when it will be. I can tell you that no one that is a current
sitting legislator wants to have any part of that because they want to be out campaigning
to retain their own seats. And so there’s just so much drama that will play out over
the next month or so as legislators seek to wrap up the legislative session for 2016.
I don’t think anybody thought that it would probably be as drastic as it was given the
fact that we had already downgraded some of the expectations for the revenue picture.
So, that’s kind of where things are at. There has been no legislation worked. We still have
several things that are out there that will be subjects of conference committee reports
that I talked about at the last meeting and I’ll certainly update you on those when the
process begins to move again. But that’s kind of the picture of what’s going on at the state.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Wonderful. Thank you, Dick. Trustee Cross.
>>Trustee Lee Cross: Mr. Carter, thank you for your report. It occurs to me that — I
read a news story I think in the “Kansas City Star” two or three days ago that the Governor
may be considering repealing the LLC exemption from the 2012 tax cuts. Is there any truth
to that?>>Mr. Dick Carter: I would suggest that we’ve
seen no movement within the administration with an interest or desire to back away from
the law that was passed in 2012. I do think there have been some reports of some legislators
— and I think you’ll begin to see many legislators distancing themselves from the administration
over the next few months as the election season starts to heat up. But I’m not aware of any
present plan that would back away, repeal, shave off, any of the numbers from the LLC
or S corp –>>Trustee Lee Cross: Mr. Carter, thank you
for that. Does the Governor think that the tax cuts — you just made a couple of comments
about oil and gas and agriculture sector being down. And certainly they have been here recently.
Does he think that they’ll rebound and then thereby justify his cuts? Is that — I’m trying
to understand the –>>Mr. Dick Carter: I don’t know that I could
adequately answer that question. And everything in the economy is cyclical, as we’ve seen,
whether it’s with the stock market or whether it’s with different sectors of the economy.
And I think the main take-away here is Kansas budget has always been built on the proverbial
three-legged stool. When you start sawing off legs or changing the expectations on where
that income comes, if you start putting all your eggs in one basket. There’s a lot of
cliches and old sayings in that answer I just gave. But when everything comes from one source
or one or two significant sources, you have to do well. The economy has to do well or
everything will underperform.>>Chair Greg Musil: I think the Governor’s
spokesperson indicated that there were three options on the table and that she did not
— this was before they came out — that she did not expect any of them to include raising
taxes on businesses or anyone, for that matter, if I remember the quote from the “Star”. Dr.
Sopcich.>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: Dick, in the Governor’s
memo that he sent out where he itemized — or, he laid out the three options. Option three,
I thought, specifically addressed cuts, potential cuts to KU and to the universities. But I
didn’t see anything specifically highlighting community colleges.
>>Mr. Dick Carter: That’s still unknown. You’re correct, Dr. Sopcich. There’s a $5 million
hit with the label of Board of Regents. The Board of Regents doesn’t have a whole lot
of money that comes to their office anyhow; however, our budget, as well as technical
colleges, does pass through their operation and so I have to think that if option three
is the one that’s executed that there would be some form of a cut to the other higher
education sectors. But it’s not been detailed out in any of the conversations that we’ve
had and they just started having those today.>>Chair Greg Musil: Has the Consensus Revenue
Estimating Group drastically changed its methodology or it’s membership or how it goes about its
business?>>Mr. Dick Carter: No, it’s not. There was
some news stories preceding the Revenue Estimating Group’s date of when they were getting together
and I think the Governor would like to see some changes in how that group works, but
it’s pretty historical. And no changes have been made. I mean, they’ve been doing this
for decades as far as how they estimate what the expected revenues and expected —
>>Chair Greg Musil: That’s an economist from Wichita State, University of Kansas, Kansas
State and others who do that estimating and they’ve been doing it the same way and if
we don’t like it, we blame them? You don’t have to answer that.
>>Trustee Lee Cross: Mr. Chair.>>Chair Greg Musil: Yes.
>>Trustee Lee Cross: Thank you. The Governor’s spokeswoman did in fact say a plan, quote,
to raise taxes on small businesses or anyone else will not be among them. Thank you.
>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: Whenever you hear this stuff, they’re always taking money out of
the highway fund. How much money is in the highway fund? How much can they take out?
(Laughter)>>Mr. Dick Carter: Hundreds of millions. However,
we’re nearing the bottom of that barrel. And I think the real concern is is that for the
first time now, with any sincerity, projects are now going to be delayed. And we love to
hear how good the roads in Kansas are and lots of people like to tout that, but that
also requires maintenance just like we do here on campus. And when you get behind, you
know what that means, and you have those capital conversations here. That’s exactly what’s
going on at the state level.>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: Does this mean they’re
never going to finish this K10 thing out here? (Laughter)
>>Mr. Dick Carter: Pardon me. K10 and the gateway — I’ve got some water over here.
I just didn’t bring it up with me. Maybe people will stop asking questions.
(Laughter)>>Mr. Dick Carter: It’s all part of my show.
K10 and the Johnson County gateway, Overland Park gateways, are not part of the announced
cuts. Those projects will be seen through to completion.
>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: I’ve got another question. (Laughter)
>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: Just kidding.>>Chair Greg Musil: I’m giving you a break.
I just started making a list as you went through here. We just had a budget discussion about
how to reach a balanced budget and juggle priorities so that we have this college on
good financial footing. And I just made a list of things that I would urge this Board
to never do. We should not borrow money to invest it in the stock market to beat the
cost of borrowing. We should not take money from one promised area, highway funds, and
use it for something completely different. We should never budget so poorly that we have
to cut somebody in the tenth month of a fiscal year, which is what universities would have
to do now, after being cut in the eighth month of their fiscal year. We should not use one-time
money on operating costs. Especially when that money was promised for children’s funds,
initiative funds. We should not ignore maintenance and defer costs to the next generation or
the next board. We should not ignore it when a policy choice we make fails and we refuse
to change it. We should not boldly pick winners and losers after promising not to do that.
But that’s exactly what was done by allowing anybody with LLC income or sub chapter S income
not to pay taxes. And we should not blame and attack judges or others when we don’t
do our job. Those are my simple comments about what we’ve
seen from our state Legislature and our Governor. So, any other comments? Or may we let — okay.
>>Trustee Lee Cross: In those latter remarks, Mr. Chair. You represented businesses, may
I ask, Mr. Chair — and I don’t agree with the premise that government should be run
like a business, but let’s assume it should. If you’ve made a failed decision, should you
stand by it calendar year after calendar year after it is proven not to work?
>>Chair Greg Musil: I think businesses and this college would have a Plan B and would
go to it if we found it necessary to do that.>>Trustee Lee Cross: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Yes.>>Trustee Stephanie Sharp: Thank you, Mr.
Chair. But, to be fair, this particular decision, made 63 and 21, so it’s not just one person
at the top changing his or her mind. Not a particular party. It’s 63 and 21. And 97 — 120
some of those are elected all in a second, so —
>>Chair Greg Musil: 63 being the number of members of the House to get a majority and
21 being the number of members in the Senate.>>Trustee Stephanie Sharp: You’re correct.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Okay. Good point. You may be seated. Thank you, Dick. We do appreciate
what you do up there. It’s a moving target all the time. We have managed to dodge the
bullet and I almost sit up here feeling like it’s unfair that we have done so because there
are many parts of the state budget that have taken significant cuts, huge cuts, and we
have avoided them and it’s almost like we haven’t shared the sacrifice of the mess that
we’re in. Selfishly, I appreciate that. All right. Move on to committee reports and
recommendations. Collegial steering. We met on Tuesday, April
12th. We talked about two subjects. One is faculty participation — really, all campus
participation in our 50th anniversary celebration and if we end up with a some type of fundraising
campaign, making sure that we include everybody on campus as part of that effort. And we revisited
some more issues on curriculum and academic quality and curriculum development and what
it takes to have high-quality teaching, high-quality faculty, and high-quality students coming
to this college. I’d be happy to answer questions about that.
Or we can move on to Human Resources.>>Trustee Nancy Ingram: Absolutely. The Human
Resources committee met on Monday, April 4th. Salary adjustments and salary increases were
on the agenda. Dr. Korb presented an overview of the salary adjustments and increases proposed
for fiscal year 2017. The recommendation includes salary adjustments for eligible, non-probationary
full-time non-bargaining unit employees identified in recent compensation studies. Also included
is a 2% salary increase for full-time and part-time non-bargaining unit employees. And
finally, a 2.75% increase in the adjunct faculty salary table.
Mr. Chairman, it is the recommendation of the college administration that the Board
of Trustees authorize salary adjustments effective July 1, 2016, for eligible non-probationary
full-time non-bargaining unit employees identified in the most recent compensation studies. Additionally,
effective July 1, 2016, a 2% salary increase for all non-probationary, non-bargaining unit
salaried and full-time and part-time hourly employees employed as of June 30th, 2016,
and a 2.75% increase in adjunct faculty salary table is recommended.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Is that a motion?>>Trustee Nancy Ingram: It is.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Is there a second?>>Trustee Stephanie Sharp: Second.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Been moved and seconded what she said. That’s two months in a row.
You had all the benefit packages last month with insurance and everything and today you
have this motion.>>Trustee Nancy Ingram: It’s all right.
>>Chair Greg Musil: It’s difficult. Any discussion about the proposed salary packages? If not,
all in favor say yes. (Yeses)
>>Chair Greg Musil: Opposed, no? Motion carries unanimously. Does that complete your report?
>>Trustee Nancy Ingram: It does. I’m sorry.>>Chair Greg Musil: That’s okay.
>>Trustee Nancy Ingram: Mr. Chairman, that concludes my report.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Learning Quality.>>Trustee Lee Cross: Mr. Chair, the Learning
Quality Committee meeting was canceled for April 4th, 2016. Items were sent to the committee
electronically for consideration. Details can be found subsequently in the Consent Agenda
of the April 21st board packet. The agreements noted below will be brought forward for approval
through Consent Agenda at today’s meeting. There were affiliation, cooperation, articulation
and reverse transfer agreements for the 2015-2016 new affiliation, with respect to new affiliation
agreements. There’s also 2016 and ’17 affiliation agreement renewals. There’s numerous of these
that you can find in the Consent Agenda. Then there’s also 2016-’18 cooperative agreement
renewal termination agreements. And then the next regular Learning Quality Committee meeting
will be held on Monday, May 2nd, 2016. Have we picked a room yet? Okay. Here in this room.
And Mr. Chair, that concludes my report.>>Chair Greg Musil: Questions for Trustee
Cross? If not, we’re ready for Management Committee.
>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Management Committee met on Wednesday,
April 6th. Trustees Cross and Lindstrom were in attendance, in addition to a large contingent
of faculty and staff. We have — that report can be found on Pages 4-30 of your materials.
We have five action items tonight. The first one deals with the parking policy. Proposed
updates included renaming the policy to Parking and Personal Transportation Policy. As you
look through that policy, you’ll see the changes in red. The changes basically deal with the
naming change to Personal Transportation, and specifically under Personal Transportation,
that deals with the accommodation for electric cars. It includes language regarding segways
and hoverboards and other electrical means of individual transportation and where those
can be operated and where they can be parked. Unless there are questions regarding those
detailed policy changes, you’ve had them to review, I would say it is the recommendation
of Management Committee that the Board of Trustees accept the recommendation of the
college administration to approve the Parking and Personal Transportation policy as is shown
subsequently in the board packet and I’ll make that motion.
>>Unidentified Speaker: Second.>>Chair Greg Musil: Moved and seconded to
amend the Parking and Personal Transportation policy. Is there any discussion?
>>Trustee Stephanie Sharp: I just have a quick question for reference. Did we benchmark that
stuff off of someone else? Is there someone who’s a real leader in policies regarding
segways and –>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Johnson County Community
College.>>Trustee Stephanie Sharp: I’m just curious
if this is a thing that everyone is having to do now. It’s interesting is why I ask.
>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Well, it’s a very good question. I would guess that there are colleges
probably in warmer climates that more year-round use segways and hoverboards; but I would defer
to Rex or Mitch or Randy or whomever knows about that kind of thing. We’re anticipating
in some cases; but with the advent of electric cars, we do have a need to identify so — Dr.
Weber.>>Mr. Randy Weber: We felt the need to address
this because we were seeing the hoverboards being used on campus, particularly in buildings,
and at the same time across the news media, seeing about them exploding, and being allowed
to use them in airports, and so it was a real safety and security concern. We were trying
to do some preventative maintenance and just —
>>Ms. Tanya Wilson: And, you know, our office always partners with the — (Inaudible) — so
they did surveys to make sure that we’re either in sync or we’re meeting the statutory — or
the best practices, so –>>Mr. Randy Weber: And a lot of the law enforcement
officers have something to say about people riding around campus.
(Laughter)>>Dr. Barbara Larson: This is also a topic
of conversation at the League meeting, so all of our League partners are also talking
about their policies with regard to this.>>Chair Greg Musil: That would be the League
of?>>Dr. Barbara Larson: League of Innovation.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Which includes a number community colleges around the country?
>>Dr. Barbara Larson: Yes.>>Chair Greg Musil: Okay.
>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Actually 19, I believe, and you’ll remember last month our president
reported that Johnson County Community College was among the most frequented benchmarked
colleges within the League. So we weren’t too far off of our progressive innovation.
>>Trustee Lee Cross: Trustee Sharp — if I may?
>>Chair Greg Musil: Trustee Cross, go ahead.>>Trustee Lee Cross: In our investigation,
we discovered that hoverboards don’t actually hover. I was disappointed.
(Laughter)>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Have we voted on this?
>>Chair Greg Musil: We have not. All in favor say yes. (Yeses)
>>Chair Greg Musil: Opposed, no?>>Trustee Jerry Cook: The second item is that
Rachel stated that for the college’s framework for Investment Policy 214 the Board of Trustees
authorizes the investment of temporary idle cash to be administered by the President.
College administration desires to establish an account at First State Bank & Trust Company
for placement and redemption of such investments. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the
Management Committee that the Board of Trustees accept the recommendation of the college administration
to authorize the President, the Associate Vice-President for Financial Services, Chief
Financial Officer and the Director of Accounting Services and Grants to administer the placement
and redemption of investments. And I’ll make that motion.
>>Trustee Lee Cross: Second.>>Chair Greg Musil: Been moved and seconded
for the signatures. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor say yes.
(Yeses)>>Chair Greg Musil: Opposed, no? Motion carried.
>>Trustee Jerry Cook: The next item is in relation to a bid for contract for renovations
to Office and Classroom Building, OCB. That detail is found on Page 12 of your packet.
You can see that 72 firms were notified directly. 28 responded. You’ll notice the citation of
the public announcement. The bid is not the lowest bid that was provided; but the low
bidder did not meet the specifications of the required bid, minimum specifications.
And that is the reason that we are recommending the other bidder — or the bidder that received
it. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Management Committee that the Board of
Trustees accept the recommendation of the college administration to approve the lowest
acceptable bids of $15,986 from Acme Floor Company, Inc.; $36,185 from Campione Interior
Solutions; $63,910 from DH Pace Company, Inc; $159,120 from Jeanco, LLC; $112,430 from Metro
Air Conditioning; and $39,797 from Switzer Brothers Painting. Totaling $427,428. Plus
an additional $21,371.40 to allow for contingencies for possible unforeseen costs. For total expenditures
not to exceed $448,799.40 for the OCB renovation. And I’ll make that motion.
>>Trustee Stephanie Sharp: Second.>>Chair Greg Musil: It’s been moved and seconded
for the bid packages. Are there any questions? Yes.
>>Trustee Jerry Cook: I would make one additional comment. That the detail of this discussion
has been done in a variety of management meetings as well as board meetings, so there’s a number
of detailed pricing there for each of you to consider. We moved through that expenditure
rather quickly; but it has not been without a lot of discussion.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Each of the separate bids was a separate bid package and the winning
bidder was one of the companies that bid on those packages. That’s why we have six separate
–>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Correct.
>>Chair Greg Musil: — approvals here. All right. No other questions? All in favor say
>>Chair Greg Musil: Opposed, no? Motion carries.>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Next item is the contract
for renovations to the Office and Classroom Building. Again, 72 — well, 72 companies
were notified. We had 23 bids. Details found on Page 16 of your board packet. And, again
I would say, which I failed to say in the first bid, a review committee goes through
all of these bid specifications and bid proposals to make sure that they do meet our expectation.
Did we do — I guess I just did that one, didn’t I?
>>Chair Greg Musil: There’s two — you’re on the one on page —
>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Yeah. It is the recommendation of the Management Committee that the Board
of Trustees accept the recommendation of the college administration to approve the lowest
acceptable bid of $33,833 from Beacon Contracting; $130,850 from Driftwood Contracting, LLC;
$48,500 from Eiberger Construction, Inc; $12,180 from Switzer Brothers Painting; and $85,700
from The Glass Act. Totaling $311,113. Plus an additional $15,555.65 to allow for contingencies
for possible unforeseen costs. For total expenditures not to exceed $326,668.65 for the OCB renovation.
And I’ll make that recommendation.>>Unidentified Speaker: Second.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Been moved and seconded for the bid packages. Are there any questions?
If not, all in favor say yes. (Yeses)
>>Chair Greg Musil: Opposed, no? Motion carried.>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Next item is the Performing
Arts Center space. The scope includes upgrades to finishes and enhancements for Yardley Hall,
Polsky Theatre, Green Room/Dressing Rooms and Lobby area upgrades. Again, a project
that we’ve had considerable discussion on. We notified 51 firms. 16 responded. You have
that detail on Page 20. The recommendation — we did take the low bid in this case. I’ll
make the recommendation, then I have a comment. It is the recommendation of the Management
Committee that the Board of Trustees accept the recommendation of the college administration
to approve the low bid of $1,703,900 from Loyd Builders, Inc; plus an additional $70,000
to allow for contingencies for possible unforeseen costs. For a total expenditure not to exceed
$1,773, 900 for the Performing Arts Center renovation. And I’ll make that motion.
>>Unidentified Speaker: Second.>>Trustee Jerry Cook: My comment is that you’ll
see that we estimated that project to be about a million four. It came in, as you can see,
higher than that estimate. There are a couple of reasons for that. One is that — that is
a pretty complicated renovation basically with our seating and what we’re doing with
Yardley Hall. The second area is that we have a very restricted timeline. We want to start
this project as soon as we can — and we may have started a few things now, but basically
when students leave. But make sure we have that project completed when the fall semester
begins. And so there’s a real compressed time area to get all of this work done and that
comes with somewhat of a cost. But I’d be happy to have the staff answer any questions
that the Board may have about that.>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: I would like to point out,
Trustee Cook, that a significant part of that difference we’ve made up by funds in the Foundation
office that were collected thanks to a tax credit program that the state had in place
years ago. I believe the total amount is about 188,000.
>>Dr. Barbara Larson: Correct.>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: That will be shifted over
to help with this project.>>Chair Greg Musil: Further questions or comments?
If not, all in favor say aye. (Yeses)
>>Chair Greg Musil: Opposed, say no.>>Trustee Lee Cross: Nay.
>>Chair Greg Musil: I knew I’d get back to that. It passes with five yeses.
(Laughter)>>Trustee Jerry Cook: We had a couple of reports.
Andy updated us on articulation agreements and some of that progress. We had the regular
report on purchases that were less than what we’ve bid upon. You have the report of the
— Rex gave a report on the progress of — work-in-progress report. We did have a quite an extensive report
on our technology infrastructure management maintenance program. And the Management Committee
was blessed with a really cool detailed map of the infrastructure that is matriculating
around the campus. And in cases of completed work and cases of work that’s being worked
on now and work that’s going to be completed in the near future. But that might be something
that you’d all be interested to see because it’s kind of a complex network of a whole
life of itself, of wires and cells, molecules moving around underground so that we can communicate
with one another. You have a little brief report — well, it’s not a very brief report
— but you’ve got that detail in your packet. And I just wanted to compliment the staff
for going through all of that work. Joe, you might want to make a comment on that as well.
But that was very impressive and it was an outstanding report. You want to make a comment
on that?>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: I concur.
>>Trustee Jerry Cook: After I screwed all of that up. Thank you very much for your great
work on that. That was terrific.>>Chair Greg Musil: Any questions of the Management
Committee members?>>Trustee Lee Cross: If I may, Mr. Chair.
>>Chair Greg Musil: You may.>>Trustee Lee Cross: I’d just like to revise
my earlier no vote and extend that I was in unanimity with the group. I don’t want anybody
in the community upset with me that I voted no.
>>Chair Greg Musil: All right. So the Performing Arts Summer was a unanimous yes vote. So noted.
>>Trustee Lee Cross: Thank you.>>Chair Greg Musil: All right. We’re ready
for the President’s Recommendation for Action. First item on that is the Treasurer’s Report.
Trustee Lindstrom.>>Trustee David Lindstrom: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. The board packet, pages 31-41 contains the Treasurer’s Report for the month ending
February 29th, 2016. Some of the items of note include on Page
1 of the Treasurer’s Report is the General/Postsecondary Technical Education fund summary as of February
29th. Approximately 67% of the college’s fiscal year had expired. Ad valorem property tax
distribution of 2.7 million was received in March and will be reflected in next month’s
report. The college’s unencumbered cash balance as of February 29 of 2016 in all funds was
100.2 million, which is approximately 13.3 million higher than this same time last year.
Expenditures in the Primary Operating Fund are all within approved budgetary limits.
And therefore, it is the recommendation of the college administration that the Board
of Trustees approve the Treasurer’s Report for the month ending February 29th, 2016,
subject to audit. And I would make that motion.>>Unidentified Speaker: Second.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Been moved and seconded to accept the Treasurer’s Report. Are there
any questions? If not, all in favor say yes. (Yeses)
>>Chair Greg Musil: Opposed, no. Motion carried.>>Trustee David Lindstrom: That concludes
my report.>>Chair Greg Musil: Dr. Sopcich, next item
is yours.>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: Thank you, Trustee Musil.
I’d like to introduce this next item. It’s the First Amendment to the 2015-2018 Master
Agreement. I’ll go as far as reading the recommendation and then during the discussion period we’ll
say a few words. There could be additional discussion, and turn it over to Dr. Korb to
provide greater elaboration on the amendment itself.
So, the administration, obviously, recommends Board ratification of the First Amendment
to the 2015-2018 Master Agreement. And I’d like to read the formal recommendation. It
is the recommendation of the college administration that the Board of Trustees approve the First
Amendment to the 2015-2018 Master Agreement as shown subsequently in the board packet.
This starts on Page 42.>>Chair Greg Musil: I’m going to ask you to
withhold a motion until we hear from Dr. Korb.>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: May I go first?
>>Chair Greg Musil: Yes, you may.>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: Thank you. I wanted to
be able to introduce Dr. Korb.>>Chair Greg Musil: Okay.
>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: First of all, I’d like to thank a number of folks who played a big
part in bringing this to a successful closure. Specifically, the members of the faculty,
Dennis Arjo and Steve Wilson, who worked in the actual discussion, negotiations I guess
you could say, as well as Ron Palcic, the head of the FA. I’d also like to thank Dr.
Korb, Becky Centlivre, for their role in the negotiations. And also Tanya Wilson for her
role as counsel in making sure that all of this came together in the way it should have,
the way it should have happened. So, Judy, I’m going to turn this over to you and you
can provide a little bit more detail.>>Dr. Judy Korb: Okay. Well, you have the
amendment. You’ve been able to read it. And we worked with the faculty and I believe we
— I think we only had two meetings actually where we got together to talk about this;
but the amendment mirrors the state statute with a few exceptions. There are some things
that if the statute goes away, would be — would not be relevant any more. And so Tanya did
a great job of helping us kind of narrow this down so that we pulled the pieces out of that
that we would be able to use if the statute did not exist. And when we got together with
the faculty, we kind of compared notes. We decided on a draft that we would be able to
use. We agreed on a draft. And we only had, I believe, four points that we needed to go
back and talk about and get some clarification on. Which we were able to do that very easily.
So we managed to kind of work through that and we want back and forth a couple of times
with the language, but ended up basically with an agreement where there is a due process
— a process described for due process that was outlined in the statute already for the
most part. It’s just the statute gave a couple of options and now we really only have one
if the statute goes away. This amendment will be effective if the statutes go away or are
materially changed. So we tried to — tried to look at different scenarios that could
happen and say this will kick in if some of those other things happen. So —
>>Chair Greg Musil: Questions for Dr. Korb? Trustee Cross.
>>Trustee Lee Cross: Why was an arbitration clause added?
>>Dr. Judy Korb: An arbitration clause? You mean using —
>>Trustee Lee Cross: Paragraph B — under Article 5, Paragraph B. Parties shall make
a joint request for arbitration to the American Arbitration Association.
>>Dr. Judy Korb: That was one of the options in the statute. The statute actually allowed
for a hearing officer or the process of using an arbitration through American Arbitration
Association or the arbitration association. If the statutes go away, that hearing officer
option would likely not exist. So we pulled the piece out of the statute that would still
be there and that’s what we put in. Is there other description to that? I mean,
that’s really what we — what — we used that section of the statute that would still be
relevant.>>Chair Greg Musil: The statute allowed the
Department of Education to appoint its own hearing officer or you could go to the AAA
for arbitration.>>Dr. Judy Korb: Correct.
>>Chair Greg Musil: The hearing officer would go away if the statute goes away so we maintained
the other procedure that had already been in the statute.
>>Dr. Judy Korb: Exactly. Yes.>>Chair Greg Musil: Is that fairly put?
>>Dr. Judy Korb: Yes.>>Trustee Lee Cross: So do we have that option
here? Or just appointing an arbitrator; is that right?
>>Dr. Judy Korb: We don’t have the hearing officer option that was in the statute because
that was through Department of Ed and that would go away. If the statute doesn’t exist
— that’s what created that process, was the statute. So if the statute goes away, that
process really would not exist. So we chose what would be left in the statute that was
the other option and that’s what we have in our due process.
>>Trustee Lee Cross: I thank you for that answer. I’m asking, is there — the only choice
here, if this springs into action, is that we go to an arbiter? Am I misreading it?
>>Chair Greg Musil: Tanya.>>Ms. Tanya Wilson: Thank you. Section C where
it talks about the procedural due process rights afforded to the parties, that section
is almost verbatim from the statute. So regardless whether it was a hearing officer or arbitrator,
they’re both going to be assigned to do the same thing and provide the same procedural
due process and the same with respect to findings and report.
>>Trustee Lee Cross: Only the arbitrator?>>Ms. Tanya Wilson: The individual hearing
it would be somebody from AAA in this process.>>Trustee Lee Cross: Okay.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Because there is no hearing officer procedure left if the statute is repealed.
>>Ms. Tanya Wilson: Correct.>>Chair Greg Musil: And the AAA procedure,
from my familiarity, is that they would typically give a list of five to seven arbitrators to
both sides who would strike, and each side would strike the ones that they feel have
a conflict or they don’t want and see if they can reach an agreement on an arbitrator?
>>Ms. Tanya Wilson: Correct. And that, again, would parallel pretty closely what was already
in the statute as far as — so that remains in place as well.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Any other questions? I’m going to — Joe, if you don’t mind, I’m going
to ask — this is pretty unusual — I’m going to ask Ron as President of the Faculty Association
if you want to come up and make any comments now regarding this. It might enlighten the
Board if you could tell us, the Faculty Association’ perspective on the — I don’t even know if
I call them negotiations — it was pretty much a discussion and a consensus-reaching
process. You don’t have to but — I assume you’re going to address it in your comments
but you might want to address it before we vote. And you probably need to come to the
podium so that our –>>Mr. Ron Palcic: Thank you. Appreciate that.
We did that — we did appreciate the team and the leadership of Joe Sopcich for working
this out. But I do want to report, if I can, the result of our ratification with the Faculty
Association. And what we had is 56 — 76% of all bargaining members voted. That was
250 faculty out of 331 we have on campus. 81 faculty members didn’t vote or abstained.
Couple of ’em e-mailed me, said they were abstaining. That’s 242 out of the 250 voting,
which is 96.8%, voted yes, they wanted to ratify this amendment. Eight voted no, which
is 3.2%. So we had a great discussion with the faculty. Our negotiations went well. We
had consultation with the legal counsel, with KNEA. They felt very comfortable with this,
was very parallel to what we’ve had in the statute. And we encourage the Board to vote
yes as well tonight. Any questions for me about that?
>>Chair Greg Musil: Questions? Yes, David.>>Trustee David Lindstrom: For the eight that
voted against it, was there a common theme for those eight? Do you know?
>>Mr. Ron Palcic: They probably were more concerned about the idea of binding arbitration.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Make it clear, is this binding arbitration? Does this eliminate the
opportunity of anybody to appeal beyond that point?
>>Ms. Tanya Wilson: No.>>Chair Greg Musil: No. Same rights to go
on to a district court, essentially similar rights as anybody had under the current statute.
>>Ms. Tanya Wilson: Correct.>>Chair Greg Musil: So it’s an arbitrator
decision but it is not binding final and it allows additional appeal so —
>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: Dr. Korb, when was the last time that this was utilized?
>>Dr. Judy Korb: I’m not aware of it ever having been utilized, but —
>>Trustee Jerry Cook: I’ll make the motion to approve.
>>Unidentified Speaker: Second.>>Chair Greg Musil: Been moved and seconded.
Thank you, Ron. Dr. Sopcich, do you have some comments before we vote? And others would
have the opportunity, too.>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: I would like to thank the
Board for their understanding and patience and following through with this whole process.
We turned this around very quickly and we couldn’t have done so without your endorsement
of doing what we had to do. So I’d like to thank you very much.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Anybody else with comments on this? I think it’s important that we place
this in context that — for people watching this for the first time. The Legislature has
proposed a bill, which has exited committee with a recommendation to pass it, which would
repeal the state statute mandating due process, what people know as tenure, for community
college professors. And that caused a stir. And what this Board authorized two months
ago was that the administration begin discussions with our Faculty Association to ensure that
if that legislation passed, we had a process in place that provided the protections that
have traditionally been available, if never used, on campus. And that process has led
to this, really, consensus agreement which I think is cleaner, better, faster, more efficient
and equally as fair as the old system. So if the Legislature, in its wisdom, from April
27th on, decides to pass this at the last minute, which is what they did with K-12 teachers
two years ago, we are ready to go. And in February, we had this room full. We had a
number of speakers at our public open forum. We had faculty members upstairs in the Ben
Craig Auditorium because we had overflow and not enough room here. And it is my hope that
by — I will urge us to pass this tonight. I don’t have any reason to believe anybody
could possibly have a reason to vote against it, but that it will restore whatever trust
or credibility was threatened at that time by faculty members who felt like somehow they
had been blind-sided or the rug would be pulled out from under them. I think all of us said
at the time that was not the intent. That was not the Board’s intent. That was not the
Board’s goal. And by passing this tonight, I think we will prove that. It is a lesson
to me in a little bit of patience and a little bit of reliance on the fact that this Board
and this college takes measured steps on almost everything we do to the point sometimes of
never acting. And we have now acted quickly to ensure that what I think we all wanted
as a goal will be met. So — Dr. Cook.
>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Mr. Chair, thank you. I think with 92% approval by faculty, that’s
a pretty strong statement that they’re in concurrence. So it supports your comment that
we probably — well, I’m just pleased we had 92%. That’s all I’ll say. Thank you.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Yes, Mr. Palcic.>>Mr. Ron Palcic: I don’t want to be adverse,
but I want to clarify, 96.8%. (Laughter)
>>Chair Greg Musil: The math professor corrected it. 96.8% of the faculty members who voted,
voted to approve.>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Thank you. I didn’t
do well in math.>>Chair Greg Musil: All in favor of the amendment
to the Master Agreement say yes. (Yeses)
>>Chair Greg Musil: All opposed, no. Motion carries unanimously.
Thank everyone for helping us address a very important issue. I don’t want to say put it
behind us because it’s always there as an alternative and as a protection. And it will
still be there if the Legislature acts. Dr. Sopcich, your monthly report to the Board
at ten after six, two hours and ten minutes into our meeting.
>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: Is that — do you want me to go through this pretty fast or not do
it at all?>>Chair Greg Musil: You need to do it, it’s
important stuff. I shouldn’t minimize it.>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: You have the monthly report
to the Board dated April 21st, 2016. Almost 30 pages of incredible accomplishments and
achievements by many people here on campus. I’d like to highlight a few of those that
demonstrate what we’re doing here as far as outreach, especially to our local community
in the local high schools. For example, the Billington Library, specifically, staff members
Jessica Tipton and Judith Vaughn, hosted 50 seniors from Olathe North High School. Ginny
Krumme, from Career Pathways, presented to 950 students throughout the Shawnee Mission
School District talking about our Career Pathways initiative. Dave Ellis, in counseling, gave
a presentation to 70 homeschoolers here on campus. Dr. Melanie Harvey presented about
the carbon and nitrogen cycle to 5th graders at Pinckney Elementary School. That’s terrific.
And lastly — and these are just a few — but if you go to Pages 27 and 28, you’ll see an
incredible number of high school visit presentations and events by our recruitment staff that are
going on here every day. And these are just over the past several weeks.
Now, I’m going to take you through a chronology of some really fun things that I had the pleasure
to attend, and demonstrate to you the role this college has in the community. For example,
on March 26, our cosmetology program helped young women prepare for the Downs Syndromes
Guild Prom. It was during Saturday. It was almost — seemed like an all day preparation
period. Our cosmetology students became members of the prom squad and they did hair, nails
and make up of the prom attendees for that evening. It was great community involvement
and definitely like to compliment the program coordinator, Lana Hodes, for getting that
done. It was just a real great thing to see. On April 1st, we had the international dinner.
It was themed “Taste of the World”. 275 attendees feasted on the outstanding meal prepared by
our famous catering staff and enjoyed just a wonderful vibe that filled the Regnier Center.
Congratulations to Patricia Donaldson, who’s the coordinator of this program and her team
who made this event happen for ten years. More importantly, we’d like to thank the international
students who joined together to serve the food, provide the entertainment, and just
served as incredibly gracious hosts for the evening. The proceeds of this will go to our
International Students Scholarship Fund. A great event.
On April 5th, we celebrated teaching excellence at the Lieberman Adjunct Faculty Awards Dinner.
This award, named in honor of George and Floriene Lieberman, recognizes the excellence in the
classroom by our adjunct faculty. I’d like to read the names of the seven recipients
of the awards. Rebecca Kastendick, the Adjunct Associate Professor in English. Leanna Graham,
Adjunct Assistant Professor in Reading. Madhur Mathur, Adjunct Assistant Professor in Mathematic.
Tabea McDonald, Adjunct Assistant Professor in Foreign Languages. Rachel Olsen, the Adjunct
Assistant Professor in Biology. And Catherine Schrag, Adjunct Assistant Professor in Speech.
And Lori Voss-Schoonover, Adjunct Assistant Professor in Mathematics. It was a great evening
to see those recipients collect those awards. On April 7th, on that day, you had the opportunity
to pull up JCCC in the news, and you may have noticed that Luanne Wolfgram, the Professor
and Chair in Biotechnology, spoke about a unique partnership at the 12th Annual Worthington
Bioconference in Worthington, Minnesota. This partnership started when Ceva Biomune, which
is a local company that produces animal vaccines, recognized that many of its new employees
were students — former students of Luanne’s. And so Ceva, along with Luanne and a local
staffing company, teamed up to help address the skilled labor shortage in the biotech
field. This is a great service to our community, especially in the animal health corridor.
Model U.N. Our team earned the Distinguished Delegation Award for the 2016 National Model
U.N. Conference in New York City. We represented Kenya. Three of our students were selected
for conference staff positions. These are — and this is a big deal. Oftentimes, these
students will find themselves in front of a group of 500 delegates to this conference,
managing — managing a U.N. format type meeting. It’s incredibly exciting. The students who
won those positions were Daniel Crist from Overland Park; Donald Roth, Prairie Village;
and Megan Deitz from Lawrence. Other members of the team were Nicki Joy Karstens, Overland
Park; Frida Lara from Overland Park; Enrique Deluna, Overland Park; Mark Ruskikh from Poltava
Ukraine. He was our — if we had gotten Ukraine, we would have been set for that. Theodore
Bennett from Stilwell; Brittany Gindle, Overland Park; Briauna Jarvis from Overland Park; Sarah
Lamb, Olathe; Connor Mayhan, Overland Park; Donald Roth, Overland Park; Meghan Fuller,
Overland Park; and Bridget Brown, Lawrence; Lacee Roe, Lawrence; Sarah White, Overland
Park; and Makayla Johnson from Baldwin City. The faculty adviser is Dr. Brian Wright, Professor
of Political Science; and the co-adviser is Aaron Swift, the Administrative Assistant
for the Center for Student Involvement. The Model U.N. conference is really a fantastic
opportunity for our students, not only to learn more about the world, but also to develop
those soft skills that are so important for their futures. Remarkably, when this team
comes back, they run a competition, the Metro Kansas City Model United Nations, with around
300 students in attendance here on our campus. I want to read to you the schools that were
represented. Bentonville, Arkansas; Blue Valley High Schools, Blue Valley Northwest and Blue
Valley West; Battle High School from Columbia, Missouri; Climax Springs High School in Missouri;
Fayetteville High School in Arkansas; Fort Leavenworth High; Patton High School, Fort
Leavenworth; Harrisonville Junior High, Harrisonville, Missouri; Hickman Mills High School in Columbia,
Missouri; Hickman Mills High School in Kansas City, Missouri; Liberty North High School;
Louisburg High School; Notre Dame de Sion; Olathe North High School; Pembroke Hill; Rockhurst
High School; Shawnee Mission West; Sumner Academy in K.C.K; Sunrise Bellaire in Kansas;
St. Thomas Aquinas. It’s a fantastic event. I have to say that every one of those delegates
was dressed in their Sunday’s best. It was just wonderful to see that. Congrats to Dr.
Wright and his team for conducting this competition on our campus. It’s a real kudo for JCCC to
be able to host this. It just keeps getting bigger and better every year.
Lastly, I’d just like to announce that this year’s graduation commencement speaker will
be Dr. Steve Gerson, who has been on faculty here for 38 years, and he has promised to
keep his remarks to under an hour. So we’re looking forward to his address.
>>Chair Greg Musil: A class period, right?>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: Exactly. It will be terrific.
That concludes the report. Thank you.>>Chair Greg Musil: Bryan, I see that high
school thing on campus as kind of like the NFL combine. I think you’re just out there
getting your recruits. Probably helps to bring them here.
Any questions for Dr. Sopcich on the monthly report? If not, old business, I’m not aware
of any old business. New business. Nominating committee. I have asked and they have accepted
my nomination that Dr. Cook and Trustee Lindstrom serve as the Nominating Committee for the
officer positions and the liaison positions for the next school year. And they will report
back, hopefully in May, and certainly we’ll vote on those in June. Report from board liaisons,
Faculty Association. Ron.>>Mr. Ron Palcic: You shortened my report
a little bit. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to the Board. Thank you Board President,
Chair, and Dr. Sopcich. I’m pleased to announce, of course, that the
election happened. We had quite a few people vote. I’m really happy that we have that 96.8%
of those who did vote for approval. The Faculty Association has started the election
process for our new officers for serving the college from May, 2016 to May, 2017. At the
next board meeting in May I will have the pleasure of introducing to you the new president
of the Faculty Association for the college. And I would like to thank again, if I may,
the outgoing officers. Some of them will stay here, some will not. But Vice-President Brian
Wright, who is in the room; Secretary, Dennis Arjo; Treasurer, Brett Cooper; Uniserve rep
Jeff Anderson; and Past President Deb Williams. They’ve been very helpful to me and been a
reward for the college to have on this team. Additionally, I’d also like to thank the Board
for welcoming me, also showing me a welcoming face. And I just want to look forward to spending
more time, now that I’ll be exiting the office as president, with my students here at the
college. I still will be active in the Faculty Association because I will be the Past President
and will still serve on the board. I’d like to thank you again for permitting me to make
this report to you. And if you have any questions for me, I’m open for them.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Questions for Ron? Yes, Dave.
>>Trustee David Lindstrom: Just a comment. Thank you. Thank you for a job well done.
>>Mr. Ron Palcic: Thank you.>>Chair Greg Musil: I think an appropriate
matherism would be that because of people like you, the sum of all these parts is greater
than it otherwise would be. How about that?>>Mr. Ron Palcic: That is very nice.
>>Chair Greg Musil: I don’t think it’s ever an easy year to be Faculty Association President.
I think this year may have brought some unique challenges. And just like — I mean, just
like now, no matter what was going on, you always have, you know, faced them with a smile
and with the resolve to find the best solution for this college and I don’t think any of
us can appreciate someone more than having that attitude.
>>Mr. Ron Palcic: Well, like I’ve said to Dr. Sopcich, and I’ve also told you and I
probably should share it with the rest of the board members, it’s a team. The Board,
the administration, and the leadership from the faculty. And we have three different leaderships
within the faculty. The Faculty Association, we have Ed Affairs, we have the Faculty Senate
and we’ve also worked well together. I think we’re heading in the right direction. Hopefully,
the ship is being steered, we’re going to have good leadership, and we’ll just keep
going and we’ll get better and better as an institution. And I really do thank you. You
are one of the finest Boards in the country.>>Chair Greg Musil: Thank you. Motion to adjourn?
(Laughter)>>Chair Greg Musil: Not quite done yet. Thank
you very much, Ron. It’s been a great teamwork effort.
(Applause)>>Chair Greg Musil: Top that, Johnson County
Education Research Triangle.>>Trustee David Lindstrom: Can’t do it. The
Johnson County Education Research Triangle authority, or JCERT, met on Monday, April
11th. The meeting was held at 7:30 a.m. at the K State Olathe campus. There was a quorum
present and Chairman Eilert presided over the meeting. We heard from Suze Parker from
Parker Communications Group. That group is the new PR firm hired to increase awareness
of JCERT’s contribution to the local economy. We also approved university budgets. We approved
an invoice from JCERT attorney, James Hubbard, in the amount of $1,338.50.
And then we received reports from the University’s KU Edwards Campus. David Cook provided a program
facility and scholarship update. He mentioned KU Edwards also has a metro rate and I thought
that was interesting. And that JCERT provides approximately 20% of KU Edwards campus’s support.
K-State’s Ralph Richardson mentioned the progress being made in their program development. Their
collaboration with academic and industry partners. Their outreach in engagement efforts. And
all of that is workforce development driven is what he mentioned. He also noted that K-State
Olathe will begin offering — and this I thought was interesting as well — opportunities toward
hospitality management degree. Hopefully, the college is aware of that.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Right.>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: Right. They’re working
very closely with ONA –>>Trustee David Lindstrom: Very good. Then,
finally, KU, Jeff Reaney, who usually gives that report wasn’t there, so Dr. Steven Williamson
talked about the Clinical Trials Office and significant growth that they have experienced
in their research. He noted that this work prioritizes and ensures scientific merit,
cost effective fiscally sound processes, and most importantly, safety. He also mentioned
the Midwest Cancer Alliance, which is an outreach arm of KU Cancer Center, that it is a membership-based
organization that brings together cancer research, care and support professionals to advance
the quality and reach of cancer prevention, early detection, treatment and survivorship.
In essence, it links member hospitals, medical professionals and their patients with the
KU Cancer Research Center in clinical trials. The Midwest Cancer Alliance also is housed
in the facility right there at the research center.
Receipts for the past month in March were up .85%, sales tax receipts for JCERT purposes.
In March — and the next meeting of the JCERT will be on September 20th, at 7:30 a.m. at
KU Edwards campus in the Best Building, Room 315. And that’s my report, Mr. Chairman.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Questions on JCERT? Thank you, Trustee Lindstrom.
That’s all the reports — I’m sorry, Dr. Cook, I apologize. Kansas Association of Community
College Trustees.>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
KACCT has not met since our last meeting; however, I would report that two Trustees
that have served on the KACCT Board, that many of you perhaps know, I think both of
them have passed since our last meeting, Mary Ann Flunder of Kansas City, Kansas, who had
been in poor health has recently passed. And more recently, last week, Ron Schwartz of
Dodge City Community College, who had also been in poor health, has passed. So we’ll
miss them on the KACCT Board. I did have the opportunity to attend a conference
call yesterday for ACCT, and we’re in the process of putting together a survey followed
by some strategic tools to help recruit and train new board members to ACCT. So we’ll
have that survey coming out. And we’re preparing that all for a summer board retreat this July
in San Antonio. That concludes my report, Mr. Chair.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Questions for Dr. Cook? If not, we’re ready for the Consent Agenda.
The Consent Agenda is a listing of items that are noncontroversial and routine. They have
been reviewed by committees or staff. They’re typically considered in one motion and approved
in a single vote. Any member of the Board may request that a particular item be removed
and considered, debated and voted upon separately. Are there any items anyone would like to remove
from the Concept Agenda? Trustee Cross.>>Trustee Lee Cross: Mr. Chair, I have a question
about, I believe it’s under temporary employees, with respect to the Pakistan teleconference.
Pakistan Grant Teleconference. It’s at Page 72, Item 6.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Page 72 of the board packet?>>Trustee Lee Cross: Yes, sir.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Pakistan Grant Teleconference, International Education. Andy, is that something
you can address?>>Mr. Andy Anderson: Yes, I can. We began
a relationship with IBA Sukkur. It’s a business school in Pakistan that’s developing a community
college system mirroring the way we approach community college education in America. We
began — I think it’s been a year and a half ago — with a series of live conferences.
They gather in the evening. We gather at 8:00 in the morning. And they have a live video
conference. I might say, they serve tea in China. We usually have coffee and paper cups;
but, anyway, we notice differences. But they sent a group of faculty to visit us a year
ago. The relationships were very promising; exciting conversations. We reapplied. The
State Department has renewed the grant. We’re the only community college in the United States
that’s doing this. They will be sending I think it’s six faculty to spend a semester
here in the fall. There will be — actually accompanying faculty here and one faculty
member in Early Childhood at UMKC who has joined us in this endeavor. So they will have
a semester here in Johnson County to see what we do and for us also to observe how they
approach some of the same issues. They’re especially concerned with developmental remedial
kinds of efforts and how we do student support. They’re trying to invigorate their economy
and to make education more accessible to underserved populations. The State Department sent a representative
about two weeks ago. They were going to send another representative — two representatives,
I think May 24th. They were actually quite impressed by what we’re doing. And it’s really
quite a remarkable experience. If you ever want — I think it’s every Thursday or every
other Thursday, there’s a series of meetings; but if you want to come at 8:00 in the morning
and meet them, there’s usually about 20 or 30 faculty in Pakistan that are conversing
live with our faculty. And both sides present. It’s really quite remarkable.
>>Trustee Lee Cross: I think it is quite remarkable. Thank you for that.
>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: This program does wonders for furthering our relationship with the State
Department, which then benefits a lot of our foreign study programmings. It certainly elevates
us across the country and also it helps us to learn about a part of the world that certainly
is very important in today’s world. So, it’s a great program and Andy and everyone on the
academic side have done a great job with this program.
>>Trustee Jerry Cook: I make a motion to approve the Consent Agenda.
>>Trustee Lee Cross: Second.>>Chair Greg Musil: It’s been moved and seconded.
Any questions or discussion? If not, all in favor say yes.
(Yeses)>>Chair Greg Musil: Opposed, no. Motion carries
unanimously. We have no Executive Session tonight. Is there
anything else we need to do? Ready for a motion to adjourn.
>>Trustee Stephanie Sharp: So move.>>Chair Greg Musil: Moved.
>>Trustee Nancy Ingram: Second.>>Chair Greg Musil: Seconded by Trustee Ingram.
All those in favor say yes. (Yeses)
>>Chair Greg Musil: Opposed, no. We are adjourned. Thank you all for coming.