>>Chair Greg Musil: Good afternoon. We’ll
call the meeting of the Johnson County Community College Board of Trustees to order for our
August 2015 meeting. Please join 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. The first item on the agenda is roll call and recognition
of visitors.>>Ms. Terri Schlict: Okay. This evening’s
visitors include Dick Carter and Eric Sweden.>>Chair Greg Musil: Next item is our open
forum. The open forum section of the board agenda is a time for members of the community
to provide comments to the Board. There will be one open forum meeting during each regularly
scheduled Board meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes unless a significant number
of people plan to speak. In that instance, the chair may limit a person’s comments to
less than five minutes. In order to be recognized, an individual must register at the door at
each board meeting prior to the open forum session.
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 matters concern personnel issues
or matters that are being addressed through our established grievance or suggestion processes
or are otherwise the subject of review by the college or the Board. We have no registered
speakers for tonight’s meeting, so we’ll close the open forum session of the agenda.
Dr. Sopcich, awards and recognitions.>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: Trustee Musil, we have
no awards or recognitions for this evening.>>Chair Greg Musil: Thank you. We’re ready
for the College Lobbyist Report. Mr. Carter, welcome.
>>Mr. Dick Carter: Thank you.>>Chair Greg Musil: Please enlighten us.
>>Mr. Dick Carter: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will enlighten you very briefly this evening
as this report surrounds mostly the conversation about budget items and revenue. The State’s
fiscal year started on July 1, and everyone was eagerly watching the end of the month
financial report for the State on July 31st. Just a day before that report came out, the
governor’s office needed to cut about 50 million from the budget as it was passed. That number
ended up being about 62.6 million. Some of those dollars are just transfers, and so they’re
probably not — I don’t know if they’d be real cash transfers or not as far as the budget
is concerned. There are some hard-lined cuts, though, one of which is 1.9 million to higher
education. It was the only cut to higher education. And just to remind you what that cut was,
that is the line item for the GED Accelerator Program. Now, that’s probably really not a
cut for our institution because when the legislation was passed a year ago, we were not included
in that particular bill. We were successful in being added to the statute this year. But
since that money will not be in the budget, it’s not a cut to our budget or to our take
at least at this point. The end of — then the next day, the end of
July revenues were down slightly. Again, when we’re talking single digits on a state budget
that’s a half a billion dollars — or $6 billion, pardon me, we don’t really look at 3.7 as
being a large number. However, it’s important to keep in mind that one of the things that
went into effect in July 1 was the increased sales tax rate, increase in liquor and tobacco
taxes, as well as some other revenue-providing mechanisms. They’re not counting the number
in July to include all of those increases. Some retailers may not have actually been
to be able to program their registers or to put in place the new sales tax rate.
So we will see at the end of August, or rather the beginning of September, as you’ll see
here in just a minute, what the actual new numbers look like as far as revenue comes
in for the State of Kansas. Hopefully, that will be good since a lot of folks buy a lot
of back-to-school supplies in the month of August. But it will also give us a chance
to see how things perform and if we can identify leakage over the state line for population-dense
areas like Johnson County. The other interesting thing that I put in
the report just to note because it’s interesting to me, someone who follows the budget numbers,
is that we’re going to be moving — Department of Revenue has indicated they’re going to
be moving to a first-of-the-month look back at instead of an end-of-the-month look back.
And that allows the State to book other numbers that aren’t simply or purely sales or income
tax numbers. And I think you can think along the lines of fee-funded agencies, whether
it’s license fees, registration fees, things like that. Again, fee-funded agencies typically
build their budgets around the fees that they charge to become self-sustaining. But once
any dollar hits the state level, it becomes the State’s money. So I think that’s the reason
we’ll be looking at that to see if that makes difference in the way that the revenues come
in each month. The other thing that happened just this past
week or last week was the bonding of the KPERS money. Those bonds did sell. It was a billion-dollar
bond to help fund the unfunded component of KPERS liability. That will be interesting
to see how that continues to play out with the State’s bond rating for other projects
that may or may not be occurring as legislators plan for the future.
The final thing I would say is there have been no inner meetings yet, at least as far
as the ones that we’ll be tracking on behalf of the college. Some of those committees haven’t
even been filled with legislators or they have not been appointed yet to the committees,
and we’re waiting for the committee dates to come out as well.
The final thing then would be that the legislative task force that’s made up of a few of the
cabinet folks on the administrative level here at the college gather a couple of times
a year to discuss strategies and how we can improve the legislative advocacy process,
and we did that this afternoon and were able to have a look forward as we think about what’s
going to be happening in 2016. And I think you’ll see some more output from that as we
move on. But we talked about things like some of the advocacy efforts that we’ve done here
on campus, things like the legislative breakfast, things that we do in Topeka. And so it was
a good meeting, and I’m looking forward to the next time that we gather to continue to
move that product forward.>>Chair Greg Musil: Questions? Dr. Cook.
>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Two things, Mr. Carter, while 3.7 million
may not seem to be a lot compared to the budget, a million dollars is still a million dollars.
I guess — and I haven’t kept track myself, so shame on me — but I’d be interested in
knowing what the 24-month trend has been in Kansas with revenue. My sense is that more
months have been below projections than at or above and how we compare to the seven or
eight states around us. Because I know nationally we’ve seen reports of some states doing very
well recently, and yet Kansas continues to be below projections. So I’m interested in
the trend of what’s happening to our revenues. And secondly, who’s responsible for filling
the committees?>>Mr. Dick Carter: House and senate leadership
fills the –>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Is the idea that those
committees were to have met over the summertime?>>Mr. Dick Carter: No. The trend has been
that the committees are meeting later in the fall. It just depends on the nature of the
committee. The Legislative Budget Committee met briefly already to just take a look at
the year-end finances and right before the budget cuts. So that committee is pretty standard
as far as who the members are. But once we get all of the topics and staff in place,
they’ll begin meeting probably October, November, December.
>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Thank you.>>Chair Greg Musil: Other questions? If not,
thank you. You did lighten us up today. Thank you, Dick, for your work in Topeka or wherever
it takes place because it’s an important part of the future of the college.
The next item on the agenda is our annual legal requirement to hold a public hearing
on the budget for our fiscal year 2016 which would go from July 1, 2015, through June 30th,
2016. I’m going to make some preliminary comments. We’ll have staff here available for questions.
Obviously, members of the Board can ask questions and then anybody from the public.
One of the most important responsibilities of the Board is to establish each fiscal year
a budget running from July 1 through June 30th. Our budget process never really stops.
It goes on throughout the year as it’s our responsibility to watch expenditures and watch
revenues and identify what will be needed in the coming year. Most importantly, as trustees
our obligation is to balance revenues and expenses and establish a reserve fund that
prudently takes care of our future needs. We started on the fiscal year 2016 budget
last fall considering budget guidelines and priorities particularly in light of the college’s
strategic plan and the key performance indicators we have adopted. We’ve been ably led by Dr.
Sopcich and his cabinet, particularly Barbara Larson and Rachel Lierz, and they are available
for questions. Our budget guidelines have been part of the
public record for about ten months and establish parameters for each college department to
review its mission and the resources needed to fulfill that mission. The budget guidelines
included increasing our ending balance and adding to our reserves, maintaining the same
mill levy that we had for fiscal year 2015, maintaining the same level of staffing, the
people that make up the college, using a priority-based budgeting process to decide what are the true
priorities of the college and where we need to put our resources. We assumed, initially,
an increased valuation increase of 4 percent. That ended up 6.6 percent in the budget once
the county appraiser had reported on the appraised values as of January 1, 2016. We assume no
change in aid from the State of Kansas which currently makes up about 15 percent of our
general fund budget. We assume student tuition would increase by $3 a credit hour for in-county
and in-state students and by $8 per credit hour for out-off-state students.
Those guidelines led to a proposed budget that maintains the same mill levy as last
year. And most of our assets are people; 77 percent of the total budget authority of $140
million goes to salary and benefits. 55 percent of our funding comes from property taxes from
people who own property in Johnson County, whether they’re homeowners or businesses or
warehouses or apartments or hotels. A homeowner with a home value of 250,000, the average
value of a home in Johnson County, will pay about $272 for all the operations of this
college for the 2016 fiscal year. Johnson County residents will be asked to
pay $91 a credit hour for this school year. Out-of-county Kansans will pay $106 per credit
hour, and out-of-state students will pay $214 per credit hour under this budget. The budget
includes a 2.75 percent salary increase on average for faculty and staff.
At our May meeting, we adopted a management budget to allow management to begin the process
of planning for the fiscal year. And we’ve now come to the point in the process where
we will hold the official public hearing. And later in the meeting, we will officially
consider the budget for the 2016 year. If there’s anyone in the audience who would like
to comment on the proposed budget, please, come to the podium to your left and state
your name and address. It’s certainly not a requirement, but if you have comments about
where we’re spending too much, where we’re taxing too much, or where we need to cut,
if you would provide alternatives to the Board, that would be the most helpful part of this
process. We have to balance the budget. We would do
it even if it wasn’t the law. It happens to be the law, so I think we will do it. And
we intend to establish reserves that make sense for the college and our taxpayers.
I’ll now officially open the public hearing for the 2016 fiscal year budget. Is there
anyone in the public that wants to make any comments on the budget? Second call. Anyone
that would like to make comments on the budget? If not, I would note that these types of hearings
seldom entice somebody to come forward and make specific comments.
I want to make sure everybody in the public and everybody here knows we hear comments
about the budget every day or every week. As Board of Trustees members, we listen to
people whether they’re on campus or off campus. We hear about where things are headed and
what we need to do. And so the lack of a public hearing I don’t think is in any way indicative
in the lack of public interest about the college. But there being no one to speak, I will officially
close the public hearing, and the budget will be considered during the Management Committee
report which is the next item on our agenda. And we’ll turn to Trustee Cook for the Management
Committee recommendations. And as we start that, I’m going to — there is an item on
page 10 which is the bid packages between 25 and $100,000 normally not voted on by this
Board. I want to disclose that I have a conflict. I represent and my law firm represents the
winner of a bid reported on page 10. So if there is any conversation or vote on that,
I will not participate. Other than that, Dr. Cook, for —
>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Management Committee did meet
on Wednesday, August 5th, Trustees Lindstrom and Cross were participants in that management
meeting. We have about five items for your attention tonight. The first is the issue
of the capital outlay general obligations bonds. You’ll remember that we’ve had a number
of meetings regarding our infrastructure and capital bonds in our Board retreats and over
the last — actually more than a year. We talked a lot about where we were going with
all of this in our next 50 years. I would remind you that when we talk about this particular
item, it’s just one piece of that next 50 years. And we have other items that we’ll
be dealing with at a later time. This proposal talks about taking on a $9.8
million additional debt. And while we have discussed it thoroughly in a number of meetings,
we felt not only in Board retreats but in Management Committee, we felt that it would
be important to take a few minutes tonight for Barbara Larson and Rachel Lierz to explain
briefly, at least for the benefit of the public, the needs for this $9.8 million campaign and
to answer any questions that you may have about this significant issue.
So Barbara, if you would start us off with that, that would be helpful.
>>Dr. Barbara Larson: Thank you Dr. Cook. Again, many of you have seen much of this,
but because of the size, the significance, and what will be happening on our campus in
the next several years to address infrastructure needs, we thought it was important to go through
it. We’ve talked about the age of our facilities, incredibly well-maintained campus, but the
fact is we have a number of buildings that are now 43 years old. And approximately of
our 1.8 million square feet on campus, roughly a third of it was constructed prior to 1990.
And so certainly there are some systems to address.
Last fall we had an outside engineering firm, 360 Energy Engineers, complete a retrocommissioning
study focused on two of the original buildings, Commons and the GEB, the building we’re in
now. These represented opportunities for improvement and that they are very highly used and visible
buildings. The objectives of the retrocommissioning study were to identify operational deficiencies,
identify opportunities for energy conservation, and to see where system performance could
be improved. So this was a very in-depth study of two of the buildings, and much of our proposal
is an extrapolation of the needs identified from this.
Several key findings, that air distribution systems are adequate. They are well-maintained,
however, they are outdated and they are certainly — they do not represent the technology that
is available now in terms of building automation. Poor chilled water control: So some valves
that are — as they say primarily antiquated and inefficient by today’s standards. And
ineffective heating systems: The original variable air volume boxes, the terminal boxes
that are really controlling the temperature and airflow in individual spaces, in offices
and classrooms, were largely deficient. It is very difficult due to age to maintain them,
and replacement parts are lacking. So we’ve also seen this, the current age of
HVAC equipment by building, this represents our campus. And largely, those ages represent
the construction date because, for the most part, we have original systems. Not that we
haven’t changed out some equipment as needed, as things were broken. Trustee Lindstrom’s
suggestion at Management Committee was that we show what this same presentation would
look like after this project, after we complete this. And so this is our attempt to show you
that we would be moving a number of these items to that newer quadrant down at the lower
left, and that is that we would address much of the equipment — that is not to say that
every piece of equipment in all of these buildings would be changed out, but we would essentially
be starting with new equipment in our oldest facilities.
The picture of the variable air volume box, because we have many of them, they, again,
are the localized source for controlling the temperature and the airflow in individual
spaces. And so this is an expensive endeavor because it means touching just about every
room, going above ceiling tiles or ceilings to change out and repair equipment.
It’s not all about the HVAC equipment, although, that is clearly the bulk of this $9.8 million
infrastructure project that we’re proposing we proceed with. There are LED light conversions,
$300,000 there; roofs and windows, we have some skylights that are original that need
to be changed out; masonry and concrete work; and then some overhead doors and door replacements.
So, again, largely HVAC is the bulk of this infrastructure project that is proposed.
In terms of payback from increased efficiencies, we feel that this is very conservative based
on the work from the engineers that we’ve worked with as well as our own staff reviewing
this. Out of about $1.9 million of these improvements, we see paybacks. These are the best paybacks
at roughly $350,000 in energy savings from these improvements. And again, we hear that
energy costs continue to go up by above the rate of inflation.
The source of the financing, and Rachel Lierz will speak more to this, is the Capital Outlay
Fund. The Board has approved the use of .5 mill for the capital outlay. It is approved
through 2016-2017. In September we will be coming back to the Management Committee and
to the Board about — with a capital outlay resolution to extend this for the five-year
length of the financing. And with that, I’m going to turn it over to
Rachel Lierz. Again, she will briefly give you the presentation that was given by Bill
Henderson from Piper Jaffray at the last Management Committee meeting.
>>Ms. Rachel Lierz: Okay. As Dr. Larson indicated, this presentation was put together by the
college’s long-time financial adviser, Bill Henderson, and presented to the Management
Committee when we met last week. The only edits that I have made to the presentation
are with regards to the timing which will be — timing and next steps which will be
on the last slide here of the presentation. So again, just as an overview as you’ve heard
several times, we do have a number of capital projects currently under consideration, and
so as such have been working with Bill, the folks at Piper Jaffray, and also with our
bond counsel at Gilmore and Bell to identify an appropriate plan of finance to fund those
projects. And as we discussed at the Management Committee, the state statutes do provide for
us to borrow against the existing capital outlay levy to provide funds for the projects.
And the levy would back the additional debt that the college would incur. As you know,
the college currently has the levy of .5 mills in existence. That was adopted in 2012 and
was a five-year resolution running put to 2017. Very simply, by dedicating half of the
existing levy to repayment of the debt, a quarter mill, then the college can fund the
projects that have been identified. The next slide simply summarizes some of the
highlights of this statute. Again, the college is able to issue the Capital Outlay General
Obligation Bonds. There is a publication requirement such that after the resolution is adopted,
it will be published in a newspaper for three consecutive weeks. And this is where really,
subsequent to the Management Committee meeting, a couple of things were clarified with Gilmore
and Bell and with Piper Jaffray such that there is a 60-day protest period after the
third week of the publication time. And that is a 60-day period to allow taxpayers, obviously,
to object to the extension of the levy. So we will have that in place. And then, after
that, we will need to have really a second step as Barbara mentioned, to effectively
rescind the levy that’s currently in existence which expires in 2017 and renew it for the
five-year period from 2016 to 2021 to match the maturity period of the debt. So that’s
really I think a next step in a subsequent resolution for the Board to consider.
Again, just a couple of additional notes on the plan of finance, these are general obligation
bonds, so they will likely receive the triple A rating assigned by Moody’s to the college’s
existing general obligation debt. Because of the strong credit rating and the limited
term of the bonds, these cannot have a maturity period that exceeds five years. We do believe
that the interest costs incurred will be extremely low. I think the amount that has been factored
into the cash flow that’s in the presentation is about 1.45 percent. So really we feel like
it’s a very strong plan, and timing-wise works out very well as far as timing to get the
funds secured to proceed with the projects. Just a couple of notes on the sizing of the
issue. There is a provision in tax law that allows tax exempt issuers to issue up to $10
million on a calendar-year basis as bank qualified. And so the college has developed this plan
with a bank qualification contemplated. And as the second bullet indicates, essentially
what this does is it provides you with a wider base of potential bidders on the bonds, a
wider investor base because of the bank qualification. So the estimate there is — you know, because
of the short-term limit we’re looking at anyway, approximately savings of maybe ten basis points.
Not a significant number, but I think we’ll take advantage of whatever we can get with
this opportunity. Again, just a couple of notes about the $10
million cap in a calendar year, you’re all aware that we did recently refinance some
existing debt in calendar 2015, obviously, just a month or so ago, but because that was
previously a bank-qualified issue, it doesn’t count, if you will, towards the $10 million.
Only about $60,000 of the issuance cost associated with that count towards the new $10 million
threshold for the year. So we’re well-within — with the $9.8 million project list, and
the 60,000, we’re well-within the $9,940,000 limit for the calendar year.
The next slide is a cash flow analysis. Again, this was prepared by Piper Jaffray, and it
simply illustrates that with the .25 or the quarter mill versus the assessed valuation
that the levy would more than generate the funds needed to service the debt. Another
note on this slide, I think it’s been very conservatively prepared in that we didn’t
even contemplate an increase in assessed valuation going forward.
This is the timeline that was shared at the Management Committee meeting last week which
assumed that we would adopt the resolution authorizing the sale this evening — that’s
the resolution that was included in the packet — and that we would move forward to sell
the bonds on October 22nd which is the date of the October bond meeting — Board meeting,
excuse me — and close and have funds available about November 11th. However, because of what
Barbara alluded to and what I was speaking to a minute ago about the protest period and
the extension of the existing levy, this is going to take a little bit longer. We’re essentially
going to be moving back about 30 days. This evening, if we proceed with adopting
the resolution authorizing the sale, we would do that at the next Management Committee meeting
which is September 2nd. We would have the second resolution to extend the capital outlay
levy, again, not a tax increase, but just an extension of the current half mill arrangement.
That would be brought to you for consideration at the meeting on the 17th of September. Then
we would have our three-week publication period on or about September 21st, 28th, and October
5th. The 60-day protest period would follow. And then it would be on the date of the December
Board Meeting that we would be able to sell the bonds and have proceeds in hand, right
after the first of the year.>>Trustee Jerry Cook: While you’re thinking
of your questions, I would just like to review a couple of things. For the benefit of the
public, we’ve had discussions on this Board about that Aaa, that capital A, small, double
a rating. Many of the public is used to a triple capital A rating that some governmental
agencies have. But that A, little aa rating is the highest for community colleges. So
I want to affirm that the college does have the highest rating it qualifies for due to
the terrific fiscal management of the college staff.
A second point is that Rex and his team have done an exceptional job of holding together
the equipment that Barbara and Rachel have talked about, particularly in those buildings
over 40 years. And frankly, it’s getting more and more difficult to find parts and the right
kind of duct tape to hold all of those pieces together. But Rachel and Barbara have also
indicated I think a key point, that this is really driven by energy efficiencies. And
while we have some projections of cost savings, those, as Rachel has said, are very conservative.
And we feel that we’ll experience energy efficiencies to the total budget like we have in the past.
We have taken action previously on certain pieces of equipment and certain decisions
and have realized the savings that have been projected by staff.
So I just wanted to point that out for the public that it’s time to take care of outdated
equipment. And with that, if any Board members have questions of Barbara and Rachel, this
would be a good time to ask them.>>Chair Greg Musil: Questions?
>>Trustee Lee Cross: Yes, Mr. Chair.>>Chair Greg Musil: Trustee Cross.
>>Trustee Lee Cross: How much of the current state budget situation and our ability through
the guidelines and other measures that we take to fund our budget, I mean, how much
of that budget impacts our need to go out and borrow this money for capital outlay or
otherwise?>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Let me start with that
answer, with the five-tenths –>>Trustee Lee Cross: I wasn’t talking to you.
I was talking to Barbara. (Laughter.)
>>Trustee Jerry Cook: I know, but let me say if I — I want to clarify so that I know.
Of the five-tenths mill levy that we can use for capital outlay, we still have half of
that amount in the budget for ongoing projects and capital outlay. And some folks say, well,
why can’t we use that capital outlay for other expenditures? That’s not the way the tax law
is written. This goes strictly for capital outlay. So this projection just uses half
of our authority to pay back the debt. Barbara.
>>Dr. Barbara Larson: And to your point, Trustee Cross, we do not have the kind of reserves
in capital outlay built up that we could fund this $9.8 million up front. And we have, of
course, been working as a Board as an institution to restore our general fund reserves. We’re
not at the point yet where I would recommend that we use reserves for this project. And,
of course, with money being as inexpensive as it is, we see an opportunity here.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Dr. Sopcich.>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: Trustee Cross, you alluded
to the situation in Kansas as potentially impacting our situation. Keep in mind that
only 15 to 17 percent of our revenue comes from the state, but about 65 percent comes
from the local property owner. And the stability of the Johnson County community and their
support for education makes our bonds really so highly rate combined with how we manage
things. But in Johnson County we’re very fortunate to have this kind of support.
>>Trustee Lee Cross: I concur. And I appreciate the answer of the Management Chair. And I
appreciate the Board indulging my humor. And I want to assure the Chair of the Management
Committee I was joking. But thank you, Vice President Larson and Mr. Sopcich, Dr. Sopcich.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Trustee Lindstrom.>>Trustee David Lindstrom: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I want to echo some of the comments that Management Chair Cook had mentioned that
the assumptions were conservative in rates, in operating savings, and then in ongoing
maintenance of the equipment. And this also, I think it’s important to note that it was
before the Management Committee on two occasions because we had a transition in trustees. And
so it went back, staff thought that it was important that it go back before the current
Management Committee, and I appreciate that.>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Thank you.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Trustee Sharp.>>Trustee Stephanie Sharp: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I just wanted to ask a quick question about
interest rates and how they relate to bond ratings. We heard earlier in Mr. Carter’s
presentation about the interest rate that the $1 billion bond issue that the state got
4.6 something — 4.68. How does that compare dollar-wise for the taxpayer when we’re getting
1.49 percent on bonds? What would — if we were getting a 4.6 percent interest, what
would that dollar difference look like? Just a round number. Millions?
>>Ms. Rachel Lierz: At least a half a million dollars. Yeah.
>>Trustee Stephanie Sharp: Okay.>>Ms. Rachel Lierz: I’d have to put pencil
to paper and do the calculation, but at 1.49, 1.5 percent that we’re estimating on $9.8
million, it’s very cheap.>>Trustee Stephanie Sharp: Okay. I guess I
just wanted to make the point of prudent fiscal management and working harder to restore our
reserves, working hard to be good stewards of taxpayer money saves a lot of money in
the end for taxpayers.>>Ms. Rachel Lierz: Right.
>>Trustee Stephanie Sharp: So thank you to your team and the folks at Piper Jaffray for
doing such a great job for us and for the long-standing fiscal management of the college,
the folks that are on those teams. Thanks.>>Chair Greg Musil: Other questions for Dr.
Larson or Ms. Lierz? If not, Trustee Drummond.>>Trustee Robert Drummond: Thank you, Mr.
Chair. I’d like to just make a comment. First of all, great job in keeping under the $10
million cap and doing all this, and that’s really phenomenal and great.
My response to this is not so much to this, but if you’d look at the work you’ve done,
return on investment comes best to us on the lighting upgrades and LED conversions. And
we’re doing this because we need to do this. And we’ll save the college money and the community
money. We’ll save the tuition increases. My thought is I know we can’t do it within this
bond issue, but if there is a way we could find some more money to be able to invest
more in the LED conversions, then that would save us a lot more money down the road than
even these things would. These things are mitigated a lot by we just have to do them.
>>Dr. Barbara Larson: Yes.>>Trustee Robert Drummond: And as we invested
money the last time around — as we invested money the last time around, we found that
the same equation worked, that we got our best investment return on what we did in the
lighting and those kinds of energy projects. And again, we’re seeing that here.
So I think if we could find a way somehow to double our investment or increase our investment,
and we know energy is going to continue to go up, therefore, if we could invest it where
energy is going up the most, then we could mitigate the cost of that energy long-term.
So it’s just a suggestion. I wasn’t involved with these discussions because I was gone.
I apologize for bringing this up at the last moment. So something for us to think about.
>>Dr. Barbara Larson: No. I appreciate that. We’ve done a lot of LED conversion. I don’t
have a good handle on what percentage we’ve changed out. But this is in many ways a continuation
of things that we’ve done.>>Trustee Robert Drummond: Yes. Yes.
>>Dr. Barbara Larson: But I appreciate the comment.
>>Trustee Robert Drummond: Thank you.>>Chair Greg Musil: Other questions? Are you
going to make a motion to adopt the resolution at this point?
>>Trustee Jerry Cook: I am.>>Chair Greg Musil: I’ll save my comments
for discussion then. Is there a motion then?>>Trustee David Lindstrom: It is the recommendation
of the Management Committee that the Board of Trustees accept the recommendation of college
administration to adopt the resolution authorizing the offering for sale of Capital Outlay General
Obligation Bonds and the approximate principal amount of $9,800,000, and I’ll make that motion.
>>Trustee David Lindstrom: Second.>>Chair Greg Musil: It’s been moved and seconded.
Is there any discussion? I will make a couple points, I think, on this that staff and Rex
and — I don’t know how much we’ll save our duct tape budget, but it will probably be
considerable. First of all, Rachel, you mentioned Capital Outlay Fund. The .5 mills was voted
on in 2012. Just to make a point, we have to authorize it every five years at a minimum.
It’s been in place for years or decades, so it’s not a new levy. It wasn’t a new tax in
2012. It’s not a new tax if we extend it next month.
Our budget goals have been to increase the reserves in the General Fund budget so we
can spend capital money on capital. This is part of that effort. Ten basis points that
we can save by using the bank qualified which I wasn’t aware of before, but that’s .1 percent.
Is that right? So for laypeople like me it’s .1 percent of a lower interest rate, again,
to benefit tax payers by fitting into those parameters.
People should know we’re an all-electric campus. It was designed that way from the start so
we don’t have options right now to move to natural gas or nuclear energy or wind or solar
without significant conversion costs. So we’re somewhat at the rates of the electric utility.
And I also wanted to point out our overall debt level to the credit previous boards,
if you look at the budget we will consider later, the total revenue bonds outstanding
in 2015 is $18,775,000. On $140 million General Fund budget, it’s a very low debt level. People
here have been very careful. And when you can borrow money for capital projects at 1.4,
1.3, 1.2 percent, it is a great benefit to the taxpayers provided we’re putting it in
the right place, and I think this is the right place.
Any other discussion? Dr. Cook?>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Mr. Chair, I would say
that I’ll take responsibility for the mill levy authorization. We should have caught
that in Management. That’s my fault. It does extend it 30 days. I was concerned that we
would lose time, but it just moves everything back 30 days. But we didn’t catch that that
five-year authorization needed to be aligned with the bond issue, and I’ll take responsibility
for that.>>Chair Greg Musil: I think that’s a normal,
human factor in all of these things. These are complicate transactions.
So if there is no further discussion, all in favor say aye.
(Ayes.).>>Chair Greg Musil: Opposed say nay. Motion
carries unanimously.>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Thank you very much.
We’ll proceed accordingly. The second recommendation was for the transfer
of funds from the college to the Foundation. Rachel Lierz explained that revenue generated
from the recycling of the JCCC Center for Sustainability is considered public funds
of the college and are recorded on the college’s books in the Sustainability Initiatives Fund.
The Sustainability Committee has requested that $9,000 of the recycling proceeds be transferred
to the JCCC Foundation for scholarships. So, therefore, it is the recommendation of
the Management Committee that the Board of Trustees authorize the transfer of $9,000
from the Sustainability Initiatives Fund to the Johnson County Community College Foundation
for Student Scholarships, and I’ll make that motion.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Is there a second?>>Trustee David Lindstrom: Second.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Any discussion? Dr. Cook.
>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Mr. Chair, I will say that having attended the all-staff breakfast
this week, I had the opportunity to visit with Chef Aaron Prater and Jay Antle and Claire
Zimmerman of the farm, along with some students, and learned about our full-cycle process.
And I think this is certainly so significant that we could do a program of some kind to
the community. But what that means is that as we recover
waste product, and at that breakfast for example, everything, plastic forks and spoons and plates
and food and everything that was left over went into a container. We have a fabulous
shredder on campus that shreds that product that then goes into a three-bin process of
composting. Compost eventually goes to our farm that Claire manages. And then we raise
product. And then that product goes back to our food service department, and Chef Aaron
Prater is very instrumental in that. So the full circle is we take our waste, we
recycle it. We turn that into food. We eat it. We process it, and we do it all over again,
full circle. All of that is done on campus, and it’s really a fabulous project. So the
$9,000 I think is — everybody deserves a lot of credit for that. But I’m really pleased
with how our Sustainability Initiative is so successful.
>>Chair Greg Musil: I understand some of the Board materials are used directly as compost
>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Particularly verbiage.>>Chair Greg Musil: All in favor of the motion
say aye. (Ayes.)
>>Chair Greg Musil: Opposed, nay. Motion carried.>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Thank you. Earlier we
held a public hearing for the fiscal year 2015-2016 budget. The public hearing represents
the culmination of the budget process, as our Chair has explained, that transpires over
many months beginning with budget guidelines that were first presented to the Board of
Trustees in December of last year. These budget guidelines provided a policy framework for
building the fiscal year ’15-16 budget, and they were considered adopted by the Board
at the December 18, 2014, meeting. Based on the updated information over the course of
the budget development, adjustments were made to assess valuation increases in state funding
as our Chair stated earlier. So, therefore, as a result of the public hearing
and all the work that we put into the budget, it is the recommendation of the Management
Committee that the Board of Trustees accept the 2015-16 fiscal year budget as published
which includes an total property tax levied of $81,418,530 for 2016 compared to $76,491,162
in 2015, and does hereby certify said budget to the county clerk of Johnson County, Kansas
for collection in the manner prescribed by law, and I’ll make that motion.
>>Trustee David Lindstrom: Second.>>Chair Greg Musil: It’s been moved and seconded
to adopt 2015-2016 budget as published and as considered at the public hearing. Is there
any discussion? Trustee Cross.>>Trustee Lee Cross: Mr. Chair, if I may thank
you, and thank you again to Management Chair, Trustee Cook. My couple of comments are I
can’t help but feel the borrowing that we need to do now in any capacity, and I know
there’s differences in the mills and structure of our budget, but I feel that it’s related
to the state budget issue or, frankly, the lack of political will to go to the public
and ask them to help pay for things that go on at this school.
Now, it is to say that I am very proud to serve on this board, and having been with
this board two-and-a-half years, I think that this board and its administration and leadership
does everything it can to make this college work in the environment, political and social,
that we live in. But I think that we’re borrowing this money unnecessarily. I did vote for it,
so I’m on record for that. But my next question is, predictably as probably
most of you know, why do we feel it necessary each year to have it as a requirement in our
budget guidelines that we raise tuition and fees on students automatically three dollars
each year?>>Chair Greg Musil: We’ve discussed that at
various retreats and other proposals trying to figure out what is the right balance between
what a student contributes to his or her education and what the taxpayers contribute, and what
we get from other funds, whether it’s federal or state, direct revenues or grant funds.
I don’t think any of us have a perfect judgment as to what that balance is. The amount that
our students have contributed in — as a percentage of their educational cost has gone up since
the recession. Yet, it’s in the low 20s I believe now. I know when I was in school which
was a long time ago, the Board of Regents thought that 25 percent was the right amount.
I don’t know what the right amount is. And I know you’ve expressed concern that several
of the board members have that community college education be both accessible and affordable.
I think that, from a personal standpoint, that contributing to your educational costs
makes you more focused on it and may make you take it more seriously. One of the reasons
I’m not a huge part of the stampede toward free college, I think it’s important that
people contribute to what they’re receiving. I’m not completely comfortable that we have
built-in increases every year, but I think the alternative is a significant mill levy
increase. If we didn’t borrow this 9.8 million and raised it from the taxpayers, we’d need
over one mill of property tax levy. I’m comfortable taking the increased and assessed
valuation because I think we contribute to that: the growth in Johnson County and the
growth in the tax base. But I think this budget was the best mix we could come up with contribution
from taxpayers, knowing that the State isn’t going to contribute any more than it has and
what we ask of our students. And I’ll reiterate to everybody here in this room and listening
that the more we can do in the Foundation so that we can continue to offer more than
$1 million worth of scholarships will make more and more students comfortable that the
$3 per credit hour is a good investment and will help them pay for it. That’s my personal
thoughts. If someone else on the Board wants to comment, I’ll certainly welcome that. Okay.
Your comments?>>Trustee Lee Cross: I think, Mr. Chair, if
I may, I do think that in doing so we’re just losing ground on the bargain that we offer.
I think that this college is a private/public compact, and that we should invest in our
future but just not continuously on the backs of our students.
With that said, I know that, possibly with myself excluded, no one fights harder for
this college than you. And it’s not directed at anybody here, it’s just perhaps a frustration
of mine. You all have addressed it. I’m just merely, as you understand, Mr. Chair, building
a record here. But I thank you for addressing it.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Dr. Sopcich.>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: I just want to add, we
are working a presentation with regard to tuition and analysis of what we charge versus
other institutions. So we’ll be looking at that fairly soon, probably at Management Committee
to start it off with.>>Chair Greg Musil: I think that the reality
is that we are still a comparatively great deal for the quality of faculty, the quality
of education you get here. I agree with those who think comparatively isn’t the right way
to measure it because we cannot continue to have the cost of higher education increase
at the rate it’s been increasing over the last 20 years. Just because we’re cheaper
than others doesn’t mean we’re as good as we can be. And I think that’s part of our
key performance indicator quality approach is to find better ways to do it so we can
maybe in future years not increase tuition and give a breather.
>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: Yes. Accessibility is really important for community colleges. A $3 increase
on $91 total probably comes in at about 4 or 5 percent. That’s a fairly decedent rate
of increase when it comes to what students are paying for tuition across the state. So
we work pretty hard at trying to keep it accessible, but it’s always something we need to focus
on. In regards to Trustee Cross’ comments, it’s certainly something that we’ll be giving
a lot of scrutiny to.>>Chair Greg Musil: Other comments on the
budget? If not, all in favor of the 2015-2016 budget as published in the subject of today’s
public hearing, please signify by saying aye. (Ayes.)
>>Chair Greg Musil: Opposed, nay.>>Trustee Lee Cross: No.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Motion carries unanimously — oh, I’m sorry, six to one with Trustee
Cross voting no.>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Thank you. There were
two recommendations based on bids for requests for proposals. The first was to purchase five
vehicles for campus services and two vehicles for the police department. Also included in
the bid are the trade-in allowances for the scheduled replacement of ten. We did spend
a considerable time, an extensive report was given at Management about the mileage and
how we trade in vehicle and all of that process. So 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 $111,832 from Midway Ford Truck Center for campus fleet vehicles,
and I’ll make that motion.>>Trustee Lee Cross: Second.
>>Chair Greg Musil: It’s been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Any discussion? If
not, all in favor say aye. (Ayes.)
>>Chair Greg Musil: Oppose, nay. Motion carries.>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Thank you. The next
recommendation is for the renewal of the annual contract for athletic charter bus service.
The purpose of this RFP was to establish annual price contracts for charter bus services for
the college’s various athletic teams. On August 13, 2013, the Board of Trustees
approved the establishment of contracts with Cross Road Tours and White Night Limousine
with the option to renew for four additional years in one-year increments upon the approval
of both parties. This renewal is for the 2015-2016 academic year and represents the second of
our four annual renewal options. It is the recommendation of the Management
Committee that the Board of Trustees accept the recommendation of the college administration
to approve the renewal of the annual contract with Crossroad Tours for regular season athletic
team charter bus service in the amount of $96,982.15; postseason athletic team charter
bus service on an as-needed basis in an amount not to exceed $42,568; and an additional $13,955
to allow for contingencies for possible unforeseen costs for a total expenditure not to exceed
$153,505.15 for athletic team charter bus service. And I’ll make that motion.
>>Trustee Stephanie Sharp: Second.>>Chair Greg Musil: It’s been moved and seconded
to approve the charter bus schedule. It’s probably a good time to remind everybody that
our women’s basketball team will not have to travel anywhere on a bus next year for
the national tournament. It will be held here on campus.
Dr. Cook, do you want to add to that?>>Trustee Jerry Cook: I would just say thank
you, Mr. Chair. That athletic director Carl Heinrich and all of the coaches who spend
a considerable amount of time dealing with scheduling and trying to minimize the costs
for travel, a detailed report was given where potential postseason play might be. And I
just want to compliment them on the detail. I know that this might seem like a lot of
money for teams to travel, but we are the beneficiary of some outstanding athletic teams
that bring great awareness to our college and the area, and so I wanted to compliment
them on that job.>>Chair Greg Musil: All in favor of the motion
to approve the charter bus service say aye. (Ayes.)
>>Chair Greg Musil: Opposed, nay? Motion carries unanimously.
>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Finally, Rachel Lierz presented the semiannual review of management
budget reallocations and also provided a quarterly update on college investments in the Kansas
Municipal Investment Fund Pool. Mitch Borchers presented the Sole Source Report as well as
a summary of bids between 25,000 and $100,000 which can be found on page ten of the board
packet. Jeff Allen, director of Campus Services and Energy Management, provided the monthly
update on capital infrastructure projects, and this report can be found on page 25 of
the packet. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And that concludes my
report.>>Chair Greg Musil: Any questions for Dr.
Cook or other members of Management? If not, we’ll move to Audit Committee. Trustee Sharp.
>>Trustee Stephanie Sharp: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Audit Committee met on August
6th. It’s my first time on the Audit Committee, and it was very enlightening. There was a
number of audit reports updated. The most extensive was the update on the book store
audit which was interesting to listen to just from the perspective of updating actual textbook
things that we hold in our hands versus these laptops and things and the systems that we’re
using now to correlate the book price live and versus the book price out there in the
market and making sure that we’re always selling books at the most updated prices and it’s
comparable to the market that’s out there. And that helps us also keep track of inventory.
So there’s a lot of great improvements going on in the bookstore, and we’re happy with
that audit update. We also heard updates on the Employee Separation
System Access Audit. There were target audit analysis of how quickly are we denying people
access to their e-mail or key functions after they leave the college. And that is an ongoing
audit. Also received quarterly updates on P cards — sorry — purchase cards, the police,
and emergency preparedness departments. Ethics Report Line, there were 13 reports
received in the last quarter. Three were anonymous, four were offered by other staff members on
behalf of another individual. And I’m, frankly, happy with the way that the report line is
going. I like to see — and I don’t know that we don’t like to see problems, but I like
to see that people are using it and that they know that they have an outlet there that’s
anonymous and that people have confidence in the way that things are handled. And so
that is — and that is also being shown in the Employee Engagement Survey where we’re
finding that employees know about the program. They know where they can report ethics concerns.
The Employee Engagement Survey showed a very high recognition of the program, the Ethics
Report Line itself, and where they can report these things.
Also the Behavior Intervention Team, these BIT teams were formed in response to a number
of campus events across the country in recent years. And it’s sort of that concept of “If
you see something say something.” And it allows people from all across campus, in different
parts of our organization to report and keep an aggregate of when you have concerns about
a student or a faculty member or a staff member, that all of that is recorded in one place;
and it keeps a good record for the police department. Not quite like Jon Stewart’s “If
you smell something, say something,” but if you see something, say something.
So we also discussed the 2015-2016 working agenda. And I have a recommendation. It is
the recommendation of the Audit Committee that the Board of Trustees approve the fiscal
year 2015-16 Audit Committee working agenda as shown in your board packet. And I make
that motion.>>Chair Greg Musil: Is there a second?
>>Trustee David Lindstrom: Second.>>Chair Greg Musil: It’s been moved and seconded
to approve the working agenda for the Audit Committee. Is there any discussion? Any discussion?
If not, all in favor say aye. (Ayes.)
>>Chair Greg Musil: Opposed, nay. Motion carries unanimously. Are there any questions for Trustee
Sharp or myself for the Audit Committee? If not, we’re ready for Human resources. Trustee
Ingram.>>Trustee Nancy Ingram: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Human Resources Committee met on Monday, August the 3rd. And Dr. Korb reviewed the
proposed Human Resources Committee working agenda for 2015 and 2016. That is found in
your packet on page 29. I do have some highlights among the changes
if you would like for me to go ahead and include those because they did make some changes from
last year. Among those changes, primarily they are changes including the updating of
terminology which really reflect the current benefit plans that we are using this year.
Item number 3 under compensation includes the review of faculty compensation which was
deleted as that was actually completed last year. They also added to develop a strategy
for maintaining competitive salaries. That’s really something that they do anyway, but
they wanted to include that along with the assessment of internal and external salary
equity. Under item number four, they added the — implement
is the last piece on there. The implement action steps based on employee engagement
survey, they added this. That it is one of the academy quality improvement programs and
it is an action item, so that was included for that reason. So those are the primary
highlights of those changes. But again, it was really to reflect what is currently occurring
at this time. We do have a recommendation from the Human
Resources Committee. It is the recommendation — I’ll go ahead and give it — of the Human
Resources Committee that the Board of Trustees approve the Human Resources Committee working
agenda for 2015-16 as it is shown subsequently in the board packet.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Is there a second?>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Second.
>>Chair Greg Musil: It’s been moved and seconded to adopt the Human Resources Committee working
agenda for the 2015-2016 school year. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor say aye.
(Ayes.)>>Chair Greg Musil: Opposed, nay. Motion carried.
Any questions for Trust Ingram?>>Trustee Nancy Ingram: Let me go ahead and
complete.>>Chair Greg Musil: Absolutely.
>>Trustee Nancy Ingram: We do have a few other things that were listed in here. I went ahead
and read that recommendation as it was included in the minutes.
Dr. Korb did distribute the tentative schedule for our meetings subject to changes needed.
A wellness report was — a wellness update was given. And I had one at my desk here.
I’m assuming everyone had one when they arrived. The wellness update provided an update of
the wellness program highlights from last year. There were four goals that were set
by the Wellness Committee for the ’14-’15 fiscal year. They included awareness and participation,
focus and promoting existing opportunities, initiating new programs, and developing outcomes-based
metrics and incentives. Participation results were favorable in all categories as compared
to the physical year. So it was really good to hear that this had been not only promoted
but was being utilized by staff. So we were very excited with that news.
Several new initiatives included the Fitbit walking program, 500-calorie Healthy Choice
items in the cafeteria, and Wellness-On-A-Shoestring curriculum. In addition, future metric and
trend information will include analyzing medical cost and developing the biometric screening
results for those. Looking ahead to the fiscal year ’16, it included
but not limited to our pilot projects which include treadmill desks — we’ll have three
that are distributed on campus which I think is really exciting and sounded very, very
cool — nutritional information on all cafeteria items; more nutritional choices in vending
machines; just a real emphasis on wellness and promoting wellness through leadership
which I think is a very positive thing for the campus.
Benefits overview from Mr. Zimmerman. He presented a benefits overview for the benefit year of
2015-16, included the following updates which included employee benefits. I will highlight
the three employee groups at JCCC with differing benefit options. As you’re aware of, that
has been a change this year with that group three being added. Part-time employees working
30 or more hours per week but less than 40 began as of June 1 of 2015.
Also discussed were retirement incentive programs for next year, changes to the KPERS postretirement
earnings limitation, and then just some issues on the horizon that include the new Affordable
Care Act reporting provisions, medical plan contract provisions changing for the 2016-2017
benefit year, and potential Affordable Care Act Cadillac Tax Liability in the future.
So our next meeting is scheduled for October 5th, and if there are no other questions,
that concludes my report.>>Chair Greg Musil: Any questions? If not,
thank you.>>Trustee Nancy Ingram: You’re welcome.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Next item on the agenda, Learning Quality. Trustee Cross.
>>Trustee Lee Cross: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate going last. Thank
you. The Learning Quality Committee met at 8:00 a.m. on August 3rd, 2015, here at the
GEB 137. Trustee Nancy Ingram and I were both present. Mr. Andy Anderson welcomed Trustee
Ingram to her first Learning Quality meeting, and we’re glad to have her aboard. She was
elected to the Board of Trustees in April of this year and will serve on the committee
for the current academic year. There were several presentations made, and
we have a few recommendations here tonight. Andy Anderson presented the proposal, a proposal
to the Learning Quality Committee to approve the working agenda for 2015-16, and that generally,
just so the public is aware, Mr. Chair, I know everyone here is, our job on that committee
is to monitor the learning and engagement process, monitor outcomes. Our staff and administration
have done a great job with the key performance indicators, I think, working to define what
it is that we do. Some of our allies and members of our legislature, I think, justly asked
what it is that goes on here and what do we do, and I’m — while I have some criticism
I could always offer, I think we could better assess certain economic or social impact from
the college, but I think the KPI do do a good job of helping us and, frankly, the public
understand what goes on here. Additionally, we monitor the faculty work force.
And it is the recommendation of the Learning Quality Committee that the Board of Trustees
approve the 2015-16 Learning Quality Committee working agenda as is subsequently shown in
the board packet, and I so move.>>Trustee Nancy Ingram: I’ll second.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor
say aye. (Ayes.)
>>Chair Greg Musil: Opposed, nay.>>Trustee Lee Cross: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There is an update from Andy Anderson from KBOR on the Transfer and Articulation Council,
it’s known as TAAC. Mr. Anderson shared that the TAAC meets annually with faculty members
from all over Kansas to review course outlines and syllabi to determine seamless transferability
for students. Students who complete these approved courses at any Kansas public community
college, technical college, or university can transfer those courses to any other public
institution. This year JCCC will host a meeting, and ten more courses will be reviewed for
transferability. To view the 56 courses that have already been approved_ by the TAAC for
Kansas system-wide transfer, please visit the Kansasregents.org/transfer_articulation.
Next, Mr. Chair, we discussed the academic calendar for the upcoming year. Clarissa Craig
presented the 2017-18 academic calendar which was reviewed and discussed and approved to
move forward for full Board approval. Calendar details are shown subsequently in the consent
agenda. As directed by the memorandum of agreement
between the Faculty Association and the Board of Trustees, a calendar committee was formed
and is recommending the academic calendar for the 2017-18 year as shown in the following
pages of this board packet. And the calendar shell is recommended to be approved to allow
advanced planning for the curriculum development, administrative coordination, or state and
federal legislation. Some dates may need to be revised due to the contract negotiations,
area school districts’ schedule adjustments, or curriculum changes.
But it is, Mr. Chair, the recommendation of the Learning Quality Committee and of the
college administration that the Board of Trustees approve the 2017-18 academic calendar as shown
subsequently in this board packet.>>Chair Greg Musil: Is there a second?
>>Trustee Nancy Ingram: I’ll second.>>Chair Greg Musil: Moved and seconded to
approve the academic calendar. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor say aye.
(Ayes.)>>Chair Greg Musil: Opposed, nay. Motion carried.
>>Trustee Lee Cross: Further, Mr. Chair, we discussed the affiliation, cooperation, articulation
and reverse transfer agreements. Presentation was made by Ms. Clarissa Craig. She’s the
Associate Vice President of Instruction and said that her department is responsible to
work with legal and various organizations to facilitate the affiliation agreement that
provides local placement for students that need practical experience to complete their
curriculum. The committee approved two affiliation agreements for nursing, one for practical
nursing, and one for health care interpreting and will request agreements being moved forward
for full board approval. Complete details can be found in the consent agenda portion
of this board packet. Other agreements presented for informal purposes
were (1), facility use agreement renewal with the Shawnee Mission School District for college
close-to-home classes and, (2), memorandum of understanding with Children’s Mercy Hospital
for instructional services provided by a hospital staff member for the neurodiagnostic technology
program. These agreements will be reviewed by the Management Committee at their meeting
in September and then brought forward for full board approval.
We also had a review and update of student policies presented by Mr. Randy Webber who
brought forward proposals to update the policies and procedures noted below. He stated that
proposed changes will allow the committee to determine and define extenuating circumstances
rather than have the decisions made by individuals in the administrative office. The committee
will meet every other week and be made up of staff from operational areas, financial
aid, records, the bursar’s office, et cetera. Ms. Tanya Wilson, our legal counsel, shared
that the proposed changes to the two tuition refund policies are connected to the KPI process
and are very closely aligned with other Kansas schools surveyed.
Mr. Webber also presented the two student disciplinary — excuse me — Randy presented
two student disciplinary action policies. One was updated and the other one was deleted.
Discrimination policies were also revamped to align with current human resource policies.
The student complaints policy change was requested by Legal. Its two significant changes that
the right to appeal will lie basically within the branch. Deciding factor will be at the
dean level. Ms. Wilson also said that at all times the Policy and Procedure Committee is
reviewing five to seven policy and procedure items. Review is needed due to new legislation,
new law, and/or new guidelines within specific areas. Our legal department has also fully
reviewed board policies in the 100 series and requests for the Board to review, and
approval will be presented in the next few months.
If I may, the Learning Quality Committee has thus reviewed and recommended updates to the
following policies: tuition refund policy, tuition refunds, appeals policy, student disciplinary
action policy, student disciplinary action appeals policy, student complaints policy,
and student discrimination and harassment or retaliation complaint policy.
The proposed updates serve to consolidated and clarify the appropriate college processes
for reviewing and deciding matters related to student complaints and appeals. The proposed
updates include consolidation and conversion of the tuition refund appeals policy, and
the student complaints policy and operating procedures that will be subject to approval
by the president. And I’m very sorry to read that rote, but I felt all of it was necessary
because some of the discussion that we had about due process and that people need to
be made aware of these changes. Therefore, Mr. Chair, it is the recommendation
of the Learning Quality Committee that the Board of Trustees accept the recommendation
of the college administration to approve the proposed amendments to the tuition refund
policy, student disciplinary action policy, student disciplinary action appeals policy,
and student discrimination, harassment, or retaliation complaint along with the deletion
of the tuition refund appeals policy and student complaints policy as shown subsequently in
the board packet, and I so move.>>Trustee Nancy Ingram: I will second that.
>>Chair Greg Musil: It’s been moved and seconded to do what Trustee Cross just said. Is there
any discussion? All in favor say aye. (Ayes.)
>>Chair Greg Musil: Opposed, nay. Motion carried unanimously.
>>Trustee Lee Cross: Mr. Chair. I’ll just redirect the Board and any members of the
public that care to look at changes in these policies that are in the board packet. The
packet is publicly available, and that will conclude my report. And I was joking about
going last.>>Chair Greg Musil: Any other questions for
Trustee Cross? Trustee Cook.>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just to comment. I’d like to compliment Andy Anderson and all the faculty involved for
their patience on the articulation agreement process. That’s been an issue that parents
have been concerned about when students have to retake a course when going to a four-year
school. I am pleased to see that we’re up to 56, another 10. I know that you spend a
lot of time with your friends at state meetings to try and get everybody to agree that a course
taken at the community college is the same as taking it at a four-year school. So thank
you very much for your hard work and all the staff involved. Appreciate it.
>>Trustee Nancy Ingram: Thank you.>>Chair Greg Musil: All right. We’ll move
on to the president’s recommendations for action. Treasurer’s Report. Treasurer Lindstrom.
>>Trustee David Lindstrom: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Trustee Cross, if you were last, I don’t know what that makes me.
(Laughter.)>>Trustee Lee Cross: The best goes last.
>>Trustee David Lindstrom: Well, I’m not last. I am pleased to — it is my pleasure to present
the Treasurer’s Report for the month ending June 30th, 2015, which can be found on pages
48 through 58 in your packet. Please note that the reported figures are preliminary
and do not reflect the college’s fiscal year-ending adjustments.
Some items of note include on pages — on page number 49 in the packet, the Treasurer’s
Report, you will find the General PTE funds summary. There you will note that fiscal ’15
revenues were approximately $5 million higher than fiscal ’14. This is primarily due to
ad valorem, and as a result of county growth assessed valuations. On the same page please
note that the General PTE Funds expenses for fiscal 2015 were approximately $124 million
which is essentially flat to 2014 and 89 percent of actual 2015 budgeted amount of $140 million.
In Section 8, numbered on page 57 in your packet, please note that as of June 30th,
2015, the college had a balance — book cash balance of investments in all funds of $101.9
million and an unencumbered book balance of 85.9 million, approximately 10.8 million more
than the same time last year. Excellent job. Expenditures in the primary operating fund
are within approved budgetary limits, and it is the recommendation of the college administration
that the Board of Trustees approve the Treasurer’s Report for the month ending June 30th, 2015,
subject to audit. And I would make that motion.>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Second.
>>Chair Greg Musil: It’s been moved and seconded to adopt the Treasurer’s Report. Are there
any trustees that would like to have any discussion? If not, all in favor say aye.
(Ayes.)>>Chair Greg Musil: Opposed, nay. Adopted
unanimously.>>Trustee David Lindstrom: Mr. Chairman, that
concludes my report.>>Chair Greg Musil: Thank you. Monthly report
to the Board, Mr. President.>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: Thank you, Trustee Musil.
I’m very sad to announce that there will be no lightning round tonight.
>>Chair Greg Musil: It will be slower or –>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: It will pick it up. This
week — it’s going to be a long report. This week was in-service, and it’s great to have
everyone back on campus, even Ron. And we dedicated this week to Professional Development
Days, and at Johnson County Community College it is quite the production. There are so many
people involved campus-wide to bring this together to make it happen, and we cannot
thank everyone enough. I’d like to share with you some of the highlights
that I experienced just over the last couple days. First of all, we had a JCCC Professional
Development Days app for our phones so we could follow all the session. And once Terri
loaded it on my phone then I was able to do so. And I’d have to say it was a huge upgrade
from in the past with the booklet. So hats off to Karen for making that happen. It’s
absolutely terrific. Break-out sessions were amazing. We had 108
sessions led by over 60 college faculty and staff. I personally took how to tweet, and
I’m proud to announce I have 97 followers. Stephanie, how many do you have?
>>Trustee David Lindstrom: 97 million.>>Trustee Lee Cross: 11 million.
>>Trustee Stephanie Sharp: 1500.>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: 1500, a long way to go.
And also a session on millennials which was fascinating. Both of those were led by Keith
Davenport of Student Services. The breakfast was terrific. They kind of changed things
up a little bit, moved around some food distribution points, added some informational tables supporting
wellness, brightly colored table cloths and decorative sheets on the tables. The food
was great. There was nutritional information, especially about the nutritional benefits
of biscuits and gravy. Importantly, everything was recycled or put into compost, and the
students oversaw that. Hats off to Jay Glatz and his team. They did a remarkable job.
The all staff meeting, I’d like to — we had a news report, and I’d like to thank those
trustees in attendance whose schedules allowed them to be there. Trustees Musil, Cook, Sharp
and Ingram were all there. And we, I think, had a pretty entertaining approach to sharing
news about the college and things that are happening.
The closing song was highlighted by a rousing performance by Nancy Whedon from dining services.
The JCCC Ready-for-Prime-Time back-up singers were remarkable. The Carlsen Center staff
did a great job. And all the news reporters, including student Samantha Ricci-Weller, were
excellent. Credit goes to Julie Haas for writing and producing this thing. And for those who
saw it, you have to realize that we have — we had very minimal time for rehearsal.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Oh, I don’t doubt it.>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: Yeah. Thank you.
(Laughter.)>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: Thank you. With that kind
of support, we’ll charge on. We had a wonderful Hall of Fame celebration
yesterday honoring Carolyn Kadel and Fred Krebs, two really iconic members of our faculty
here over the years. It was absolutely terrific. Trustee Musil made some wonderful comments
to kick it off. A service pin ceremony later in the afternoon in which we recognize people’s
service at the college, we had eleven 30-year employees, thirty-one 25-year employees, sixteen
20-year employees, forty 15-year employees, sixty-one 10-year employees, and eighty-two
5-year employees. Absolutely amazing. A wonderful ceremony. Trustee Musil was there, and I think
everyone was really pleased by that. Last evening we had a College-Now Pep Rally
in which all the college teachers in Johnson County showed up. Trustee Musil gave a rousing
talk. It was rousing. And it’s always a fun, fun event.
This morning we had the All-Staff Coffee. We had a wellness theme. Things that were
presented, besides having coffee and little breakfast-type munchies, we had tables on
financial wellness, strengths, sustainability, nutrition, wellness programming, and the corporate
challenge. And you might want to know there’s a distance walking thing in the corporate
challenge, and perhaps next year you could be a part of that.
Tomorrow morning — or excuse me, Saturday morning we’ll have an adjunct orientation
which will be fantastic. So there’s so many people to thank. One, the
campus always looks fantastic, and special kudos to Rex Hays for bringing that all together
and for getting the roads done on time. That was super. And also to Karen Martley, head
of staff development, who brought all this together over the past couple days. It’s a
Herculean task and a great job, so we’re very fortunate.
A couple other things, you have the President’s Report in front of you. Considerable effort
by everyone who contributes to this report. There are two things, two things, one is one
of accomplishment, and I think the first example is the Billington Library where they were
one of 203 grant recipients nationally to receive a competitive Latino Americans’ 500
Year of History Grant from the National Endowment for Humanities and the American Library Association.
That’s really neat. Mark Daganaar, Mark Swails, and Miguel Morales all from the library are
part of that. Michael Morales will serve as the project coordinator.
And also you’ll notice that there’s considerable outreach throughout that report as our people
are all over the community and demonstrating their service to the community. And also a
lot of reaching out to other organizations to expand our own knowledge base, to find
better ways of doing things. It’s very exciting. Yesterday at the all-staff presentation, Dr.
Korb presented some breaking news regarding our key performance indicators. Dr. Korb was
so excited about that that she failed to come to the meeting tonight. But Judy is attending
a family reunion out of state, so that’s why she’s not here. But our Noel-Levitz student
test faction scores came in as a college, and we made great progress over the last year.
This is such a tribute to everyone on campus who worked extremely hard to put students
first. As you know, these key performance indicators
as a way of monitoring our performance have been a priority, and the trustees have made
this a priority. So I’m going on ask Natalie Alleman Beyers from our institutional research
area who works directly with this data to provide some greater insights into the accomplishment.
Natalie.>>Ms. Natalie Alleman Beyers: Thank you. And
thank you for having me here. I’m excited we have some great news to share around our
key performance indicators, specifically student satisfaction. So just this — I’ve been hearing
key performance indicators throughout session, and while we have a variety of key performance
indicators tonight, I’m going to specifically talk around the student satisfaction indicator.
So just to kind of put a little bit of background on that key performance indicator come from
the Noel-Levitz Satisfaction Survey. And what that instrument does, it asks students to
report or respond to how important an item is to them here at Johnson County Community
College and then how satisfied they are with that item. And then it kind of allows us to
look at what’s the gap between how important and how satisfied.
The results we’re sharing today are from administration of Spring ’15. And we did — the spring cycle,
we opened it up and administered the survey via the web as well. So we did it not only
in the classroom but over the web which nearly doubled our student responses. Looking at
our results overall, it was representative of our Johnson County Community College student
body overall which is important. Slightly high on our female but that’s to be expected.
More females respond to surveys generally than males.
I think each of you have a copy. It’s the — the 2015 value is not showing up here.
But we can see through each of our benchmarks there’s significant gains across each of the
areas. And I’d just like to remind that these are in order of importance to the students.
So when students are completing the survey, the most important benchmark area is instructional
effectiveness then leading to concern for the individual.
It’s important to note this is on a seven point scale, so one very satisfied — or one,
not at all satisfied to very satisfied. And I’d like to point out that safety and security
has moved up the rank in the report. Last year it was the fifth, now it’s moved up to
the third. So I think that’s just an awareness of the times that we’re living in.
The green line is actually the — our goal that when through this strategic planning
process and our key performance indicators, we set this line at the 75th percentile based
on the National Community College Benchmark Project results. And as we can see at 2015
we’re at or above the 75th percentile. So much kudos to just the work that’s been going
on across campus (inaudible) through our leadership around the key performance indicator and student
success. To just get a little bit more detailed here,
well, this shows — now, this is going to show us Johnson County Community College’s
mean score compared to the national community colleges that participated in the Noel-Levitz
which just over 200 other community colleges participated in this. And we can see while
we had gains, we’re statistically higher than the national community colleges’ scores as
well in each of our benchmark areas. And this slide here — so each of those benchmark
items are made up of individual survey questions. And this here, I’m just going to highlight,
these are the top six in order of importance for a student. So “The quality of instruction
I received in most of my classes is excellent.” This is the most important item for our students.
And as you can see on a seven point scale, the importance is 6.48, and their satisfaction
is 5.82. And then we also try to make a comparison to national community college responses.
So as we look here to our scheduling and instruction, flexibility, you know, they get the classes
they want. We have a knowledgeable faculty, and (inaudible).
Something else here, what’s important to our students is important to students nationally.
We can see here also that our satisfaction level in each of these items of our students
are statistically higher. That’s significantly higher than the community colleges that are
participating. So (inaudible) broadly, “How has your college
experience met your expectations?” And this ranges from much worse to much better. Again
a seven point scale, another increase in 2015, as well as overall satisfaction with your
experience here thus far, we see an increase in that as well. And “If you had to do it
over again, would you enroll here,” which I think that’s just great. And 6.24 is our
2015 mean, and (inaudible) from one to seven. To me that saying students, there’s really
not a question. They’d reenroll in Johnson County Community College again. And this again
just takes us back to these same items comparing our student responses to the nationality community
college scores from ’15, and we can see then where we’re — our students’ level of satisfaction
is higher. So our strengths based on these most recent
results we’ve listed here, and it’s, again, in order of importance to students, and how
strengths are identified is they’re items that are above the midpoint (inaudible) for
the student (inaudible) of satisfaction. So the student are talking about these are very
important, and we’re very satisfied. Campus is safe and secure which maybe we can perceive
that with the moving of safety and security to their most important indicator. Faculty
are knowledgeable in their fields. Convenient way of paying their school bill, and they
work around that here. The campus is well-maintained, and we’ve heard that throughout the evening,
and students obviously recognize that. And the institution has a good reputation within
our community. The plus side indicated that, again, this
is where our satisfaction scores were higher than national scores from community colleges
that participated in Noel-Levitz. So which strengths — what this instrument
gives us also are — it identifies opportunities, opportunities or challenges for improvement.
And so we can see “Quality of instruction I receive in most of my class,” excellent.
So students rate this with importance of 6.48 and the satisfaction is 5.82. So where we’re
coming up with these opportunities is there’s a gap there. So students are telling us this
is very important to us, and there’s an opportunity to improve the satisfaction level of our students.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Is there a particular size of gap that makes it an opportunity that
(inaudible) here? Because that’s –>>Ms. Natalie Alleman Beyers: Overall, it’s
around — it’s more like .66 and higher. It seems to me that those are the ones that — yeah.
It’s like .6 and higher. Seems that anything above that was making an opportunity.
So and we’d like to point out while these are opportunities and many of them we’re addressing
for our strategic plan task teams, and I think we’ve seen improvements in the items, within
are opportunities for us. I think if we refer back to an earlier slide, these are challenges
for other institutions as well. Our satisfaction, student satisfaction level is higher than
the community colleges’ scores, and we’re aware that there work through strategic planning
that (inaudible). So what the blue star represents is that these
are items that have been opportunities — have been recurring opportunities in our Noel-Levitz
administration. So these are opportunities that appeared in 2014 and possibility 2012
when we administered the survey, and many of them are being addressed or recognized
specifically through our work, again, with the goal teams and task teams.
So just in summary, it is opportunity for celebration. We have positive gains across
all of our benchmarks. Important to note that safety and security has increased in importance
for our students, and we’re responding to these opportunities currently and will continue
to through this. And, as I said, next steps will be taken when
we dig into the information a little bit more. One example is we know we have growing minority
population on campus. So looking at the satisfaction level across the different types of students,
it will be important and would help (inaudible) pathways initiative (inaudible) on campus.
So that — revisiting our key performance indicators, I would like to say that we, just
to reiterate, that we’ve seen increases in all of our key performance indicators (inaudible)
work that’s going on across campus. Does anybody have any questions?
>>Chair Greg Musil: I think you’re going to have a lot of questions. Trustee Cross.
>>Trustee Lee Cross: Thank you, Natalie, Mr. Chair. I just want to say thank you for all
of this, and for the most part, I’m happy about this report. With respect to the strengths
versus the opportunities, I’d have to say there seems to be some inconsistencies in
here. And Ruffalo Noel-Levitz is a consulting firm; is that right?
>>Ms. Natalie Alleman Beyers: Well, they do a variety of satisfaction surveys.
>>Trustee Lee Cross: Okay. But it just seems to me that there’s some inconsistencies. How
can we have 6.24 on would you do it all over again and enroll here? And then some of us
feel compelled to speak for the fact because strengths seemed to focus on the administration,
and then opportunities were all focused on either the faculty or the advising (inaudible).
And I just wanted to ask how is it that — what exactly do the opportunities mean?
>>Ms. Natalie Alleman Beyers: Opportunities mean that those are items that (inaudible)
all items (inaudible) instrument, those are the ones that are coming up as the most important.
And while it’s not to say the students are not satisfied, there’s opportunity for improvement
there. That there’s a decent gap when you subtract the importance meaning away from
the satisfaction meaning.>>Trustee Lee Cross: And if I may, just to
call (inaudible) anybody.>>Ms. Natalie Alleman Beyers: No.
>>Trustee Lee Cross: So overall our students appear satisfied.
>>Ms. Natalie Alleman Beyers: Absolutely. Absolutely. In fact, (inaudible) we have increases
across, you know, for every item on the instrumental report for ’14-’15. Yes, it’s very positive.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Trustee Cook.>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just wanted to congratulate this Board of Trustees and our administration for bringing
together a mission statement of inspiring lives — inspiring minds, transform lives,
and strengthen the community along with the strategic plan with four specific goals that
tie into these key performance indicators. Often times organizations will set a mission
and a vision and a plan and they’re not aligned. So I really to want compliment everybody for
sticking to it and making sure we have results. As I counted through, and I think I counted
correctly, there are 18 subtopics. And while we exceed the national average in every one
of those 18 and have made significant gains, I think it’s noteworthy to know that 4 of
those 18 were above 6. So I appreciate understanding that 7 was the highest ranking that one could
get, and at 6.24 for the “I’d come back here if I had to do it all over again” is really
gratifying. And while we should be excited about these from a competitive nature standpoint,
I hope that we continue to put the emphasis on our mission and our vision and our strategic
plan to always get better. Ideally, I’d like all of those categories to be 6.5 and above,
but I realize that’s what happens. But congratulations to the faculty and the staff and everybody.
These are really, really good results. One other comment, Mr. Chair, some of us are
in on Monday in the Rotary Club. And a couple weeks ago Mike made a nice presentation on
Career Ed.>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: It was Mike Souder, Continuing
Education.>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Right. Continuing Education.
And what’s interesting to me, we had at least three spontaneous remarks from our Rotary
members that attended Johnson County Community College on how that experience here changed
their lives — transform lives to strengthen communities. And that’s spontaneous, and it
ties in with “Would I go there again if I had the chance to go back.” So congratulations,
Natalie, and to everybody. I’m very pleased with the results. Thank you.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Trustee Lindstrom.>>Trustee David Lindstrom: I want to echo
some of the comments that Trustee Cook just made. I also wanted to congratulate our president,
Joe Sopcich, for his leadership of this. And it starts at the top, and I appreciate that.
And I also want to include everyone in the college that Jerry mentioned, and also the
faculty as well as everybody who makes this happen.
I have a question though, however, as it relates to a concern raised earlier by Trustee Cross
as it relates to tuition. Was there any expressed from student satisfaction on concerns related
to tuition?>>Ms. Natalie Alleman Beyers: Interesting,
so they don’t offer that question. They do ask how important the cost is in your decision
to attend, but they don’t have to counter with how satisfied are you with the cost to
attend this institution. I want to say that in importance it was — so they ask about
cost, financial aid, be academic reputation, size of the institution and the opportunity
to be play sports as well as those items, which was the most important to our students.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Any other questions in this matter? Trustee Cross.
>>Trustee Lee Cross: With respect to campus safety and security, and this may not be for
Natalie, when does our (inaudible) expire?>>Chair Greg Musil: 1/1/2017, absent change
in legislation or our installation of other security measures at ever door to every building
or select buildings.>>Trustee Lee Cross: Thank you for that.
>>Chair Greg Musil: I noted one of the opportunities is the valid student parking on campus is
adequate. I love to see the results of any campus in the world where students say parking
is just fine.>>Ms. Natalie Alleman Beyers: Okay. And that
is bound to come up in other conversation as well. We looked at the community colleges;
it’s a similar challenge or opportunity at the other institutions (inaudible). And I
think that parking (inaudible) pretty good here. So I’m impressed.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Any closing comments on (inaudible)?
>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: (Inaudible) thanks for the kind words (inaudible). I mean, this type
of improvement is really a team effort. Everything about this campus (inaudible) are one. So
all the way from people from the — our security forces and everyone who works in every office,
especially (inaudible) student services. I see Alicia back there. It really takes everyone
coming together to make these things work. So congratulations to everyone and special
thanks. Lastly, that other green line represents the
75th percentile. I think we’re better than the 75th percentile. So we’ll continue to
work hard. We’ll continue to try to move that thing up and establish a new standard. But
thank you for your support in this.>>Chair Greg Musil: Thank you, Natalie, very
much.>>Dr. Joe Sopcich: That concludes the report.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Any questions or comments on the President’s report? I’m going to — I
got one thing I read in there and I think it’s important because it’s, again, a team
effort. Our insurance and risk management, we are self-funded for workers’ compensation.
The report that’s in the President’s Report shows that the last fiscal year ended our
most successful self-insured work comp year thus far. That’s a credit to everybody on
campus. Our biggest problems are still slip and fall which happens everywhere.
But I think it’s, you know, it was — I’m sure and I think it was done before I was
on the Board, but it’s a big step to go self-insured and then trust your employees to be careful
about what they do and to do things right and to work with them on ergonomics and everything
else to avoid work comp injuries, another big expense for a lot of employers. And our
faculty and staff have always done such a good job on that. So I wanted to highlight
that, Mr. President. And the other — the English and Journalism
Division did select Destiny of Republic for mandatory reading which was my recommendation
when it came up. So I want to thank them for having that great choice.
I don’t have any old business that I know of or any new business, so we’ll move to reports
from board liaisons. So the first one is Faculty Association President, Ron Palcic. Ron, thank
you. Ron was at the College Now Pep Rally last night. Thank you for that too.
>>Mr. Ron Palcic: Well, thank you. Thank you, Chairman Musil.
Good evening. Faculty returned to campus. We’re all ready to get started with the task
of teaching and learning on this Monday, August the 17th. There’s excitement in the air. Trust
me. We’re all ready for it already. Welcome back to the students, new and returning, to
the start of this new semester and the school year.
We’ve had — almost all of our meetings we’ve had, we had an (inaudible) meeting yesterday.
We had 300-plus students last night, faculty from the college (inaudible). It was really
exciting. I’m the person who does the statistics. Trustee Musil and Dr. Sopcich were in attendance.
And I want to thank you for your well-spoken (inaudible).
And, Trustee Musil, I do want to ask you a question. Yes, four out of three people don’t
understand fractions. (Laughter.)
But on the other hand, there are three types of mathematicians, those who can count and
those who (inaudible). I’m also a mathematician. Then at our faculty meeting this morning,
our all faculty meeting, lots of new and exciting activities, interaction between faculty, administrators,
staff, trustees plus adjunct meetings are going on just as we’re speaking right now
in that department, for an undergraduate meeting. So I couldn’t even attend.
Tomorrow we’ll finish with the additional department meetings for our last-minute preparations
for the new year. I do want to make notice that the all faculty meeting we did give an
award to Steven J. Wilson, professor of mathematics, past assistant chair of the mathematics department.
He was awarded the JCCC Faculty Association Leadership Award for recognition for his outstanding
leadership and service to the mathematics department, faculty, college, community, professional
involvement for benefit of teaching and learning in the community colleges across this country.
You have to — he had a standing ovation when we awarded this.
And to give you some ideas, he’s the recipient of two Burlington Northern Santa Fe Faculty
Achievement Awards at the college. He’s won the Distinguished Service Award (inaudible)
once. He is the past president of the Kansas Mathematics Association of Two-Year Colleges.
He did that for two years. He was the Central Regional Vice President of the American Mathematics
Association of Junior Colleges. He was central region which represents 13 states and he visited
every single community college in all 13 states, from (inaudible) to North Dakota. And I’ll
(inaudible). He is now a secretary from Kansas Mathematics
Association of Two-Year Colleges. To present he is a member of an editorial board for the
Mathematics Association of America which is through — all the way through grad school.
Very impressive. And he has more and more publications that he has done. He’s written
his own textbook that he uses in his business mathematics. All the proceeds from that textbook
that he makes on this campus is donated to the foundation for student scholarship, every
cent. And he’s written that book. We’re going to miss him when he retires. (Inaudible.)
Steven set a high standard for all achieve. And thanks to Steve for his service to the
college and the field of mathematics. And as you heard earlier we’ve improved in
all five of our key performance indicators, focusing on student successes from the last
three years according to the JCCC student responses to that annual Noel-Levitz Survey
based on instructional effectiveness, registration effectiveness, academic advisement, counseling,
and safety and security. I was really impressed. I do have to give kudos to the counseling
department. I think they have the greatest increase. And I think the leadership of student
services and the counseling program, I want to thank them personally.
And with the guidance of the faculty administration staff and the Board of Trustees we all have
contributed as a team. This is a good team effort starting right at the top, right here
at the Board, right to Dr. Sopcich, right on down to facilities and on to grounds. We
are all — and we have some nice focus and attention to detail.
And to our students’ satisfaction with the college indicated by the Noel-Levitz (inaudible),
as the JCCC mission says (inaudible), JCC inspires learning to transform lives and strengthen
communities. And we at the college are moving in the right direction with collaboration
between the faculty, administration, staff, and trustees. And I want to thank you. And
are there any more questions for me?>>Chair Greg Musil: Questions for Ron?
>>Trustee Stephanie Sharp: Are the Faculty Association meetings still Mondays?
>>Mr. Ron Palcic: No. Our meetings — thank you for mentioning that. Our meetings will
be Tuesdays, the second Tuesday of every month starting on September the 8th. They will be
at 2:00 o’clock, and they will be in the Carlsen Center, room 212. And I will send an invitation
all out to you. I sent an invitation to the faculty party tomorrow night. I hope all and
everyone who can will attend. It will be fantastic.>>Trustee Stephanie Sharp: Thank you.
>>Mr. Ron Palcic: You’re more than welcome. Now, after the fall semester we’ll be looking
at the spring semester to see if we’ll adjust it. But the fall will be the second Tuesday
of every month starting September the 8th through November — December.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Please share with the faculty our thanks for their efforts to keep
those key performance indicators up. I’m reminded of a story when President Johnson
was president, he went down to the Houston Space Center. It wasn’t called Johnson then.
And he was up with all those big (inaudible) and the astronauts. And after the ceremony
he noticed a custodian standing over in the corner. And he, being the gregarious guy,
he walked over to the custodian and said, “Hi, I’m Lyndon Johnson. What do you do here?”
And he said, “I’m working to put a man on the moon.” And it was that team effort that
everybody understood that they were participating in a role. So I hope everybody on the faculty
and staff understands that here. Thank you for your leadership. Look forward to a good
year.>>Mr. Ron Palcic: Thank you very much. Appreciate
it.>>Chair Greg Musil: Johnson County Research
Triangle, Trustee Lindstrom.>>Trustee David Lindstrom: Mr. Chairman, I
have big shoes to fill for the Johnson County Research Triangle Authority. We met on Monday,
July 20th. The meeting was held at 7:30 a.m. at the Kansas State University Olathe campus.
And as a reminder to those in the audience here, those viewing, and to myself, I’m going
to give a brief introduction or a brief reminder of what the Johnson County Education Research
Triangle Authority is. It was created in November 2008 when Johnson
County residents invested in the county’s future by voting a 1.8 cent sales tax. The
proceeds from this tax, first assessed in April of 2009, generate more than $15 million
a year to fund higher education and degree offerings through a unique partnership among
Johnson County, University of Kansas, and Kansas State University. The initiative includes
the development of the Business Engineering Science and Technology or BEST building and
new degree programs at KU Edwards campus in Overland Park, the International Animal Health
and Food Safety Institute at K State’s Invasion Campus in Olathe, and the University of Kansas
Clinical Research Center in Fairway. The economic impact over the next two decades
is expected to be well over 1.4 billion, and it is also expected to attract millions of
dollars in private and public donations and research grants. All revenues collected by
the tax can only be used at the University’s Johnson County locations.
The JCERT, as it is called, J-C-E-R-T Authority, oversees the funds and is responsible for
ensuring that the use of public funds complies with all state and local laws. The seven-member
board is comprised — the board is comprised of seven, elected officials from Johnson County
appointed to four-year terms, and they make sure that each member may serve two — two
separate terms. The board meetings are subject to the Kansas
Open Meetings Act and the Kansas Open Records Act, and the current board members are as
follows. Ed Eilert, Johnson County Commission Chair was appointed by the Kansas Board of
Regents. Mike Boehm is the vice chair, and he is the mayor of Lenexa. He was the Kansas
University appointment. Carl Gerlach is the mayor of Overland Park, and he is the Kansas
State University appointment. Kay Wolf — Senator Baumgardner, our own Senator Baumgardner’s,
two of her colleagues are also on this committee appointed by Governor Brownback. Kay Wolf
is a state senator, and Jeff Melcher is also a Kansas state senator. Jason Osterhaus represents
the Board of County Commissioners. And I humbly am representing the Johnson County Community
College. For those who want additional information, you can go on the Internet and get additional
information about the Triangle. It’s www.jocotriangle.com. Receipts for the past two months were as follows.
In June, sales tax receipts amounted to $1,358,734.87. In July of 2015, again, $1,358,734 and, coincidently,
87 cents again. Our next meeting is scheduled for — our next meeting is scheduled for September
21st at 7:30 a.m. at the KU campus, KU Edwards campus in Overland Park just up the street.
And, Mr. Chairman, that concludes my report.>>Chair Greg Musil: Thank you for that reminder
for all of us because the voters adopted this, and sometimes we forget what we did or why
it’s there. Are there questions for Trustee Lindstrom?
If not, we’re ready for the Kansas Association of Community Colleges Trustee Liaison Report
from the President of the Kansas Association of Community Colleges Trustees, Trustee Dr.
Gerald Cook.>>Trustee Jerry Cook: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Actually, I am no longer the president. We changed officers in June, but thank you for
that.>>Chair Greg Musil: I’m not going through
that again.>>Trustee Jerry Cook: So I’m past (inaudible).
I have no report other than — because we’ve not met since our last meeting. But our next
meeting will be September 11th and 12th at Cloud County Community College. And if anyone
is interested in traveling to the north central part of our state, please let us know. I believe
Dr. Sopcich and I will be attending that meeting. So thank you.
>>Chair Greg Musil: Thank you, Dr. Cook. That concludes our reports. The next item on our
agenda is the consent agenda. The Board considers on the consent agenda items that are a number
of routine and consensus items that are typically considered collectively and approved in a
single motion and vote. Any member of the board may request that an item be taken off
the consent agenda and considered, debated, and voted upon separately. Are there any items
any board member would like to remove from the consent agenda and consider separately?
If none do I hear a motion to approve the consent agenda as printed?
>>Chair Greg Musil: It’s been moved and seconded to adopt the consent agenda. All those in
favor say aye. (Ayes.)
>>Chair Greg Musil: Opposed, nay. Motion carried unanimously. We will have an executive session
today, and I will like — I would ask for a motion to join the executive session for
the purpose of discussing consultation with an attorney which would be deemed a privileged
in the attorney-client relationship in order to protect the privilege and the Board’s communications
with its attorney on legal matters. This session will last 30 minutes and no action will be
taken during the session. We would also like to invite President Sopcich and our legal
counsel, Tanya Wilson, to join this executive session. Is there such a motion.
>>Trustee Lee Cross: So moved.>>Trustee Nancy Ingram: Second.
>>Chair Greg Musil: It’s been moved by Trustee Cross and seconded by Trustee Ingram to go
into executive session for 30 minutes. We will start that at 6:55 and come out of executive
session no later than 7:25. All those in favor say aye.
(Ayes.)>>Chair Greg Musil: Opposed, nay. Motion cares
seven-zero. We will start in three-and-a-half minutes. Thank you everybody.
The Board has returned to open session after our executive session at 7:23 p.m. No action
was taken during the executive session. And there’s nothing else on the agenda, so I would
be ready to hear a motion to adjourn.>>So moved.
>>Second.>>Chair Greg Musil: Moved and seconded. All
in favor say aye. (Ayes.)
>>Chair Greg Musil: Opposed, nay. Motion carried. We are adjourned. Thank you.