(gentle uptempo music) – Good evening and welcome. I’d like to call the June
20, 2019 Board Meeting for Johnson County
Community College to order. Would you please join me in
the Pledge of Allegiance? – [All] 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. – Thank you, next item is roll call and recognition of
visitors, Miss Schlicht. – This evening’s visitors
include Val Ball, Eldon Shields, Ron Contino, Jamaya Haynes, Roberta Eveslage, Mo
Azim, Colleen Cunningham, Lori Bell, and Cassandra Peters. – Thank you, thank you
for your attendance. We appreciate you being here tonight. Awards and recognitions, Dr. Sopcich. – Dr. Cook, we have no awards or recognitions this evening. – Next item is the open forum. It’s a section on the board agenda that is a time for
members of the community to provide comments to the board. There will be one open forum period 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, individuals must register at the door at each board meeting prior
to the open forum agenda item. When addressing the board, registered speakers are asked
to remain at the podium, should be respectful and civil, and are encouraged to
address individual personnel or student matters directly with the appropriate college department. As a practice, the
college does not respond in this setting when the
matter concerns personnel or student 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 board. There are two registered speakers tonight. We’d ask you to come to the podium, state your name and
address, and the first up is Chris Roesel. – Good evening members of the board, members of the community. I’m Chris Roesel from Roeland Park. I’m a student here, and I’m also running for the board this year. Voting is important to me,
as I imagine you’ve gathered. The first election I remember was President Eisenhower’s first election. When I was in the seminary, President Kennedy was assassinated. I enrolled in the Air Force Academy the year after the Gulf
of Tonkin Resolution. The first time I ever voted, Reverend King and Senator Kennedy had just been assassinated, and a gentleman called,
and I use the term loosely, named Lester Maddox was on my ballot running for governor of my state. I assume you know enough history to know who Lester Maddox was, and about his axe handles that he stocked his restaurant with, in case any people of another ethnic group desired service there. During Watergate, I
enrolled in the Peace Corps. As a health worker I’ve had the privilege of working with about a
million mothers and children and saving lives in Asia, Africa, and throughout the Americas. You may know about my
work this year in El Paso, and in Uganda. To summarize, I have seen amazing and terrible changes in my lifetime, both. As a result, voting is vital to me, as it is to you. To that point, we have a primary and general election that impacts Johnson County Community
College this year. I was told to read the board’s policy regarding impartiality, which I did, and I studied closely. I’ve been told by staff and other people that no information can
be shared in the college about the election, and no
information about candidates. However, information is impartial, information is not
promoting, is not endorsing. Information is how we become educated. I would like to point out that the current way that
things are being managed, as far as sharing
information about candidates, implicitly endorses and
promotes incumbents. I say that in that incumbents
have their resumes, have their pictures, for obvious reasons, on the website, but no
candidates for election have their names or their resumes published anywhere on the website, and the implicit effect of
that, the actual effect, is to improve the
electability of incumbents. So my questions are, given
the importance of voting, what will the college do
to publicize the dates and the candidates of
this year’s election? Will you announce the
election and candidates on the internal communication system? Will you publicize the election
on the college’s website? This is an election
that affects a college. Keeping the constituency of
the college ill-informed, or uninformed, results in
an uninformed election, which we don’t want. That’s all, thank you so much. – Thanks Chris, I’m not sure that we have not promoted the dates, but we’ll review what
you have said tonight and take care of that. Second person is Val Ball. – Hi, my name is Val Ball,
rhymes with foul ball, ’cause sometimes I’m out of line. I like to use that as my disclaimer. I don’t wanna get out of line tonight. I’ve learned my lessons as
where the lines are as I go. I am a candidate for the
Johnson County Community College Board of Trustees this year, but I come to the board
to address an issue that has been raised with
the board a couple times and nothing has been done. So I’d like to request of this board to change the name of the Carlsen Center. The most popular building on campus carries a name tarnished in scandal and it is unlikely that
many students on campus are aware of the baggage that comes along with
the building’s namesake. I myself am an alum of Johnson
County Community College. I attended Early Childhood
Education classes when I was an early child care educator, to receive my credential in
early childhood development. I also returned to Johnson
County Community College, having a bachelor’s degree in
political science and Spanish. I came back to utilize the
paralegal studies program. And I graduated in 2006, at the same time that Carlsen was resigning amid sexual harassment allegations, and I, as a student, had no
idea that this was going on. This has been brought up by
The Campus Ledger in 2008. It was also brought up by
The Campus Ledger in 2015, during the 25th anniversary
of the Carlsen Center. It was requested to
restore the original name of the Cultural Education Center. So I’m here to ask the
board to change the name, to stop this needless issue
from being an issue anymore. Time’s up in the MeToo
era, we don’t have time to have Johnson County Community College, their most popular building, be the name of someone who
has that kind of history. So I’d like to request the
board change that name. And with that I’ll leave
it to you to discuss. If you have any questions I’m open. – Thanks Val, appreciate that. That closes our open forum. We have no other presenters tonight. Appreciate you coming,
we’ll consider those points and appreciate your input. At this time we do have
an executive session that we need to tend to. I would like to entertain a motion to go into executive session for the purpose of discussing
a prior litigation matter with legal counsel pursuant to the Kansas Open Meetings Act Exception relating to matters deemed privileged in the attorney-client relationship. We would like to invite all trustees, other than Trustee, Musil
who has recused himself from that matter due to
a conflict of interest, including Joe Sopcich, Barbara Larson, Tanya Wilson, Terri
Schlicht, and Eldon Shields, to join in this executive session. We expect this session to last 15 minutes. And so it is now 5:10. We need to clear the room, and as soon as the room is cleared, 15 minutes later we’ll continue with our regular board meeting. – Do you need a motion, I move.
– We need a motion. – I move to.
– And a second. – Second. – All in favor signify by saying aye. – [All] Aye. – Opposed, motion carries. – Mr. Chair, I’d like
to explain on the record why I’m recusing. Five years ago I was with a law firm that represents the other
side of this lawsuit. I was not involved in it. I’m not with that law firm anymore, but out of an abundance of caution, I will not participate in any
discussions regarding this. Thank you.
– Thank you. – We have come back
from executive session. No action was taken. We need to extend this
same executive session for another 10 minutes. Discussion to prior litigation
matter with legal counsel pursuant to Kansas Open
Meetings Acts Exception relating to matters the deemed privileged in the attorney-client relationship, and we’d like to invite all trustees other than Trustee Musil
has recused himself, with Joe Sopcich, Barbara
Larson, Tanya Wilson, Terri Schlicht, and Eldon Shields. This will begin at 5:29. Do I have a motion? – So moved. – And a second? All in favor say aye. – [All] Aye. – Opposed, motion carries. Okay, thank you, if you would leave. We are back from executive session. No action was taken. We thank you for your patience. We’ll move on with our regular agenda. Committee Reports and Recommendations. Human Resources, Trustee Lawson. – Thank you Mr. Chair. The Human Resource
Committee met on June 7th, at 8:00 a.m. in the Robert
Lydell Conference Room, which is right next door to us. You could see in your
board packet on page one and two, more of the minutes. We talked about the, we
have a recommendation to bring forward, which I’ll talk about. We also mentioned some of the
applicant tracking system. We also mentioned the
strategic initiative. We had an Employee Engagement Survey that we’ve done for the last few years, in 2015, ’17, and there were some features that we highlighted. Most favorable aspects of the survey, I feel accepted by my immediate coworkers, that was at 83%, so that was really great. I feel proud to work here, 80%. I find my work engaging, 80%. I’m inspired by the work we do at 79%. My immediate co-workers
consistently go extra mile to achieve the great results, 77%. We just continue to go through this survey and just look at different
factors that stood out for us. Anything that kinda went over 2% change we discussed, and had questions about. We had some questions
about the company we used, how they paired us with a
national bank that they have of other clients, to see
if that was something that was relatable to us, and if there was potential
to maybe compare us to our peer institutions, and benchmarks around the country versus, we’re not exactly sure who we’re getting compared to. Some of the other features that, so that was the one aspect
that was a great plus and then some of the concerns that we had on my notes here. There was a big dip in some of the aspects for the trust in senior leadership. We talked about that. I believe the leaders of
the college are honest and trustworthy, that
actually dipped 10%, 10.7%. I trust the senior leaders
to lead the college to future success, that
went down 5.7% from 2017. And then I trust senior leadership and the team of the college
to set the right course, and that went down 7.5%. So there was just a lot of
discussion around these big gaps, and just to see the longitudinal study of how long have we been seeing this arc. I know in the HLC report,
when I was looking stuff up in the 2017, it states
that there was a reason they started this whole survey, was in response to the HLC Peer Review Feedback Form in 2012. And so in 2012, I was able
to get that information and it showed there were some gaps in when the data was presented, so there was, the HLC identified
a significant decrease in its mean cumulative score from 3.9, I’m sorry 3.93 in 2003 to 3.37, so there was a 15% drop from that time, but then we had quite a large gap until we started this HLC report that asked to do this
new engagement survey. So a lot of the discussion was around how, what do we do with this information? How do we build an action plan? And as you could see in the board packet there is a list on page two of the dates that the staff administration has set up some follow-up sessions. It was nice to be able to know that there’s, they’re
happening two times a month, to be able to discuss. We also talked about the importance of not just management
talking to employees but management against management, and be able to have that
discussion internally about middle management
and senior management. But then also to kinda define who is classified as senior leadership. Are trustees considered senior leadership? And if so, what are some of these numbers, and how does that reflect
our responsibility and our role with our
employees here at the college. So that was some of the questions and things that happened in there. Before I move on to the 2% recommendation, I just wanna open it up, ’cause I know Trustee Musil had questions
there too, as well. – I think that, the engagement survey has been a great tool
that we started in ’15, and we’ve got now data from ’17 and ’19. It is not a long longitudinal survey. You highlighted some things
that staff had highlighted in their PowerPoint to present. There’s a lot more data
in there than that, and there’s a lot of work that managers, I think, Karen Martley,
our vice president, went through a lot of
examples of what she does within her team to take
that information back and then make sure employees
are empowered with it. And that’s where we’ll
really see the difference in this, I think, is
individual managers doing that. But it’s a good, it’s a good tool to see areas that we can improve upon. – Mm-hmm.
– Thank you. – And the importance of making sure that we follow through this process evaluating how effective
this action plan was, with benchmarks, targets, metrics, those things are important. As what was cited in the HLC as things that they would
like us to boost up a bit. So I’m excited to get more updates. I think I requested quarterly updates through this process, so
it’d be nice, I think, August is the time when most
of these follow-up sessions, so that would be nice, too. And we’ve already discussed that. So the next item that we discussed was the 2% increase in
pay ranges for all exempt and non-exempt staff positions, specifically, in the IS Department. So I know, Becky, would you like to just speak a bit about this? – [Becky] Right, the 2% increase is actually to the salary ranges. – Right.
– So the IS Department was the only department that we looked at salary and annually. So this doesn’t really
impact the IS Department. The ranges would just go
for all of the positions within their ranges. So it doesn’t impact any employees. All employees that were on staff June 30th will get the 3% increase that the board voted on in February. This is strictly for the pay
ranges for the positions. – [Angelina] So it’s not 5%, right? – No, that’s to be decided. – That’s what I wanna make sure. And with that I’d like to move, or actually, I’m sorry,
I have one question for Tom Pagano. Do you feel that this 2% is enough for it to be market competitive? I know Garmin’s expanding,
and Sprint and T-mobile, and there’s a lot of
tech-savvy jobs out here. Do you feel this 2% pay range is enough to attract
the employees we need? ‘Kay, then I move the recommendation. It is the recommendation that
the College Administration of the Board of Trustees authorize, effectively July 1st, 2019,
a 2% increase to pay ranges for all exempt and
non-exempt staff positions, as of July 1st, in 2019. – I’ll second. – We have a motion and a
second, any discussion? Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. – [All] Aye. – Opposed, motion carries. Trustee Lawson, anything else? – That pretty much sums up the HR report, unless Trustee Musil had
anything else to add? – Thank you, no.
– We’re complete. – [Paul] Is it appropriate ask a question on the report?
– Sure, sure. – I was curious at your meeting with regard to the statistics, particularly those that express some sort of dissatisfaction internally. Have we, consistent with that, seen an uptick in
non-retirement separations from the college? – [Becky] We have not. Our turnover rate is extremely low. – And also have we had challenges recruiting employees? – [Becky] We have not. Our recruiting, we always have an abundant of applicants to almost
all of our positions. We have a few new positions
that are hard to fill, but are general positions. We don’t have.
– Good, thank you. – Good questions, thank you very much. Leaning Quality, Trustee Snider. – Thank you Mr. Chairman. The Learning Quality
Committee met on Monday, June 3rd, at 8:30 in this room. Minutes of meeting are in the packet. The highlight of the meeting was an update on the Pathways Initiative. Dr. McCloud presented the working agenda for the 2019-2020 fiscal year. The working agenda is the same, or at least substantially similar as the last working agenda. And, as such, I have a
recommendation to that effect. It is the recommendation of the Learning Quality Committee that the Board of Trustees
approve the 2019-2020 Learning Quality Committee
working agenda as shown in the board packet. – Second. – We have a motion and a
second, any discussion? Any discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. – [All] Aye – Opposed, motion carries. – That concludes my report. – Thank you very much. Management, Trustee Ingram. – Thank you Mr. Chairman. The Management Committee met at 8:00 a.m. on Wednesday, June 5th. The information related
to management meeting begins on page seven
and runs through page 31 of board packet. The Management Committee received several presentations from staff. Rachel Lierz, Associate Vice President, Financial Services,
Chief Financial Officer, reported the Board of Trustees approved the college’s
2019-2020 Management Budget at their meeting on May 16th, 2019. The approved budget has been loaded into the college’s
accounting system in order to facilitate
procurement of goods and services for the coming fiscal year. Janelle Vogler, Associate Vice President for Business Services provided an overview of the disposition of surplus property. She then presented the
single source purchase report and the summary of contract renewals found on page 19 of the board packet. Miss Vogler also provided
the summary of awarded bids between 50,000 and $150,000. The summary can be found on page 20. In Mr. Hayes absence, Mr. Jeff Allen, Director of Campus Services
and Energy Management presented an overview of
the capital infrastructure inventory and replacement plan. The plan is updated annually and helps guide the
allocation of resources for a preventative maintenance and preservation of
building infrastructure. He then gave a monthly
update on capital projects and this report is on
page 28 of the packet. Barbara Larson, Executive Vice President, Finance and Administrative Services, presented a report summarizing the budgets and expenditures to date
for the various projects associated with the
facility’s master plan. That report is in your packet on page 29. We do have a rather large
number of recommendations to present this evening. The first recommendation
has to do with designating official newspapers for the college. Miss Ali Scott, Account
Planning Coordinator, stated that the Kansas Statute requires that when a school district
or Community College publishes a legal notice in the newspaper, the newspaper must be one that is published at least weekly, 50 times a year in the college’s district. It is the recommendation
of the Management Committee that the Board of Trustees
accepts the recommendation of the College Administration to designate The Legal
Record and Tri-County News as official newspapers of the college, and that publication
constitutes legal notice on behalf of the Board of Trustees, and I will make that motion. – Is there a second. We have a motion and a
second, any discussion? Any discussion? – That will stand on. – And that motion says
that The Legal Record and Tri-County News as official
newspapers of the college. All in favor signify by saying aye. – [All] Aye. – Opposed, motion carries. – Miss Scott also reported that each year the college sponsor selected events that help the college maintain strong community relationships. The organizations are listed
on page seven through eight of the board packet. It is the recommendation
of the Management Committee that the board accept the recommendation of the college Administration to approve the listed sponsorships for the 2019-2020 fiscal year at a cost of $16,000, plus an additional $2,000 contingency for a total cost of $18,000, and I will make that motion. – We have a motion.
– Second. – And a second, any discussion? Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. – [All] Aye. – Opposed, motion carries. – Miss Lierz reported that
the administrative staff conducted a request for Proposal RFP for bond counsel services. The bond counsel assists staff in the preparation the
publication of resolutions, certificates, leases, agreements, and other legal documents
related to debt financing. Fees for serving as bond counsel are payable only upon the
performance of services with no annual retainer. It is the recommendation
of the Management Committee that the Board of Trustees
accept the recommendation of the College Administration
to approve the proposal from Gilmore and Bell PC
for bond counsel services for fiscal year ’20, base year, and for optional renewal years. – Those are you.
– Per the supplemental rates and again I will make that motion. – Second.
– We have a motion. And we have a second, any discussion? Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. – [All] Aye. – Opposed, motion carries. – Miss Lierz stated that
the administrative staff conducted a request for Proposal
RFP for financial advisor. The college’s financial
advisor assists the staff in reviewing and
recommending financial plans for new capital needs, as
well as provides monitoring of any outstanding transactions to determine if restructuring
opportunities exist. They also assist the
college in obtaining new, or maintaining existing bond ratings, handling matters related
to the public sale of new bond issues, and assists
in compiling information to meet appropriate continuing
disclosure requirements. These for serving as financial advisor are payable only upon the closing
of financial transactions. It is the recommendation
of the Management Committee that the Board of Trustees
accept the recommendation of the College Administration to approve the proposal
from Piper Jaffray Companies for financial adviser services for fiscal year ’20, base
year, and for optional renewal years per the supplemental rates, and again, I will make that motion. – Second.
– We have a motion and a second, any discussion? Trustee Musil?
– I would just like to thank the administration and staff, and our financial
advisor and bond counsel, I’m gonna lump these together, for going through this review periodically to make sure that our
professional services, I think not only does it allow us to have some competition, but it keeps our professional
service providers on their toes. And I’m not surprised that
we selected the incumbents, but I think we indicated that they are not only
professionally qualified but competitively priced. So, thank you Dr. Sopcich. – Trustee Lindstrom. – I would echo Trustee
Musil’s comments on that, but I would also credit Trustee Musil for initiating that
process in the beginning. – Okay, any other comments, continue. – The Management Committee has reviewed the recommended changes
to both the reimbursement of travel expenses policy, which was reported by.
– Did we just vote? Did we vote?
– Did we vote, no I guess we didn’t. I failed, and I’m sorry. All in favor, signify by saying aye. – [All] Aye. – Opposed, motion carries, thank you. – Thank you.
– Oh they look terrible. – Reimbursement. – The Management Committee has reviewed the recommended changes to both the reimbursement
of Travel Expenses Policy which was reported by Rachel Lierz, and the disposition of
Surplus Property Policy that Janelle Vogler presented. The updated policies can be
found in the board packet on pages 16 through 17. It is the recommendation
of the Management Committee that the Board of Trustees
accept the recommendation of the College Administration to approve the reimbursement
of Travel Expenses Policy 216.01, and the Modifications to the Disposition of Surplus
Property Policy, 215.07, as shown subsequently in the board packet, and I will make that motion. – Second.
– We have a motion and a second, any discussion? Trustee Lawson. – The value of changing
25,000 to 50,000 is, $50,000 is a lot of money. It’s more than most vehicles. A significant portion of that
could be computer equipment, potentially high-end equipment. Because the way this is
now looking to be changed as a recommendation, they’re
assigning trash, or donations. I’m okay lifting that 25,000
to 50,000 for trade-ins, or are sold for making
things quick in the process, I understand that. But lifting that value on donations, or what could be assigned as trash, to me, is a little rich. So I think 50,000 is a pretty high number for trash and donation. I don’t know if the board would be open to a friendly amendment, that the items above 25,000 cannot be donated or assigned to trash without reaching the board. If they are turned in
for trade-in or sold, and then the value can line,
and go to 50,000, that’s fine. But I think those two specific things just change the trash and donation to 25,000.
– I’ll defer to the Management Committee. Was that a issue of
discussion, or a point of? – No and I’m not, what we’re saying is we would
report things to the board that are sold for over $50,000. I’m not sure that. – So there’s not anything in here that says trash or donated for 50,000? So if there’s a value of something that was 50,000 that is
labeled trash or donated it does not have to come to the board? – You know, I don’t see that. – I’m not sure I’m understanding. – I see your five points where
you’re referring to trash, but I don’t see that there’s a value. – No, that’s an order.
– Right it says trash. – Right.
– Donation to a non-profit, and it’s saying that
it’s changing the value from 25, it’s strike 25 out, and put 50. – But that change simply changes whether the president has to report it to the Management committee
– Right, that changes whether we report it to management.
– And it’s a sale, so it’s not gonna be trash, because it’s going to be a sale. – Right. – That’s how I read it anyway.
– So, trash. I don’t know how trash is sold. I don’t know.
– Would you like to clarify that? – Yes, the intention here is, if something had a value of anything, we would go through this process and we were trade it in,
sell it by public sale, but we would only donate as a last resort. So we would never have an item that would be worth 25,000 or more, or 50,000 that we would trash or donate. So the threshold here is, if
we’re going to sell an item that we’re going to
receive more than 25 before that we raised to 50,
and the 50 was selected to make it consistent with
our procurement policies, if you’re wondering
where the 50 came from. So I’m not sure if we
need to change the wording to make that clearer, but the intention would be just for sale. Does that make sense? – [Jerry] Trustee Lindstrom. – I didn’t see that ambiguity, but if Trustee Lawson sees that ambiguity, I wouldn’t have a problem
cleaning up the language a little bit and having the same premise. That wouldn’t bother me. But I didn’t see it that way. – Trustee Musil. – And I’m not on management, but the policy says that
the executive vice president or designee shall use best
efforts to maximize value. So we haven’t changed that, except in wording at all. So that the obligation of
staff is to maximize the value of any surplus property. – Yes.
– And then, in the old days, if you
sold it for more than 25,000 the president reported
the Management Committee. Under the new language, if you sell it for more than 50,000, consistent with our other
procurement policies, it would be reported to
the Management Committee. – Correct.
– I’m trying to remember the last time I remember surplus property over 25,000 being reported.
– I don’t either. – To the Management Committee, because I don’t think we have very much, that we use it.
– We don’t. – To death, almost. – Sometimes we, again,
sometimes we trade-in items as we’re purchasing new. We certainly look to use GovDeals or other means of selling, donation to educational
institutions or nonprofits, recycling, and we work very closely with sustainability to
successfully recycle items. And the last and least desirable resort is to throw something out. – And the change, in part,
we’re not throwing away stuff that’s worth 25,000 now, so we wouldn’t be throwing away stuff that’s worth 50,000 worth of change. That’s only in the event of a sale. – [Man] So if we haven’t
received many items over 25,000, why would we change it to 50? – Just to make it consistent with our procurement thresholds. – [Man] What are the, what’s an example of some of the things
that end up being surplus that we try to to move on? – Well a good a recent example is, as we moved into the new buildings we had some automotive lifts that did not, they were replaced in the new building. So we had, I believe, six of them. One of ’em was reused in
our own automotive area and we did recently sell five of those, the sale’s in process. And so this is interesting
that we were doing this at the same time, and we
did sell those for 30,000. So we were bringing, I’m going to bring that to
Management Committee next month because of the timing of all of this. So we contacted vendors that
we knew would be interested, and they all bid on it, and
we that was the highest bid. – And additionally things like office furniture.
– Oh yes. – What happens to all that? – So if we can sell it,
our warehouse staff know what will sell on
GovDeals, and what won’t. Much of the older office
furniture, used to, in years past, end up in the trash, which is
not something that we want. Our sustainability folks work really hard and find places to donate most of that. So office furniture. Computer equipment does
not go through GovDeals, it goes to a special surplus exchange that wipes it and takes all the data off and they buy it from us. – [Joe] And all this
stuff gets stored where? – Over in our warehouse. – [Joe] Have all the members of the board been to the warehouse? Maybe we should have our next
meeting in the warehouse. (audience laughs) We can.
– I can arrange that. – [Man] I think you should. – Yeah, see, yeah.
– I can absolutely arrange that. – It’s kind of overwhelming, actually. So, okay. – [Jerry] Trustee Lawson are you satisfied with what’s been said? – [Angelina] I’m still
reading it the same way, but we can continue. – [Jerry] Okay, so we’re
trying to be consistent with other procedures, and, okay. Any other discussion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by saying aye. – [All] Aye. – Opposed.
– Aye. – Motion carries. – Dr. Antle’s back there. Your group, the sustainability group, have played a major role
in doing the right thing with all of our surplus, so I just wanted to credit that. – [Jay] And Michael Rea is here. – Michael Rea, yeah. – [Jay] And we’re trying, we’ll be working with procurement now to figure out ways to get more nonprofits on a list where we can make ’em aware of the items that are going to be donated. – Yeah, that’s great. – Trustee Ingram, continue. – Okay, there were six recommendations based on RFPs and bids
that Miss Vogler reported. First was a recommendation for an RFP for a renewal of annual contract for network infrastructure
equipment and services. 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 contract JCCC-1266, with the total not to exceed $965,000 for the remaining renewal
through June 30th, 2020, and I will make that motion. – Second
– We have a motion and a second, any discussion? Trustee Lawson. – Is that including the
CW Government network infrastructure equipment? If I remember correctly that’s
the next recommendation, or am I.
– I’m sorry. – The network infrastructure
equipment services, it sounds like you were
reading something else. – [Nancy] It is the CDW Government. – Okay that’s, okay, that’s
what I wanted to make sure. I do have questions for Tom Pagano. I know the technology
is changing very fast, and we can either be in
the middle in the road, with middle technology,
like my Apple computer is i5, right, in the Intel, and there’s the i3, so but
there’s also the pro version of i7, so I can keep buying the i5 version and it will be continued
to be faster and newer, but it’s still middle of the lane. Is this change from Datalink Corp to CDW still staying in the same lane, or are we upgrading with that change? – [Tom] It’s just a different reset on the product taken by action. – Same product, okay, that’s what I wanted to know, thank you. – Any other discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. – [All] Aye. – Opposed, motion carries. – Next is an RFP for the annual
financial audit services. It is the recommendation
of the Management Committee that the Board of Trustees
accept the recommendation of the College Administration
to approve an annual contract for financial audit services
with Ruben Brown LLP for the JCCC current
year amount of $69,120, and $219,140 for the
remaining three option years for a total estimated total expenditure of $288,260, and I will make that motion. – Second.
– We have a motion and a second, any discussion? – I think it’s important, especially given the
comments on the last item. Most of these are five-year contracts. This audit one is a brand new
five-year rolling contract. We can eliminate it
after a year if we want. The CDW contract was the fifth year of a five-year contract. So on a lot of these, although
we’re approving them now, they are year-to-year contracts, and they may be in the first year, the third year, or the fifth year. So I think it’s important to know that. That, Tom you will, next
year we’ll be going out to see if there’s somebody else that will resell this technology in a better, faster way that
doesn’t cause users to curse. – Thank you, any other discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. – [All] Aye. – Opposed, motion carries. – The RFP for one card transaction system to support cash/credit card purchases along with closed loop
account purchases was next. 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 contract JCCC-589, with the total not to exceed $71,779.90, for the renewal through June 30th, 2020, and $215,338.95 for the
remaining three option years, for an estimated total expenditure of $287,118.85, and I
will make that motion. – We have a motion, is there a second? – Second. – Any discussion? Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. – [All] Aye. – Opposed, motion carries. – Next is a RFP for
solar photovoltaic design and installation on two
additional building rooftops at the college. With this board action,
the college will be adding 650 kilowatts and more than doubling its current solar capacity. It is the recommendation
of the Management Committee that the Board of Trustees
accept the recommendation of the College Administration
to approve the proposal from Artisun Solar for a total expenditure not to exceed $884,000, for
the design and installation of a rooftop solar photovoltaic PV system to be installed on the roof of the Industrial Training Center and Campus Services Building,
and I will make that motion. – We have a motion, is there a second? Trustee Musil seconds. – I have a question,
and Jake could probably, I know usually we, with our lights, and with our HVAC, we’ve
always gotten a payback kind of idea of how long it
would take to pay this back. Do we have that on these? – About 11.
– About 11 years? – [Jake] And we’re set to make it last, with the niche capacity toward
the end of the lifecycle, about 25, 30 years. – So 11 year payback on
a system that’ll last 25 to 30 years. – Correct.
– Thank you. – Trustee Snider, then Trustee Lawson. – Yes, I would just
note, at least 30 years. So there’s two interesting
points about this. One, Michael Rea, the bidding
for this was very competitive, and Michael Rea explained at our committee that the winning bid, one of the things that gave them extra points
in the bidding scenario, was that they’re going
to allow several students to participate in the installation. So I think that’s something
that’s noteworthy. And then also with the
addition of the 650 kW, to the best of my
knowledge, that will make us the largest solar host in Kansas. IKEA has the biggest roof that
currently has solar on it, and this wouldn’t match
that, but in total, over 1,100 kW would make
us the biggest in Kansas, to the best of my knowledge, and Jake feel free to. – [Jake] I think that’s right. – And so, that’s number
one, something cool, but something we should
try to highlight, probably. – [Joe] We’re the sunniest. – And I know we have
intentions to continue to add to this. – Trustee Lawson. – I’m very supportive of
small business owners, so clearly when I was
researching this company, is it three people own the company? – [Jake] Yeah, I get, we’re
not (speaking faintly) we’re solar, we’re
mostly working with Kurt, and then we pretty much have them also do work on campus, not directly, but through Jay for the
CTE (speaking faintly). – Okay, and then was there, ’cause I know this company’s in Missouri, so Trustee Snider just
mentioned one of the factors of why this was the pick. Was there any other reasons
why they were the pick? – [Jake] One of which was the fact that they did have a very competitive bid along with their service
and their experience, and with the three folks that vetted this, Rex Hays, and I, and Jeff Allen, both kind of came to the conclusion through the procurements matrix that it was really the best fit for us. – And then my last question is does this, because the company is smaller, does that mean that they
subcontract out a lot of the work or is this? – [Jake] No, it will not be subcontracted, that was part of the interviewing process and one of the things that
we like to look at as well. They won’t be subcontracting. – I appreciate that thank you. – Trustee Musil. – Well given the, given the discussion, I think it’s important to note that the bid is, or the
recommended bid is 884,000. The second place being
is $6,500 less than that, so it is a small percentage difference, which then we rely on procurement to use its matrix to figure
out a lowest and best bid. But there, as Trustee Snider put out, there are eight bids, and they’re all in a very narrow window. So it was competitive bidding with probably based on similar technology. – [Jerry] Dr. Sopcich. – Dr. Antle, we’re doing all this talk about solar, what does
it mean though, to us, with regards to energy conservation, or expense, usage? I know you can answer all those. – [Jay] Well, his point, as usual, Trustee Musil is wondering
what’s about to happen. (audience laughs) So I go into an app. Yeah, it’s very hard,
so I’ll make it short. So we have commanded a
programmable power switch by which we have tried reducing that range at another campus, thus making it easier for us then to transition
to renewable energy, because we’re using less energy. Along the way, of course,
we managed to do the same, almost $3 million, in
terms of electric costs for the college. So all these are all part
of the recent package. – [Jerry] Thanks. – That short enough for
you Greg, is that good? (audience laughs) – And to meet your goal of
being 100% sustainable by 2030. – [Jay] And thank you sir,
for (speaking faintly). And between what we’re doing with solar and what we’re doing with our deal at KC Power and Light,
we are going to get there very quickly in ways that
almost nobody in Kansas will. – I think the other thing. I appreciate your comments Trustee Snider, in terms of the size and
how important that is. Our new career and tech ed building will have solar panels on it and we expect that there
will be a pretty nice solar energy curriculum program ongoing to help support the student
opportunities for work. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. – [All] Aye. – Opposed, motion carries. – Next was RFP for the annual contract to print continuing
education catalogs, mailings, and mail list management services. It is the recommendation
of the Management Committee that the Board of Trustees
accept the recommendation of the College Administration
to approve the proposal from Allen Press, Inc. for
the continuing education catalog printing, mailing, and
mail list management services for July 1, 2019 through June 30th, 2020, base year, of $306,729.75,
and a total expenditure not to exceed $1,533,648.75
for the renewal, excuse me, optional renewals through 2024, and I will make that motion. – We have a motion, is there a second?
– Second. – Any discussion? Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. – [All] Aye. – Opposed, motion carries. – Our final recommendation
is for pavement improvements to the fire access drive
between the Carlsen Center and Nerman Museum. 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 from Gunter Construction
in the amount $169,025.80, with an additional 10% contingency of $16,903 to allow for
possible unforeseen costs for a total expenditure
not to exceed $185,928.80, and I will make that motion. – We have a motion, is there a second? – Second. – Motion and a second, any discussion? Trustee Lawson. – Was this a difficult bid to get? ‘Cause redoing a fire access seems like a lot of back
and forth with permits, so I’m just curious if there was, if this was a difficult bid. – We only received the two bidders. This was something that was recommended by the City of Overland Park, that this be a paved fire route. So we need to, need to go ahead with it and this was an opportunity
to accomplish this during the summer, yes. – I assume it’s a small project, and that’s why you didn’t
get a lot of bidders in a very intense construction season. All in favor, signify by saying aye. – [All] Aye. – Opposed, motion carries. Before you continue with your report, I just want to say to the public and those in attendance tonight, we’ve just authorized the expenditure of a lot of money for the college, and I would remind us and review that the Management Committee
spends a lot of time with staff going through these bids. We have a whole bidding process, and that bidding team, the
RFP team, spends a lot of time analyzing these. And so while it may seem like, well, they didn’t spend a lot of time talking about that issue, that discussion has taken
place in committee work, and the management, so Trustee Ingram and others on the committee, thank you for the time you put in, and staff for going
through the detail of this. It is a lot of money,
but it has gone through a pretty serious analysis. Trustee Lindstrom. – Mr. Chairman, also,
the public is invited to our management meetings on the first, is it Wednesday?
– First Wednesday. – Wednesday, yeah. – Continue.
– Thank you, I just have my own comments, actually, if I may. I recently attended the Kansas Association of Community College Trustees meeting where concerns of fraud and practices to prevent that were brought up. Fraud is also discussed in our quarterly Audit Committee meetings, and we will meet again in August. Although I believe that our internal and external auditing is
an excellent position, I would make the request,
either from management, or from audit, that we do have an update at either of those meetings. So if you would do that, thank you. – Very good. – And that does conclude my report. – Thank you Trustee Ingram. President’s Recommendations for Action, Treasurer’s Report, Trustee Musil. – Thank you Mr. Chair. The treasurer’s report is found on page 32 through page 43 of the board’s packet. This month’s report is for the year, or the month ended April 30th, 2019. Page one of the treasurer’s report is the General/Post-Secondary Technical Education Fund Summary, our primary fund. April was the 10th month of the college’s 2018-2019 fiscal year, which will end on June 30th. The unencumbered cash
balance, as of April 30, was 99.5 million, about $10 million lower than at the same time last year. All of the expenditures in
the primary operating funds are within the approved budgetary limits. And with that, it’s the recommendation of the College
Administration that the Board approve the Treasurer’s Report for the month ended April 30th, 2019, subject to audit, and I would so move. – Second. – We have a motion and a
second, any discussion? Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. – [All] Aye. – Opposed, motion carries. Advisory Committees, Dr. Sopcich. – Thank you Dr. Cook. As, of course, everyone knows that we have advisory
committees on campus. These advisory committees do the hard work of working with faculty in
our current tech programs, making sure that what we teach is up to speed, that its
current and relevant. Tonight, the role of
the board is to approve these advisory committees. The members of those committees, as well as their addresses, are all listed in supplement B. It’s quite an impressive array. These are all volunteers
who play a major role in our college. So I’d like to do the recommendation. It is the recommendation of
the College Administration that the Board of Trustees
approve the Advisory Committees contained in supplement
B, from July 1st, 2019 through June 30th, 2020. – We have a motion, is there a second? – I don’t believe he can make the motion. – Well, I’ll entertain a motion. – I will move, so moved. – And thank you.
– Second. And seconded by Lindstrom, any discussion? Trustee Lawson. – I do have a question,
’cause in the 2017 HLC Report, it noted multiple places that it’s unclear how these groups were built
and how they interact. We don’t have any
benchmarks or real reports of what these advisory
groups are providing, so my question is, can we put into place a process to expand the
diversity of the members of these advisory committees? At minimum we should look to see if there’s ways to minimize
some advisory committees where one company holds multiple seats, to diversify the
viewpoint that we receive. So I think that could be helpful in providing answers to HLC next time. – That’s a great idea. I think that’s on target, something that we always work toward. And I’m sure the the faculty and staff who oversee these advisory committees can work in that direction. – [Jerry] Good, thank you. – I might recommend, I’d talked to Dr. McCloud about this while I was on Learning Quality, about an explanation about the Advisory Committee’s work, how they’re selected, how often they meet, how the faculty of those areas use them. He and Dr. Singh try to attend all of those Advisory Committee meetings, and so I think the process is in place. It may simply be that we
needed a reporting process to the board, at a retreat or otherwise, about how those things are used because I had the same
questions Trustee Lawson had. So I reached out to Dr. McCloud and he explained them very well to me, at least to my satisfaction. But the rest of the board may
need to hear that as well. – Yeah.
– Well I think the HLC report states on page 18 to 46, quote, “It’s unclear how
these advisory groups process “was to review programs,
evaluate and inform “the college’s general
education outcome process.” Another quote, “No
mention of the benchmarks “for performance or
specific sets of targets “for advisory groups.” There’s a few more quotes,
so I think it’s important since HLC is our accreditation process, that if they’re not seeing this, this is something that we need to be able to come back to them. – What HLC is actually after
is effectively an explanation, but one that we actually have in place. What we do not have is a written document that details that. But all of those benchmarks are in place, all of those checkpoints, in terms of who serves, terms for service, which differ between programs. Those things are in place. What we do not have is we
do not have them written into a single document,
and so that’s something we can accomplish. – [Angelina] I appreciate that, thank you. – And I think greater
scrutiny by the board on the effectiveness of
the Advisory Committees are what they, contributing,
being taken seriously by the faculty. I think that’s a terrific idea. And so I’m sure Dr. McCloud
will be all over that one. – [Jerry] Trustee Ingram. – The other thing I wanted to add to that, I think it’s a really
good idea, Trustee Lawson, that you’ve made that recommendation, because I’m sure that there are some of us who sit on advisory committees
of other organizations throughout the community, and we wanna make sure
that what we are sharing is valued too, so I think
it’s a really good idea for both in terms of collaboration, and work across our
community, so thank you. – [Jerry] Monthly Report to the Board. – Sure, before you see,
you have the report. As always, it’s excellent. – [Jerry] Did we vote on
the advisory committees? – [Terri] No. – I don’t think so.
– I don’t think we did. – It was discussion.
– All in favor, signify by saying aye. – [All] Aye. – Opposed, motion carries. Monthly Report. – The report to the board
you have before you, it chronicles a wonderful
array of activities and involvement by members
of our faculty and staff, all working toward the same thing, and that’s student success. Tonight we’re going to
do a lightning round and, Karen, I’d like
to ask you to go first. – Sure, we’re kind of
closing out our fiscal year, so we have a number of
people that are involved in various leadership,
cohorts, and organizations, we’ve just done our nominations
for our KCCLI again, and one that I wanted
to really highlight is we had five people participate in chamber leadership
programs this past year, which is great, because
those those cohorts come to campus, and a number
of people then speak to them, and we give them tours. Tomorrow at the Overland Park graduation, Jeff Hoyer, who participated,
was our representative, was elected by his class to
be the speaker of his class. So he’s going to be the speaker tomorrow. So when you see Jeff,
congratulate him on that. And then the other
thing I wanted to share, which was something kind
of unique that happened towards the, in the middle
of the graduation process. We work jointly with
Kate, and the foundation, and Workforce Partnership, faculty, Janice Blansit’s area, but we had students that were going through GED
program and the ESL program. And one of the things we wanna do is get ’em a work
credential at the same time. So they went through a welding credential, as well as getting an OSHA credential. They also made a smoker,
which they donated to the culinary program
here on campus as well too, so you can see some of their fine work. But I just wanna share
that as a unique example of some things that we’re doing to help place people into the workplace and get them good-paying jobs where we have these gaps
that we’re really trying to fill a lot of jobs with
the low unemployment rate. So that was a unique thing. Burlington was also involved, and very helpful in that process too. So, that’s my report. – And Karen, I was pleased in the, and Chris I’m probably
gonna get the title wrong, but the recent newsletter
that went out electronically, of the young man that took the CDL course and now started his own fleet. That was pretty cool,
thank you, it was great. – Dr. Weber. – [Randy] Okay I wanna talk
about enrollment if I can. In the spirit of lightning though, I have no presentation, no handout, so bear with me and my numbers. – Thank you for adhering
to the spirit of lightning. – We talked a little bit historically about the decline in
enrollment and its impact. So I wanna give a little
bit of comparison, but then I wanted to frame enrollment around really our focus on
access and student success, and that, you know I talk
about this nationally and I was in a meeting yesterday, and we were talking about how are we gonna prepare
schools who are essentially east of the Rockies and not Texas for this declining
enrollment that’s gonna come for the next couple of decades. So we’re not immune to that. So I’ve got some numbers here from National Student Clearinghouse. As a comparison, they have
three years worth of data. They’re kinda the utmost
numbers of enrollment data across the country. So two-year colleges,
which we’re a sector of, over the last three years, have been down to 10.2%,
whereas we’re down 3.8, so yes we’ve been down
over the last three years but we’re down just over a third of what the rest of the community colleges across the country are. Our largest loss has been in our 24 plus, our adult students, because of workforce, and workforce training
programs in community colleges. The rest of the country,
and community college is down 12.3%. We’re down 11.2, that’s
where we’re about balanced, so when you see that 10.2 to 3.8 overall, where that gap is, it’s
because we’re up in 18 to 23, we’re up in high school age, we’ve done a lot of work to do that and to mitigate that loss. Provide a little more
perspective here, even locally, we’ve talked a little bit
about being down this summer, so we’re down about 4.4%
this summer, head count, but I can tell you that
MCC and KCK are both down over 5%, and so it’s really
regional, and workforce, and kind of weathering
this enrollment storm that’s going on. So those are the numbers. But I wanna spend a little more time talking about some of
the access and success, because amidst those numbers are some really powerful
things that we’ve done. I’ve shared with you before
the removing barriers work that we’ve done, which is
really kind of focusing on helping students,
their experiences at JCCC, better dictate their successes here versus maybe prior experiences
at other institutions and baggage they bring. Our strategic enrollment team has had some highlights over
the last number of years. This fall our Hispanic student population reached a high of 1,777. So despite our enrollment dip
over the last number of years we’ve increased our Hispanic students by 3.85% in the last five years. A lot of work has gone into
that strategic enrollment. Our first time in college is flat. For high-school students,
as we talk about regularly, are up 13.5%. The decision the board
made a couple years ago, three years ago, was a courageous decision to implement a metro rate. We’re up over 25% with metro
rate population in three years. That was something that’s really helped with us reaching the region, and it helped a little bit with our diversity numbers as well. And an upcoming initiative
that we’re doing that we’re really excited about, is called Success Opportunity Semester, and what we’re doing is
we’re taking students who have historically been
put on academic suspension because they failed
their probation semester, and what we’ve done is we told ’em you can’t come back for a while, and their probation was pretty loose as far as the support they got. And we’re saying, well, you
can come back conditionally. You need to take this course, you need to meet, it’s a
learning strategies course, you need to meet with a counselor, so if you’ll, if you’ll be willing to maintain your enrollment, but take advantage of our
wraparound support opportunities, we’ll let you continue enrollment. So our teams were really excited. That was an organic thing that came up from a number of departments
across the country, or, excuse me, across the college. So those were access
things that we worked on. And then real swiftly, I
just wanted to highlight a couple of success initiatives, because despite our declining enrollment, and you hear me talk a lot when
we give the pathways updates about the successes in
the pathways cohorts, but we don’t really get
to talk about grad rate, ’cause we just finished
our three-year cohort. But our colleges
graduation rate for IPEDS, is what we use for
national comparison data, has increased by over 50%
in the last three years. We had graduation rates
that were 14, 15, 16% for three years prior,
and those are normal. The national average was
about 15%, even a little high. Our graduation rates
have the last three years been 23, 22, and 24%. For a college in a state that
does not value graduation upon transfer as some states do, the work that our teams have
done across the college, and it’s truly been a
collaborative effort, is to be commended. So our graduation rate
growth has been really good. And then the last thing
is the amount of students receiving awards, you know again, we decreased in enrollment this past year, but we had 77 more students
earn degrees or certificates than years prior. Last year we had 2,985,
this year we had over 3,000. We had 3,062 students earn an award, and we awarded 152 additional
degrees and certificates. So just, I say that
because oftentimes we look from a revenue standpoint,
or who’s taking advantage of an educational opportunity standpoint, and we get concerned about enrollment, and we don’t always take time to recognize that those who are taking advantage of it are succeeding at a higher rate than we have here in
significant amount of years. – Randy if I could, take 60 seconds, and explain, when you said
the state doesn’t value transfer of graduation, right? Speak to what exactly that means. – Yeah, so in Kansas,
what happens is we have what we call a statewide articulation, but really when a student graduates from Johnson County Community College, his or her courses are
evaluated at a course level by the program at the
transfer institution. There are states that say, when you have your associate’s degree, you will no longer take
freshmen/sophomore level courses, you’ve completed your gen ed’s, focus on the junior level
hours at your institution. Or states like Florida, where they have, and in California,
where their universities are so highly enrolled they say, you must get your associates
as a transfer student prior to enrolling at the university. So those are statewide initiatives where transfer’s valued more, or the completion of a degree
is valued more at transfer. – Trustee Lawson, then Musil. – Thank you Dr. Weber. I mean the data that you’re compiling is a lot of work, so I appreciate you doing the lightning round. I have a question about
the decrease is 3.8% over three years, but the
country was, you said 11? – The country was 10.2. – Two, okay, do we know
why this is happening? – Well a lot of it is, and we talked a lot about it a little bit before, is community college
enrollment is counter-cyclical with the economy. So most people, particularly adults, non-traditional students, will
come to a community college for workforce training. And that’s usually when
they can’t find a job. Right now unemployment
is as low as it’s been, we’ve been in the longest
recovery from a recession that we’ve ever had. And so students aren’t coming
looking for job training, jobs are begging them to come with the least amount of qualifications that they’ve had in generations. And so we’re experiencing
that, and that’s why I point out our 18 to 23 is still up 1.3%, so we’re growing in our
traditional age students. Our first time in college is growing, it’s our adult students that we’re just, that are down because
there are so many jobs, which is a good thing. but we still wanna look and say, how can we make sure that
we’re doing career training, and maybe they have
jobs, but they don’t have family sustaining or supporting wages, and so I think that we
still have some work to do in that initiative. But that’s why it’s
consistent across the country is the economy. – So I’ve heard a lot of
articles say exactly that, but do we know from our
Johnson County residents, have we talked to them specifically about why they are not coming here? – I think we talked to a number. I think one of the hardest
thing in enrollment in college is it’s not
really a controlled group. We don’t have access to every resident in Johnson County to complete a survey. There’s work out there
and we’ve talked with IR about doing like non-enrolling
student surveys and that, but usually that’s somebody
who has expressed interest but didn’t complete
the enrollment process. But somebody who doesn’t express interest, you just, you watch those trends, and that’s where trend
data provides value. As yes enrollment goes up,
’cause there aren’t jobs, but I guess I’d entertain a way and work with our IR team to try to figure how to access those individuals. But it’s hard, it’s hard to do. – Yeah, I’d be curious to actually know from our residents why there’s a continual year after year decrease. I just think that should
be, that’s valuable. – Trustee Musil. – [Greg] Well, and IR stands
for institutional research? – [Randy] That is correct. – [Greg] Thank you. (laughs) My acronym hate, fear. When you say graduation rates, define that, that is
getting your certificate or degree within X amount of time? – Within, yeah, so the way the
graduation rates are defined by IPEDS, which is the national data set, is 150% of your program. So for a community college,
a two-year college, you get three years to do it. At a baccalaureate school
you’d get six years. So within 150%, which is why, when we show our most
recent graduation rate data, and we’re gonna talk more about this as part of the KPIs for the retreat that we’re planning, I think, in August, you would have to take the fall 15, or now the fall 16 cohort, give them three years to
graduate in spring of ’18, and then you have to throw all that stuff into the National Student Clearinghouse, then you get everybody’s report. So we just had our
graduates of our fall ’16 incoming class, but it’s gonna take us all fall and into the spring to get it into the system
and get comparison data back. – [Greg] Great, thank you. – [Jerry] Any other questions? – [Janice] I would just ask
you to speak to the competition for the 18 to 23 year
old in our community. – It’s extremely
competitive, the competition for 18 to 23. And I would say the, or
the competition for adults is competitive too, we
made a lot of headway when the predatory schools
were taken out of the market. Some administrative changes recently have allowed ’em a little
more into the market. We’re seeing some of those closures again. But where it’s, every
education institution’s trying to find a way to get students. We’re actually seeing a big part of what we got and then
counting these numbers, historically we got what
we call reverse transfers. A lot of Johnson County students who would go to a university,
wasn’t the right fit for them, they come home, finish their associates, and then go to a different university. These schools are working really hard at retaining their students now, so we don’t get as many
of those reverse transfers because those schools
are doing a better job of keeping ’em there. – [Janice] Thank you. – [Jerry] Trustee Lindstrom. – Randy you mentioned, you mentioned the metro rate. Has there been any kind
of reaction to that from other colleges in
the metropolitan area, on the Missouri side, who have instituted a similar program? – I’m not strategic. I think there have been
some examples of programs and some, we’ve had discussions with some of the other institutions. I’ll tell you, a big reason we did it is we used to have affiliation agreement where certain students
and certain programs were able to get reduced
rates for those program, those courses, and it
was a very, very hard program to administer,
and it felt a lot of times like a student, like a
gotcha, or a bait-and-switch, and by simplifying the process, and saying if you come over here, doesn’t matter what program you’re in, doesn’t matter what courses
you take in a program, this is your rate, it has made
it a much simpler process. We have way more students, and way, way, way fewer complaints. – [David] Thank you. – [Jerry] Dr. Sopcich. – [Joe] KCK has a metro rate. – They do?
– Sure. It’s not that uncommon, and of course you’ve seen the border
shmorder deal from UMKC, in the competition for students. I can tell you that some presidents aren’t thrilled with the aggressiveness of our advertising and
marketing in those other areas, but I’m sure that contributes
to the success we’ve enjoyed. All right, thank you Randy. Dr. McCloud. – We’ve had a lot of busy,
busy, busy things going on in the spring. In the last few weeks, however, things that I’d like to update on, we’ve had a lot of conversation about saving students money
through the utilization of OER, and that is open
educational resources. The state has taken on an opportunity to create an OER council to look deeper into what we can do as a sector, not just as individual schools. And to wit, we have actually put forward one of our faculty members, and today I received
notice that Barry Bailey, reference librarian, who is the person who heads up our OER Council on campus has been seated, of the
19 community colleges, 10 representatives from community colleges were placed on that council. And I think that we have shown very well that Barry was able to
obtain one of those seats, and so as we move forward
over the next several months, that group will be looking
at a statewide OER initiative involving all of the
colleges and universities in an attempt to create a database of usable information that we’ll be able to bring forward for students. We are also in the offing to continue working on our biotechnology program. I spent three days over the last weekend in Austin with our biotechnology faculty at the Systemic Change Institute, looking at how we can better leverage what we already had in place, and the equipment and facilities that we previously utilized, as well as connectivity
to other universities to build an infrastructure,
whereby our biotech program will have better transfer
opportunities for students. The largest issue in the field is that since we have built this program over the last nine years, the field itself has evolved to the AA
not being the end goal, but many universities
have dived into the idea of biotechnology in such a way that the bachelor’s degree has now become more so accepted as an
upper division degree that allows students not only to get an entry-level position but to advance into management. To wit, just yesterday,
Fort Hayes brought forth a biomechanical engineering
degree at the bachelors level, and Kansas State also brought
forth a bioengineering degree, which we will be looking
to articulate with. We’ve already been working
with the University of Kansas, who has inaugurated a biotechnology degree three years ago at the Edwards campus, and we’re looking to make sure
that more of our credit hours transfer there as well. So the field continues to grow, and we continue to try and
stay on the cutting edge by being smarter about how
our curriculum is designed so that it can transfer
into more of these new and emerging degrees, so that
our students won’t be trapped in a position where
they have fewer options as the field continues to evolve. – That’s great, thank you, Mickey. Lastly, as many of you know, at the end of May we held
our major commencements. We have two commencements on Friday. They’re quite the, they’re
quite the event to pull off. It’s an incredible team
effort across campus to make that work. The campus always looks beautiful. The logistics are wonderful. The inside of the gym was fantastic. I can’t come up with enough superlatives to describe what goes into that. This year was extra special, as many of you know. Those that were there, we had to conduct an emergency evacuation, for real. And I can’t say enough
great stuff about our PD. Chief Russell, our emergency preparedness. Alisa Pacer, just an
absolutely wonderful job. That gym was vacated in,
it had to be record time. And so I think one of the things we’re gonna work on in
our facilities master plan is install greater air conditioning in the basement of the gym. (audience laughs) But, you know and when
something like that happens, you never know, you always
have to play it safe, and you have to do, and
you have to execute. And everyone did a fantastic job. Randy mentioned earlier the
growth rate in graduations. That just doesn’t happen by coincidence. That is a huge effort on the part of many people across campus. And specifically, you have
to credit the hard work of the faculty, and our student services, and everyone who comes together
to work on student success. And so to celebrate that, we’re gonna, a little snip, and I think that’s gonna
be on social media, Chris, just to celebrate graduation. So, if we could run that. This is a behind-the-scenes
shot of the evacuation itself. (audience laughs)
So we, we had an embedded member of our staff. (gentle music) – I can’t believe my time has come to say thank you to the various people during my stay here. – I am so thankful for the experiences that I have made and to experiencing. – We get so supported and it’s given me so much fun and that’s why I’m here flowing tears. I could not have picked a better place to go to school. (crowd cheering) – I’d like to thank all of the professors, the soccers and all the students where it’s amazing, to be missed. – The community at JCCC is incredible, there is none like it. – I am excited for the next chapter and I’ll always carry with me the experiences that I gained here. – You may now move your tassel from the right to the left. – We did it! Graduation 2019, I’m so excited, my future’s here, it’s on its way. – [Woman] Congratulations
to you, our new graduates. – You are the reason we are here. Congratulations on this
important milestone in your life. – [Woman] I am so proud to
have (speaking faintly). We’ll continue to (speaking faintly). – I’m a student at Johnson
County Community College. (gentle music) – [Joe] That’s terrific. (Board applauds) Thanks to you and your staff
for putting that together. – [Man] Video Services did the hard work. – Really, Video Services, that’s terrific. That’s what we’re all about. Those shots of student success and celebration of their
accomplishment here, that’s what this college is about, and that’s why we’re here. So thank you all very much. – I just wanted to say, Dr. Sopcich, I mean this 43-page board report that we always get attached
to our board packet is just something that
I, it’s always delightful to be able to read. And I don’t know if the
public has ever had a chance to read this, but it just highlights so much of all the accomplishments, our faculty, our students,
our administration. It goes into such detail of
specific events that happen. The excitement that was
going on around there. I have not been able to find this online, but is there any way that
the public could see this? I mean this is, this is amazing. – Yeah it’s a great piece. Usually in the neighborhood of anywhere, 40 plus or minus pages every month. A lot of work goes into that. Perhaps the opportunity to
feature that we can make happen, because it is an incredible chronicle during the course of the
year, of what happens here. – [Man] Board packet is online. – [Angelina] But not, not that. – No, so it shouldn’t be, I agree with you.
– Right, right, right. – That’s much more interesting
than the board packet. – [Woman] Hey.
– Sorry. – [Jerry] Great work, thank you. Trustee Musil. – [Greg] I just wish Dr. McCloud would explain what OER is,
and the impact on students. Because when we talked about affordability and accessibility, this
is the next huge step that we can take to make
this place more affordable. So what does it mean if we had
an open educational resource database statewide or for our college? – If we were able to
finally really leverage a statewide resource for
open educational resources, students would no longer be beholding to necessarily have to buy textbooks. Our instructors would be able to leverage written published
information from the source, from instructors, from all of
our universities and colleges who’ve produced that work,
without the middleman of publishing companies. In some cases, things
like science textbooks that run us 300 to $400 per student, we could mitigate that cost
by buying into a database for maybe $40 a student,
which would allow that student access to all of those same materials, or more current materials. Some of the, some of the
technology around OER has allowed real-time updating
of data and information, so the students always have
cutting-edge information, as opposed to a book that
was copyrighted a year ago having information from even
the previous year to that, it would be real-time data and information that they could use not only to learn but to undergo projects, to talk about infrastructure changes, depending on their, depending on their subject area of study. It really would change the dynamic in terms of student affordability, largely because of the two
things that cost the most money for a student, it is housing,
which we do not worry about as a commuter campus, and textbooks. So the affordability we
provide for our tuition dollars is oftentimes offset by
much higher cost in the text that a student has to purchase
to access that information for their classes. So it would be revolutionary for us in terms of what we’d be
able to do for affordability. – Well and I know it’s not as simple as just technology. It’s got to have content
from faculty members from around the state, or the country. But I think it’s a key
thing to allowing us, for a competitive advantage from cost, from recruiting students, and
from just allowing students to have an opportunity to come here and not spend more on the textbook than they spent on their
three-hour tuition cost. – Yeah.
– Thank you. – Maricopa and Arizona, they use a number, I believe it’s $16 million
that they save their students through OER, now that’s
a huge, gigantic school. – [Man] Yeah, that’s a big school. – But it’s pretty remarkable. – Very good, thank you, appreciate it. I don’t believe we have any old business. I don’t believe we have any new business. So we’ll go to Reports
From Board Liaisons. Faculty Association, Dr. Harvey. – Thank you, sorry I missed
last month’s meeting. I think I’m gonna need extra time tonight to make up for it,
(laughs) but I don’t know if I will go over, I’ll try not to. But I first just wanna say that what I would have normally
said at the May meeting is that we had our annual elections and I am obviously here
so I was re-elected. So I’ll be serving as the president again for another year. This will be my last year
serving as president, I don’t intend to run
again for a third year. Usually two years is
about all the excitement we can stand in this position. but I look forward to another year. Jim Leiker will be the
vice president again. Terri Easley-Giraldo will
once again be our secretary. Eve Blobaum is our treasurer, and Brian Wright is our, what we call UniServ Representative. And then Dennis Arjo serves as
our previous past president, so we have the same
officer group as last year, and I have to say it is a
dream team of fantastic people with incredible talents. And I don’t know how I would have done this last year without them, so I’m sure you’ve heard
a lot of those names and for good reason, because they are all outstanding faculty. I do wanna take a moment
to comment on one item from the last board
meeting, since I wasn’t here to comment on it at the time. Trustee Cook was remarking on discussions we’ve been having surrounding the needs on our campus involving
issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion. And the number of course offerings with elements addressing these, and events on campus were mentioned. One thing that stood out to me most in listening back to the board meeting was the discussion of a decline in the number of ethics reports or complaints of discrimination to HR, and how efficiently HR was
handling ethics complaints. And the point that I wanted to make, that I felt was missing
from the discussion, is that discrimination is very difficult to demonstrate with sufficient evidence, and a lack of cases of
reportable discrimination that are actionable offenses is not really where we wanna set the bar. Many experiences are very
difficult to impossible to report because they’re really subtle. They’re so subtle that the person doing it doesn’t realize they’re
doing it half the time. Microaggressions still
have a very real impact on a person’s ability to thrive and achieve any sort of equality in an organization or institution. And I do feel that this institution still has a lot of work to do. So I look forward to
continued conversations on how we can do better as an institution, but I did wanna point that out, because those were just some points made, and I just felt absent
from that conversation was the reality of all the subtle things that are hard to exactly report, but still are very real, a very real experience for folks. Okay, so I wish I had happy things, like the video of graduation,
which I love graduation that was really good. What a fun time we had. But I do need to talk about some real talk of some substance on
behalf of my colleagues that I represent. So I would like to discuss the
Employee Engagement Survey, sorry, survey, that
trustee Lawson mentioned in her report from HR. A summary of institution-wide results was posted on our website, and I also did forward
that to the board members, in case you didn’t notice it, just so that you had the same thing that we had to look at. I also had, of course,
results from my area, because my dean shared
the ones from my division, so I had very specific ones, which each area got their own, in addition to the college-wide ones. The general takeaway, of course, that we’ve already talked about was that employees at the college generally love working
with their co-workers, and this was consistent
with the faculty responses that I saw. We felt inspired by our co-workers, and all of those things. And generally we like our
immediate supervisors, but of course, as we’ve talked about, senior leadership took a
large hit on this survey. And I did wanna take a second and just list what was in that report, the least favorable survey items, okay? So the questions were, that fell into the least favorable items, When the organization makes changes, I understand why. The senior leadership team of the college values people as their
most important resource. If I contribute to the college success, I know I will be recognized. The senior leadership team is committed to responding to the
results of this survey. I find that one ironic that
that’s on the lowest one. I know how I fit into the
college’s future plans. Okay, so those were the
least favorable items. So of course, I’m going to focus a moment on some of that. So I know that we have listening sessions that have been set up,
that are going to include some faculty opportunities in the fall, whenever everyone gets back. But from what I’ve heard in the past, much of the responsibility on the issues with this survey,
results, and the concerns, much of that responsibility has been put on immediate
supervisors to fix it in the past. And the immediate supervisors are getting pretty good scores. People like their immediate supervisors. So I’ve had a lot of faculty,
I’m just being honest, this is some real talk here today, okay, that are asking how long did the score, how low did the scores need to go before we take it seriously? Like how low, like how low
does it have to get, ‘kay? So that’s the comments
that are being made. So for the purposes of
reflecting on these items, I do wanna speak to a few glaring examples that have impacted the
faculty in last year, and I don’t want you to get too caught up in my specific examples,
because I see them more as symptomatic than I
do these specific examples, but I do feel like I need to give a few. So I have four. Just items that I’m gonna mention, okay. In no particular order. The response that the
draft response to the HLC on shared governance was drafted without faculty involvement,
and that, in itself, is a bit ironic. The second one, after a
contentious negotiation that resulted in us going to impasse, we had a battle around
December and January over a desire to limit
the usual number of awards for faculty deserving an award for service and going above and beyond. And to this particular item, I just wanna say, let’s pick our battles. Is this really the fight that
we want to fight with faculty over the number of awards
recognizing their contributions? A third example, our faculty
chairs are being required to attend 40 hours of
new training this summer in addition to their
regular duties that they do, and there’s not been any
additional compensation for the extra week where many
of them are off-contract. It’s just been rolled into, well, you’re compensated as a chair, so you’re gonna come to
this extra 40 hours of work. Now because it’s a supplemental contract, because it’s not their regular contract, I can only, as the union president, I can only advise them that you can choose to not be a chair. I can’t do anything about the fact that your duties have been changed and you’re not being compensated for this. I can only say, well,
if you guys just decide you won’t be chairs, then they
can’t make you be a chair. But you know many of the faculty are not willing to do anything that’s gonna harm their
departments or their programs. They legitimately care what happens, and they’re very invested,
obviously, in this place. So I just want to throw that one out as another example of there are things the college could do, and
the college has the resources that really impact morale. And a fourth example that I
have that I need to mention is that I noticed very recently a practice of hand picking faculty to serve on important committees. Now it’s great that
we’re on the committees, don’t get me wrong. But for example, the search committee for the replacement for vice
president Larson’s position. Now traditionally, the Faculty Association has been asked to put a representative on a search committee
that’s this high a level. And this isn’t exactly about
the Faculty Association and us, but this is about
it coming from the faculty. Because although I have no
problems with the faculty that were hand selected, the practice of administration handpicking without allowing faculty to
choose their representation, it doesn’t really help with
concerns about transparency and trust issues, and I’m really hoping that this doesn’t reflect a new trend that we’re gonna have where
certain faculty get picked. Because we don’t mind working with them, they’re not so, they don’t
ask those pesky questions we don’t wanna here, or
whatever the motivation is. You know, I realize that I
don’t know all the faculty, but I have colleagues
that among all of us, we know all of the faculty,
and we know their talents, and they might not be
ones that you guys know, or see, or have met. But the whole idea that
a faculty representative is chosen by faculty,
there’s something to that that it just makes for a better sense of trust and transparency. So those are just some ideas of things that really do impact morale, really do impact the faculty’s feelings about the upper administration. And I hated to give
those specific examples ’cause I don’t want it to focus
in on one particular person, or area, or part of the
upper administration of the college. But I want it to just
show, because I’m faculty, that’s kinda how it comes out. I just wanted to show some just examples of our symptomatic issues
of not feeling valued, not feeling valued, and I think
that’s what you’re seeing, and not having trust, not feeling like there’s enough transparency. It’s not enough to just tell
us what you’re gonna do, that’s not communication. That alone does not
count as communication. Okay, so finally I wanna
end my report with this. I wanted to take a moment and reflect on the purpose and goals of the Johnson County Community
College Faculty Association. I wanted to share this with you. This is from our bylaws, and I don’t know if they’ve ever been changed. I imagine these were from the beginning, back in the ’70s when we first started. But our purpose and goals,
these are our purpose and goals. “Number one, to work for
the educational welfare “of all students at Johnson
County Community College. “Number two, to work for the professional “and personal welfare
of the faculty and staff “at Johnson County Community College. “Number three, to develop and promote “the adoption of such ethical practices, “personnel policies,
standards of preparation “and performance as mark a profession.” “And number four,” there’s
only six, I’m halfway. “To promote and develop
a continuing program “to improve instruction, to
upgrade professional preparation “and to improve working conditions, “fringe benefits, and salaries
through formal negotiations “with the Board of Trustees. “Number five, to enable members
to speak with a common voice “on matters pertaining to
the teaching profession “and to present their individual “and common professional interests “before the Board of Trustees. “And number six, to
hold property and funds “for the attainment of these purposes.” So that’s our goals and our purpose. And I just wanna point out
that number one has always been about the educational
welfare of our students, because that is why we’re all here. And then second, we’re
interested in the welfare of all the employees at
this institution, too. So although we legally negotiate on behalf of the bargaining unit, we’re interested in promoting the welfare of everyone that works here. So that concludes my report. There any questions? – [Jerry] Trustee Lawson. – [Angelina] Hi, there was a lot stuff in that report.
– I know, sorry. – I don’t know if I got it all, but. – [Melanie] I missed last month,
so I had to make up for it. – Things that I picked up. So you talked about the shared governance. I know in the HLC that was something that was cited on page 10,
saying, “The visiting team “recommends working
collaboratively with the academics “and administration to
establish a clear delineation “of the role and scope of authority “of the various groups and
committees in academics, “as well as establishing
communication protocols “that facilitate shared
governance within the academics.” The interim report that
was sent to HLC in 2019, so that was 2016 and
2019, the second paragraph says, “During the summer of 2018, “the chief executive officer
wrote a policy statement “entitled Shared Governance at JCCC, “which was released to faculty at large “during a public meeting in August.” That doesn’t sound like
what HLC is asking. So that is something that, for me, I’m looking at ways to
be able to facilitate what you’re talking about
as far as shared governance. The ethics reporting line was something that also stood out to me,
because I was ill last month, so I was not able to attend. But I reviewed the video
and the minutes as well. The speed rate does
not equal satisfaction. It’s really the person
that’s coming forward to find out if they are satisfied with the results of the process. And so I think that was something that really stood out for me, as far as when we get excited about the number of how quick we get through
ethics reporting line, is that really the best
measurement of success? The leadership you mentioned,
I didn’t catch that question on that one, but the cherry-picking, like I think you used a different term, but that was mine, the way I grabbed it. The search committee, without
allowing specific faculty in certain groups, I know
that was something else that was cited in our HLC, page 109 of the System’s Appraisal Feedback Report stating, the overwhelming
thing that I noticed is, quote, “It’s unclear how
these processes were evaluated “or decisions made by
the president’s cabinet, “but it’s unclear how
those decisions were made.” So there was a lot of comments
about very similar things of just not understanding
how decisions are made and wanting the process. And so I’m just, I hear you, and I’m just, I’m taking notes, so thank you. – I’m looking forward to
our next Collegial Steering because we did discuss shared governance in Collegial Steering,
and I would say, again, to remind the full board that
those are representatives from the Faculty Senate as
well as Educational Affairs, and the Faculty Association,
plus administration. I was, and Nancy and
I, Trustee Ingram and I were present with that
shared governance statement. And my sense, Dr. Harvey,
was that that was agreed upon in that section. Shared governance is kind of interesting as well as what I share
gets accepted and approved, and if my piece doesn’t
get accepted or approved then it’s not shared governance. So this communication issue continues and goes on and on. I have made, I’ve made several notes here in terms of the whole engagement survey, because I think a piece
that we need to look at is what kinds of activities were going on during that evaluation period. And if the waters are calm
and nothing is taking place, then scores tend to be high. We did go through an HLC, we
did go through an impasse, as you properly described. We’ve gone through a change in facilities where some people aren’t happy about where their lab is going to be. We’ve gone through
discussion about cut scores in a certain department,
that they’re still not happy about what those scores should be. Your point, and I don’t want
to get into a debate tonight because that’s not the
intent of this session, that’s why I’m looking
forward to Collegial Steering. But I think it was your point number four that said, we’re really about
development improvement, and yet there is, I
think I sense the concern that why should department heads have to go through additional
training for 40 hours to be a department head, when they’ve been a department head. So I find that whole
discussion interesting and I look forward to it. Trustee Musil, you had a comment? – I just wanna point out that having, and I know not everybody
sees ethics points reports because they’re just presented
to the Audit Committee, but if you’ve served
on the Audit Committee, and I know that Dr. Cook
wasn’t suggesting last week, and Janelle, when she used to present that in her old position, ethics points reports about how many complaints
we have in various areas, and how fast they’re handled,
and we benchmark those against national educational institutions. Nobody’s suggesting that’s the end-all, ’cause I agree with you. There are other areas that, so we might not report something, but it’s interesting that if we didn’t keep that information, we would be accused of not
benchmarking ourselves. So we take as much information and as many tools as we can, and then we use those to have a dialogue to figure out what else we need to do to make sure those other items on campus, if somebody’s uncomfortable
reporting anonymously through an ethics point about a supervisor or somebody else they
feel is harassing them, we want that reported. And we’ve taken steps, I know when I was on the Audit Committee as either chair of vice chair, to push out more information
so that employees know that that’s available. And I think Janelle would tell us that there’s a trust level among people with ethics points, that it is anonymous, it is responded to, and I would suggest that not every employee that turns in an ethics point complaint is gonna say that I was
satisfied with the result, because sometimes there
might not be enough evidence or they may just, it may just
be a supervisor situation. – Can I just clarify? My comments were not to say anything about how ethics point is being handled, but just to say the context that it was mentioned in was like, you know I think we’re
doing pretty good here, because we’ve got these classes, and we’ve had these events on campus, and we haven’t had, we’ve had
a decline in ethics reports. And so it was the context
that it was used in that I’m saying that doesn’t tell us about the real issues
that I’m concerned about with diversity, equity, inclusion, and I think my colleagues
are concerned about. That doesn’t speak to those. I mean I would hope that we
would do all of those things, but that’s not, that’s
not where we leave it. And so that was what I was wanting to say because I just didn’t hear that said. I’m not saying that
that is not a sentiment shared by the board, but that
was not something I heard in the conversation and
discussion last time, so I wanted to add that part, that that’s not where we set the bar as how many actionable
instances of discrimination. We’ve lowered those, and
we investigate them all, because there’s so much
more to it than that. – I think the difficulty
that this college has had in the eight years I’ve been on the board is that we do a lot of
things very, very well. And so we tend to focus on those things that we don’t do well, and I
think that’s what we’ve seen since Dr. Sopcich. And we try to improve those things. And I’m willing to celebrate ethics point at the same time, figuring out ways that we can even be better. – [Jerry] I’m sorry, Trustee Snider, did you have a comment? – I did, or do. So I’ve worked for a
number of organizations from 50, 100 person organizations up to Fortune Ten companies,
so when I saw these results, they didn’t really jump out
to me as a huge problem. Clearly I think the trend is important to take note of, and we
need to make improvements where we can make improvements, but it’s not, in my view, at all uncommon for people to have a sense of disconnect with where the leadership is going. And people always want
individualized attention. Are there organizations
that you would seek us to model after? I mean, are there two or three that we could look at and investigate? I mean clearly we can go through and address some of the
issues that you brought up, but on a broader sense. I mean these are more
deeper cultural issues that drive these, are there. – So I wouldn’t dare to
try to answer that question on the fly here like this. But I think what I’m speaking
to is there has been, there’s definitely, it’s
been, I think they’re low, and there’s been a decline,
and it keeps getting worse. And you’re right, we’ve had
all kinds of things happen, but how we handle it, I mean
are we handling everything, all of these things that I just listed, are we doing the best
that we can here on this? And this is where it’s coming from. I guess my response is, I
think these are not great and they’ve gone down. And like I mentioned
these different examples, it’s like there are so many
ways that we could do better. I do want to clarify one thing about, no one’s asking that department
chairs don’t have training, the question that has even been mentioned is just that a number of
them have come forward and said, you know, they’re like, it’s a week when I’m off contract, it’s 40 hours, I’m supposed to come, it’s additional to what I’ve
done in the past as chair. There’s nothing wrong with having it, I’m all for it, I’m all for the training. It’s the fact that they’re
not being compensated for anything specifically for that week. It’s just being rolled in
to what they were getting for being a chair that’s on
call, you know, whenever. And it is a full week of their summer that is off their nine-month contract, if they’re a nine month employee. And so that was my example. So it’s not that they’re
not wanting training, it’s not, I don’t know, some
of ’em might not want training but I think that they should have it. I totally support it. It’s the added-on thing,
this is a small thing, but these little things add up, these are people that are investing and taking leadership
positions, voluntarily really, in their different departments. And so I’m just saying like little things that the college can do, that
make a difference in morale, that was just an example. As far as the definition
of shared governance, when you say that everybody agreed to it, I’ll just say that it was
presented to all of us as this is what it will
be for the college, and it was never at a place
where anybody was asked to solicit, like give
feedback, or input into it, it was this is what it will be. So just to clarify that, just to make sure we’re sticking with facts,
is that that document that you discussed, was not,
there was no faculty input into the drafting of that document. So there was, here is what
we’re gonna work from, here you go. So I just wanna, I just wanna make sure we’re talking about the same things here and that’s what we’re talking about. So whether or not there should
have been faculty input, we could have that debate later, but I’m just saying
that’s the reality of it. So to say that there’s a bunch of buy-in, or that we agreed to it, or
voted on it or something, that’s not true, it was
just we were given it. So I just think that you,
I just want to encourage all of our leadership
to really think about the battles that they choose with faculty. Are they worth it? And what message does it send
about valuing your employees? And also in what ways
are you giving input, allowing for input in process? Is it after it’s all been done? Then you’re gonna show it to us and then we can complain about it and you’ll have the listening session and then you will not change anything and this is already what its gonna be, is that shared governance? Is that what you think it is? So if that’s what the direction that this institution’s going, you’re gonna continue to
have complaints from faculty. So I don’t wanna go on
in a big rant some more, but I’m just being honest, that’s what I’m.
– Dr. Harvey, thanks. – Paid to do.
– You’re in a difficult position, and you’ve got a lot of viewpoints from your staff, from the faculty, and we appreciate that, and thank you.
– Thank you. – [Angelina] Mr. Chair,
I just have a question for Trustee Snider.
– We’ll have ongoing discussion, I’m sorry? – Can I have a question
for Trustee Snider, his comment that he made? So you mentioned that you’ve
looked at other corporations and their statistics on
Employee Engagement Survey. What is an appropriate percentage that would be alarming for them? – I don’t have any of
that data in front of me. I’ve gone through these types of surveys at past organizations,
and I could probably track some of that down, but
I don’t know offhand. – I’d like to see something like that, to see what you’re comparing that to, because, I mean, Judy
Korb, who was the last internal auditor, felt that 15% was enough to initiate these surveys, to collect data to understand what’s going on, and we have not since
hired an internal auditor since that time, and
that position’s actually been disbanned, so we.
– We do have an Internal Audit Committee, and I don’t know that Judy Korb was an internal auditor. But we have a whole internal audit too. – The organizational chart
shows an external person that’s not underneath the president, that reports to the board. – No the whole structure has been changed.
– And that person, right, but then we don’t have
checks and balances. – Yes we do, yes we do.
– How so? – Well we have a whole internal audit team that meets with a lot of departments and that whole team is
a checks and balance. Now if you’re talking about
a specific item on HR, I don’t know that HR has changed, it’s just a matter of how people report. – So the organizational flow chart showed an internal audit service and there was an executive
position that was just for us, it was not connected to anybody else, dotted line to the president,
so there’s a relationship, but that no longer is
there on the flow chart. There’s nobody hiring that position. That’s been disseminated
under the president, so the information flows
up through one person. – The audit department has nothing to do with the engagement study. The audit department, which is now headed by Justin McDaid, I believe
has several other people in that department, and
their responsibility is to perform audits throughout the campus on various processes and procedures. It reports directly to the chair, but there is a dotted line to me as kind of a supervisor. I have no input what,
as far as he’s doing. Dr. Korb was the EVP
whose responsibilities also were HR, and that is how, I think when it’s kind of miswritten, in what I saw, she’s not an auditor, she wasn’t an auditor. And so the engagement study started in, was that staff development? – [Karen] The 2005 one, with
the employee engagement? – In 2005? – Well it was one of the, one of the 13 AQIP projects, and the two executive vice presidents each had some of those 13 projects that then went to a chair
that chaired a committee. And so Dr. Korb, Dr. Korb would have had the employee engagement project that they started the research on, and then implemented in
2015 as an AQIP project. Then again in ’17, and then
operationalized it in ’19. – Right, so who is that executive director of the internal audit, ’cause
online it says it’s vacant. – [Joe] Justin McDaid, and if it’s. – Trustee Lawson, I’m Justin McDaid, I’m currently the
Director of Internal Audit and Advisory Services. And I think what you might be referring to is the current organizational chart as it’s on the website for the college, and that that does state that it’s vacant, but I think that is because I recently assumed those duties from Janelle Vogler, who was director of the department prior, and my understanding is that they update that organizational chart
maybe once a year or so to reflect all the changes
in the organization. So even though it shows vacant right now, I can assure you that it is filled, and I work with a staff of two others. And if you would like, at some point, I would be happy to set
up a meeting with you and show you some of the work that we do, and how we function within the college. – That’d be great.
– Certainly. – [Angelina] Thank you. – Okay, thank you. Next item is at Johnson
County Research Triangle. Trustee Cross could not
be with us this evening, we have no report there. So the Kansas Association of
Community College trustees, Trustee Lawson. – Paperwork, (sighs) okay. Let me just get my bearings. Okay, the KACCT, that’s
the Kansas Association of Community Colleges Trustees, we met on June 7th through the eighth at Barton County Community College. That was very gracious of them to come, and Kate Allen joined us as well, and Dr. Sopcich, and
Trustee Ingram were there. We voted to move our board
member elections to December since the state moved
our general elections from the spring to the fall. So that the group will now know who the current trustees are,
in which we can nominate. I made a motion to retain
the current board members as interim board until
we can vote in December, and that was unanimously voted on. So for us that means that
Trustee Ingram will remain as the Secretary of the KACCT
until December elections for that board. We also voted to use membership funds of which JCCC pays $63,605,
and will be going down actually to 62,025, zero 25,
public funds towards this. We renewed contracts from KACCT. One was the placement of an IT contractor who was not really close to
where the executive director was living, but in the contract, stated that they would
be doing on-site repair, so the concern was the transportation. Was there someone maybe closer
to this executive director? That contract will not be renewed, and options to renegotiate for a flat rate instead of the monthly
billing was something that was discussed and moved forward. I also had concerns about
the KACCT lobbyists. There are still the lobbyists
for the organizations that have conflicts with JCCC interest. Regarding the clients
such as Kansas Coalition for Fair Funding, that used the same, yet used this lobbying firm to work, to amend the state’s constitution to remove equitable and
adequate education funding. Here at Johnson County we
have a lot of protections but our rule partners, the impact on the K through 12
system can be significant. While I knew my no vote would
not impact their renewal, I believe one statement of dissent would result in better agreement. In fact, we were able to
block a significant pay raise by the lobbyists. We amended the contract
to prioritize KACCT against any conflicts,
so that will be written in the contract. The second reason I
voted no on this contract was because of the continuing efforts that this lobbyist did to
use KACCT in the State House, attempting to remove
teacher’s due process. This continues to have a lingering residue as per our results from the
Employee Engagement Survey, and the distrust in our senior leadership. So that was a concern that I brought up. The third is, in the end,
the discussion I brought up about my concerns helped
to save KACCT money and provided a better contract
focused on special needs of the organization, and
of course the public funds coming from Johnson County residents. We also talked about KBOR. There was a hefty packet
that was given to us about the strategic planning efforts. I mentioned that there’s one thing missing in that entire packet from the update was a focus on diversity and inclusion. I mentioned that in inclusive colleges that embrace diversity
is one of the best ways to prepare students for the workplace. Better diversity attracts, of course, young talent to a business and big industry leaders in our community, and have a commitment to
diversity and in equity already in their workplace. The executive director had added that to the KACCT, and will bring that up in important focus on these areas when they talk with KBOR. The next piece we had
is our IT department. There was, in Kansas colleges, there’s been quite a few that
had been targeted for hacking. We had a representative who
worked from the Pentagon that came to tell us that there were more than trillions of dollars in loss and to be aware of and to make sure that we provide data
security for our community. One of the presidents that were impacted mentioned that the level
of impact they experienced was greater than the mill levy rollback that they could’ve provided. I have to agree with that. Does one-time benefit
of $100 or so go back, outweigh the potential devastation that could be unleashed on
someone’s personal data, their credit, and their child’s credit. The last thing that we talked about was the Senate Bill 155, had
a very lively discussion. We discussed at the KACCT
with request to funding for the 2020 education year, and the legislative priorities, which was the program-to-program
articulation agreements that Dr. McCloud talked about earlier, from community colleges with
our higher institutions. I mentioned the importance of adding to the legislative priorities the abilities to add computer
science and technology degrees and certifications to this list. That received broad support
from the community colleges in the room, and I’m
looking forward to seeing the work of KACCT in the State House. The next meeting is set
for September 13th and 14th at Neosho Community College. And then, Trustee Ingram,
did you have anything else to add?
– No. You did a great job. – Thank you.
– Thank you. – Thank you, Trustee Lindstrom. – And that concludes my report. – I just want to follow up on one of the comments
you made, Trustee Lawson. And maybe this should be directed to Tom on the hacking and security thing. We spend a lot of money on
hacking protections, right, and firewalls throughout the college, and within the college, right? – [Tom] Yes. – And under the management
budget passed last year, are you concerned that we’re somehow putting people at risk, that
their personal identification is gonna be stolen, if we don’t, if we roll the mill
levy back to 0.15 mills? – [Tom] No. – Thank you. – Yeah and I would say,
for the full board, again, when we have the quarterly audit meetings, and Justin McDaid has spoken, both our internal audit process, but particularly our
external audit process thinks we have some of
the finest protections in place, and we talked
about that at the last meeting report that we gave. So I feel really good that
we’ve got ample resources and great talent in our
whole technology field. But the reality is, there
certainly is fraud out there and some of us personally have probably been engaged with that. – [Man] Have been victims of it. – Victims of it, not engaged, yeah. Well, maybe, maybe. (audience laughs) Maybe the other way, no, victims
of it, yeah you’re right. Okay, Foundation, Trustee Musil. – Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Foundation’s Some Enchanted Evening Sponsorship Committee met on June 6th. They’re working hard at
connecting individuals and community partners
so they can raise money in support of our scholarship programs. Pam Popp is the sponsorship chair, Mike and Susan Lally are
the event chairs for 2019, and thanks to their
work, more than 300,000 has already been raised
for student scholarships. It will be held on November 9th, 2019 at the Overland Park Convention Center. And most people here
know that is the largest single scholarship fundraising effort that the college engages in each year. The Foundation’s Executive Committee will meet on June 25,
that will be the final foundation activity under the
current chair, Mary Birch, as Foundation president. We’d like to thank her
for her tremendous effort and support, as always. The new president will be Suze Parker, and she will begin her term on July 1. Foundation is proud to report that the college recently
received a generous gift from the Philip A. and
Betty M. Calabrese Trust. A significant gift will be used to establish a new scholarship available to Johnson County
Community College students for the upcoming academic year, and generous contributions like this are key to our ability to continue to give more than $1
million in scholarships to students, and on
behalf of the Foundation I want to thank everybody who contributes, through Some Enchanted Evening, through any other scholarship program. I know we recently got a
solicitation in the mail as board board members, for the Foundation
President’s Scholarship. We get it for our President’s Scholarship. Whatever you give to, I
hope you’ll find some way to give some money to the Foundation so that we can help students afford books, tuition, and other necessities. That concludes my report. – Thank you. The next item is the Consent Agenda. The Consent Agenda is an item where we deal with a
number of routine items. If any trustee has an item they’d like to take
off the Consent Agenda, I would entertain that now. If not, I would entertain a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. – So moved.
– Second. – We have a motion and a
second, any discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. – [All] Aye. – Opposed, motion carries. We do have an executive session, another executive session this evening. I would like to entertain a motion to go into executive session for the purpose of discussing an individual employee’s performance pursuant to Kansas Open
Meetings Act Exception relating to non-elected personnel. The session will last 60 minutes. We would like to invite Joe
Sopcich, and Tanya Wilson to join us in this executive session. I would entertain a motion. – So moved. – Lindstrom, seconded by.
– Second. – Musil, we will, it’s 7:28. Can you take a break and be back at 7:40? – 7:35.
– 7:35? We’ll start at 7:35. We are back in open session. We need to return to executive session. Once I find the paper here, to discuss an individual
employee’s performance pursuant to the Kansas
Open Meetings Act Exception relating to non-elected personnel. This session will last up to 60 minutes, and not exceed 60 minutes. We would like to invite Joe
Sopcich and Tanya Wilson to join us. And I would entertain a motion to do so. – So moved. – Second. – We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. – [All] Aye. – Opposed, motion carries. This session will
officially start at 8:37, and not to exceed one hour. Did you get that Terri? We are back from the executive session, in open session. We have one, no action was
taken in executive session. But we have one item of business to take. I would like to entertain a motion, the recommendation of
the Board of Trustees that the college presidents
employment agreement be approved in a new four-year
contract as presented. – So moved. – Second. – We have a motion and a
second, any discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. – [All] Aye. – Opposed? – No. – We have a one, two, three,
four, five to one vote, and it is approved. I will move for adjournment. – You ask for a motion, you mean? – I’m sorry? – Would you like a motion? I’d like a motion for. – I would move that we,
a nondebatable motion to debate, I mean to adjourn. – Second. – Seconded, all in favor
signify by saying aye. – [All] Aye. – Opposed, motion carries. (gavel bangs) We are adjourned, thank you. (gentle music)