(piano music) (gavel hammers) – Good afternoon and
welcome to the November 21 meeting of the Johnson
County Community College Board of Trustees. I call this meeting to order, would you please join me for
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. – We have three trustees
I think calling in. Trustee Cross had another
college event tonight, Trustee Lawson has a
work conflict tonight, and Trustee Lindstrom is
returning from Wichita, where he’s chair of the
Kansas Turnpike Authority. So if you’re on the
phone, would you identify? Lee I see your name on
the screen, are you there? Angelina, are you there? – [Angelina] I am, I’m here. – Thank you. David
Lindstrom are you there? – Okay, so let the record show that Trustee Lawson is on the phone, and we expect that the
others will call in. Lee, are you there now? His name pops up but he doesn’t- are you there Lee? Well, we’ll see if he picks up. I’d like to welcome
Allan Hallquist tonight, he is our counsel board- Board counsel in the absence of Tanya Wilson, and Allan will be joining our
meetings for that purpose. Role call and recognition
of visitors, Ms. Leicht. – [Ms. Leicht] This
evening’s visitors include Gloria van Rees, Roberta Eveslage, Dick Carter, and Allan Hallquist. – Thank you, welcome,
appreciate you being here. Awards and recognitions? – Dr. Cook we have no awards
or recognitions tonight. – Okay, thank you. The open forum is the
next item on the agenda. It’s the section of the board agenda, the 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 established grievances
or suggestion processes or are otherwise subject to
review by the college or board. We have two registered
speakers this evening. When you come to the podium, I’d ask you to state your name and your address, city and state. And the first is Beth Edmonds. Beth? Lee, have you joined us? – [Dave] I have, this is Dave Lindstrom. – David’s on, and let the record show
that Lindstrom is there. Okay go ahead. Thanks, thanks Beth. – Good evening, my name is Beth Edmonds. I live in Lawrence, Kansas. I am speaking to you tonight as President of the Faculty Senate at Johnson County Community College. As President of the Faculty Senate and Chair of the JCCC
Mathematics Department, I work very closely
with adjunct professors who teach a great many of our students. In my department, a typical fall semester
finds up to 65% or more, well over 2,000 math
students in classrooms taught by adjuncts. We the full time faculty,
the administration, the Board of Trustees and
students put well learned faith in the expertise and professionalism of our adjunct colleagues. We must understand that taking
good care of our students is synonymous with taking good
care of our adjunct faculty, but more than that, it means listening to and learning from those faculty members. Please bear with me while
I share and then bust the three most prevalent myths I hear about adjunct faculty for you. Myth #1: Adjunct instructors are just here to collect a paycheck and go home. The Faculty Senate’s
Adjunct Affairs Committee would like me to assure
you this generalization is not appropriate. Many adjunct faculty are
very active on this campus in many capacities including
curriculum development, text book selection and mentoring. That is all in addition
to the teaching work that they are paid to do. Myth #2: Adjunct faculty are
short-timers here at JCCC, they cannot be considered
long-time employees, their voice should not
be taken into account when making policy or procedural decisions as they are transitory
and not invested in the workings of the college. This could not be further from fact. In my own department, we
have 28 adjunct faculty with more than 20 semesters of service. Of those, 12 have more than
50 semesters of service, and of those, two have more
than 100 semesters of service. If you’re doing the math, which I am, greater than 100 semesters
of service would translate to over 30 years. Adjunct professors from
across campus return to JCCC semester after semester
to do what they love. Perhaps more importantly,
it would be wrong to exclude 65% of the teaching
faculty of this college from meaningful, direct
participation in the governance of the college. Myth #3: There are two
types of student experiences in the academic branch. One, if you have a full-time instructor and a completely different one if you have a part-time instructor. This is much like the GTA system
at a four-year institution. Again, this couldn’t be
further from the truth. Our adjunct faculty are
not student employees and many hold more advanced degrees or more work experience than
their full-time colleagues. Furthermore, all our faculty are evaluated on a regular basis to ensure
the quality of their teaching. As chair of my department, I meet many, many students
that are not my own. Students who have issues
or questions or concerns come to my office. Students wanting help with the
right math course enrollment come to see me, etc. I know for a fact that
students do not perceive full-time or adjunct,
they perceive professor. No matter who that professor is, they want them to be the best and the most knowledgeable
teacher they’ve ever had. This is what we all want for our students. I was surprised to learn this week that this viewpoint of adjunct faculty is not as uncommon as I thought
among full-time faculty. There are approximately
325 full-time faculty and over 700 part-time. In any vote, if all adjunct faculty vote and vote the same way they would win. But I caution anyone from
following this line of reasoning. The totality of academic
thought and discourse is not about voting, it is about discussion and collaboration designed to do what is right and best for teaching and learning and for JCCC. To this end, I can put
everyone’s mind at ease, full-time and part-time
faculty have worked side-by-side for eight years
on the JCCC Faculty Senate. Since we are not a faculty body charged with putting out fires or forced into quick reaction, we have the luxury of
having deep discussions about issues with representative
faculty from across campus, including adjunct faculty. We are the firewall that, when acknowledged and empowered, is intended to stop
conflagrations before they begin. I am proud to add that through the auspicious of the JCCC Faculty Senate, over the last few years
there have often been an adjunct faculty member on this board’s Collegial Steering Committee, and then President Sopcich’s
Faculty Leadership meetings. We have ushered important cross-divisional faculty initiatives into being and have done all this
while utilizing a crucial one professor, one vote model. My previous two
presentations to this board centered around shared governance and the ideas of diversity,
equity and inclusion. I am happy to report
that the DEI Taskforce is moving forward with its good work on behalf of the entire JCCC community. In addition, the shared
governance task forces that I mentioned in those
previous presentations are working to develop
models that will embody the ideals of shared
governance and inclusion. They are, unfortunately, not there yet. With that said, what has
become clear to me lately is that an aspect of
inclusion that is overlooked in this process of DEI
and shared governance is the inclusion of adjunct faculty. Without the inclusion of adjunct faculty in the same collaborative
body as full-time faculty in essential conversations, JCCC cannot reach its
shared governance goals. As I communicated to the
full faculty of the college in an e-mail this last week, any model that emerges from the
current task force processes must meet or exceed the
standards and capabilities that the Faculty Senate
currently provides. We have yet to see any
presentations or documentation that approaches the standard
set by the Faculty Senate. Until we do, we intend
to continue to represent the interest of all faculty at JCCC. Thank you. – Thanks Beth, appreciate your comments. Next is Irene Schmidt. Irene, please? – Good evening. I live in Olathe, Kansas and
this is probably the first time I’ve ever been before the Board, although I have known several of you and had the opportunity to work with you in Collegiate Steering and under revenue, so I appreciate that. I also have just a couple
things I wanna read, so I don’t wanna take up
too much of your time, so thank you for having me. I attended one of the Academic
Faculty Shared Governance Town Halls today, heard a lot of things, not a lot of it was terribly surprising. It was just a lot of
communication and dialogue that’s happening right now. But what I would like to point out is that none of this
dialogue would be happening without the work of the Faculty Senate. The reason, in my opinion, that the Higher Learning Commission has charged this college
to be inclusive of adjuncts is because of the work
that a few faculty put in to create a report based on HLC Feedback. And in that, we agreed a lot with what
the HLC had to point out, that we have to increase communication, improve communication, be more efficient with communication. And we had to address shared
governance at this college. So a couple things I
would like to point out. That is something I just would
like to read for the record. Is that without the work of
the Faculty Senate members, the HLC may not have brought
this to our attention to be inclusive of adjuncts. As far as I’m concerned, this is tremendous accomplishment
for the Faculty Senate. It is often overlooked by a narrative that continues to question what faculty need does
Faculty Senate fulfill? Simply put, the need it
fulfills is two-fold. Number one, the Faculty
Senate mission statement addresses that we need to pay attention to shared governance, academic
freedom and the like. This mission is ongoing. Number two, Faculty Senate principles align with our college value statements, which include collaboration
and leadership. The Faculty Senate offers all
faculty a collaborative venue, whether faculty want to
collaborate with us or not, it is there. The seats are there, the welcome is there. It also promotes leadership
opportunities for all, including adjuncts and
providing inclusion with equity in the form of equal voting. I myself was a beneficiary of that. I have been at this college for 22 years, I am a long-term adjunct and in no way part-time nor temporary. I would accept part-time forever, but then that would be on a regular basis, not temporary. I served on the Faculty
Senate Proposal Team in 2011 to 2013. I served the Faculty
Senate from 2013-2017. I served on Collegial Steering, I served on the KOPS Committee, I served on a college readiness committee, you name it, I tried to be involved. I learned so much in my years
and my time on the senate. And that was not learning
from other adjuncts, that was the collaborative
environment of working with and hearing other
full-time faculty members. I appreciate the fact that
there has been a proposal for a new adjunct council. Prior to my work with the Faculty Senate, I was on an adjunct advisory council within CAL Marilyn Reinhart. It existed roughly for about ten years, from 1998 to 2008 before it was disbanded. I would consider that as an
accommodation for adjuncts. I would consider the current proposal as an accommodation for adjuncts, but to remove adjuncts
completely from a dialogue with their full-time faculty
peers I think would be unwise. So to continue to say that
Faculty Senate has no purpose is a conscious denial of
its mission statement. I start to feel that it
becomes a deliberate narrative that ignores the realities
of the needs of faculty. So please help us. Please help us address the
needs that we actually have. Thank you. – Irene, thank you. I will speak to that a little more in my collegial steering meeting follow-up to both your comments and
the comments of Beth Edmonds. So thank you very much, I appreciate that. That closes the open forum section. We now have board reports and
the first is Student Senate. Mr. Prasai, how are you tonight? – Mr. Chairman, may we
take a technical time out until we figure out
where Trustee Cross is? He’s e-mailing folks- – He’s dialed the wrong
number and I’m e-mailing him. – She’s taking care of it I think. – Okay, very good. – The beeping is distracting
but I don’t want the phone to distract from our meetings, so thank you. Sorry Ankeet, go ahead. – Thank you for your time, of course. Good evening, everyone. I’m Ankeet, I’m the
Student President at JCCC. I’m just here to give
the Board a quick report on what we’ve been up to so far. At this time, our biggest
event is again JCCC Gives and we’re well on our way
to kind of have a successful event for that. We’ve had around 105 tags
taken out for the nominees, and I think we’ve only got
around 50 tags left in the office that people haven’t already taken out. So those 50 tags will hopefully
either get people to come in and help fulfill those, or we’ll fundraise and
fulfill those ourselves. We’ve raised around I think $400, our major fundraisers
are just on the horizon. We’ve got Rates for Veterans, we’ve partnered with a company
that buys rates for veterans and puts them on their graves
and essentially the proceeds, there’s I think $5 extra of
profit that they give back to this cause that we have. So that’s how- one of the events that we’re promoting is that. We’ve got also Trivia Night
that’s happening tomorrow for one of those fundraisers, we’ve got penny wars
between all the other clubs around campus that’s been
a fair amount of success. We’ve got a lot of donations, a lot of moneys from that. We’ve also got Giving
Tee which is coming up, so those are some of our fundraisers and hopefully that should
be able to fulfill our goal of around $3000, maybe even go over. If we do have a surplus, that’s all gonna go towards the Basic Needs
Coordinator and his office, the food pantry to hopefully
keep those things stocked up. Moving on from that, we’ve got- we had a
couple of budget requests. Right now in our budget, we’re actually way past the halfway point, which isn’t a bad thing, that just shows that more
clubs are more active around campus and they’re
doing more things, traveling to better places, networking, doing all the important stuff
that we expect clubs to do. So we’re very happy with that, the level of activity that clubs have been doing around campus and the involvement that
they’ve been showing. So recently BSU, the Black Student Union, had a trip to Lee’s
Summit where black leaders from all around I think
the country come together and they kind of coach
the leaders in these clubs on how to better manage their clubs, how to improve turnout and
all these important things. We also had the Hospitality Club, they’re going to New York
for a hospitality conference, especially with all the business leaders and everything in New York, to see what the industry is
like at the highest level so they can get some real
workplace experience. That being said, those are
the budget requests we’ve had, we’ve also had a couple of new clubs, one of them is the
Architecture and Design, they made a really good case
for why they needed that club, especially with the
lack of anything in that engineering, architecture
field in college. So they had a lot of interested people and we hope that should bring
about a lot of happy faces, especially in the architecture program to kind of get them together
and get to know each other and plan their studies
around those club meetings. That’s pretty much all I have. It’s a very short report for today. Any questions? – Thank you, Ankeet, I know
that at the last meeting we had another Trustee
not quite as old as I am inquire about how to make a contribution. And I found the room,
I think it’s 308, 309? – [Ankeet] 309, yes. – Where you can deliver
a check if you’d so like, I would encourage each of the Trustees who haven’t contributed
and would like to do so, you can come on campus and go
to the Student Commons 309. Eight? – [Female Voice] Nine.
(laughs) – One or the other, and they will be happy
to receive your check. Any questions of him? – I’d just say Mr. Chairman
that you didn’t narrow it down at all by saying a
Trustee younger than you. (laughs) – [Group] Oh-ho! – I said almost my age.
(laughs) Any comments or questions? We appreciate all the
work you’re doing, guys. It’s terrific, so thank you very much. – [Ankeet] All right, thank you. College lobbyist, Mr. Carter. While he’s coming up, Trustee Lindstrom are you still there? Trustee Lawson are you still there? – [Lawson] I am still here. – Trustee Cross are you still there? Okay, we have one out of
the three that are there, so we’ll keep working on that. Mr. Carter, please. – Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we near the end of the year, just as I’d said last month, the report really kind of
focuses on budget preparation and today is no different, although I have a couple
of different highlights that I would like to mention to you. I would say that the budget scenario, as the state prepares to
make its way through the first quarter and on through the first half of its fiscal year, is setting up for a
fairly healthy surplus, not only for this fiscal year
but for next fiscal year. And I think that that’s
going to be ripe for a healthy debate in the state
house come January next year for either funding programs that have been underfunded
over the past several years. One of the big topics
will be expanded Medicaid and the conversation that occurs around it versus tax policy and
a potential tax cuts. It is an election year and
so with a healthy budget, that’s going to provide
for a very interesting and lively debate for the session. And I’ll provide a
little bit of a snapshot of what we think is going to happen, maybe at the December meeting, as far as other issues and
topics that will occupy the time in Topeka next session. The Legislative Budget
Committee met earlier this week to review not only the budget requests, the increased requests for
higher education in Kansas, but to also answer and
address the questions that were brought up as an
interim committee request that were folded into the Legislative Budget Committee agenda. And those questions I have been
leaving in the board report for the past month or two
revolve around community college budgets, mission, efficiencies,
and just general questions as it relates to the community college and technical college system. Dr. Sopcich and Carter File from Hutchinson Community College as well as Ken Trzaska from
Seward Community College were on hand in addition
to Heather Morgan, the executive director for KACCT, to answer institutional
specific questions, provide additional background
on some of the questions that might have come up. And I’ll let Dr. Sopcich
provide any additional detail that he may want. But it gave us the
opportunity to tell the story, address any specific issues
that would impact our campus as a result of the
inquiries that came about from the Legislative
Budget Committee hearing. I would say that lots of times that we deal with things
on a much broader scale in legislative committees
that might be targeted more specifically to an institution, and so that very well could
have been the case here in this particular update
to that small committee. They will continue to
formulate their recommendations as they develop a house- well, it’s the Joint
Legislative Budget Committee. They will continue to
have conversations about what they believe budgets look
like as they move forward. I would say that just from some
of the initial conversation, and again these were not full committees of the Senate and the House, I would say that I would
not be surprised if a full $95.3 million request
from the Board of Regents is not funded at that level. That’s just my initial gut reaction from some of the conversation. Dr. Sopcich, you were there, I don’t know if you have
any additional thoughts about that or not. – [Dr. Sopcich] I was going
to talk about it later. – Very good. One of the things as
we move into next year, and again this will play
out in the legislature, is the fact that it is an election year. We already know from some of the either announcements of intention from candidates in Johnson County to those that
have filed or have indicated that they intend to file, our delegation could look
very different in 2021. There are a number of House members, currently seated House members, that have announced their
intention to run for the Senate. That opens up a half-district, and means someone else
will be stepping in to run, whether there’s a primary or whether it’s just a general contest, so that doesn’t guarantee a House member that decides
to run for Senate that seat. Senate district is about three
times the size of the House. And that is going to provide
a very interesting look come next November as to what
the delegation looks like for Johnson County. That all plays in to our
ability to continue to have some presence in Topeka as a county, and so we’ll continue to
monitor what that looks like. And then finally I mentioned
that next month I’ll provide sort of a glimpse into what we think the- what people who do what I
do think is going to happen in the State House come 2020. Mr. Chairman, I’d be happy to attempt to answer any questions if there are some. – Have all the committees been updated? Do we know who all the
various committees are, or is that announcement made in January? – So this is a carry-over year and there will be relatively little change in the committee make-up structure. Having said that, just this past week the speaker announced that
he was going to change out a chair of one of the rural committees and place a different
legislature in there. But in general, there
won’t be a lot of change on that committee structure. – When will those final
announcements be made? Is that in December or
before the session begins? I would think they’d do that. – Yeah, well-
– It should be ready now. – On election years,
leadership gets together and they announce that in
the middle of December. If there are any changes, I would imagine they would
come at some point in December or just before the legislature
convenes in January. – So are you saying we
could assume that whatever is listed currently are
the committees that will go forward unless somebody passes away. – Yeah we’re not anticipating
any significant change. – Okay, okay, thank you. Any questions of Mr. Carter? Any questions of Mr. Carter? Thank you, appreciate it. And what happened to your leg? – I had a plantar fasciotomy in October and last month was in a boot and this month I’ve
transitioned into a shoe and long-distances are
still a little bit iffy, so. – Well good luck, I hope
that works out okay for you. – Thank you. – Faculty Association, Dr. Leiker. – [Lindstrom] I’m still on the line, Dave Lindstrom. Okay, gotcha. Lee are you still online? – [Female Voice] What’s happening
is Lee is calling the line that’s not engaged because
we have a conference bridge, and because he keeps calling-
– Okay, okay. And Trustee Lawson, are you still there? – [Lawson] I am. – Okay, so we have two of the three. Dr. Leiker, sorry. Please proceed. – So good evening, Dr.
Harvey sends her regrets that she is unable to attend. She is in Washington, D.C. this week at the American Association
of Community Colleges, so that group is working with the National Science Foundation to promote undergraduate science research, and she was invited to represent JCCC. As her Vice President, or maybe more accurately her understudy, she asked me to deliver
the monthly FA report. So since the last time you convened, an election has occurred. On behalf of the Faculty Association, I’d like to extend a
sincere congratulations to Mr. Musil, to Ms. Ingram, and welcome Laura Smith-Everett, who I don’t believe is here, into the JCCC community. You know politics is more
American than Mom and apple pie, but it can get nasty and
this place is no exception. The college can be a contentious place. We’ve seen conflicts between
faculty and trustees, between faculty and administrators, and sometimes even between
faculty and other faculty. Some of my most cherished
friends and colleagues here are people with whom I have had the most bitter of disagreements. However, we also have a
culture of reconciliation, of putting aside differences
in pursuit of a common good. I’m not gonna suggest that the
new composition of the Board or the ongoing presidential
search affords the chance for a fresh start. I’m a historian, I know that
fresh starts are a myth. Everybody starts a new job or they take their first breath of air in the middle of a mess that
was created by other people. Now that’s not to say we’re
necessarily in a mess, only that the problems
which brought us here and which you’ve heard explained
from this podium many times are still awaiting resolution. But I have seen some
positive steps recently which I think sends us
in the right direction, so I’d like to focus on those
for a couple of minutes. Dr. Cook will talk later, I
presume, about our discussion at Collegial Steering on November 5th. For those who are unaware, Collegial Steering is
comprised of representatives from five groups: the Faculty Senate, the Faculty Association,
Educational Affairs, Administration and the Board of Trustees. We’ve realized through our
meetings this year that those five groups don’t
understand each other very well, so to address that Dr. Cook
proposed that the five remaining meetings of this academic year
be devoted to a discussion of specific issues that
those bodies are facing, with one meeting designated for each. I think everyone present
reacted favorably to that idea and we look forward to
having those conversations though April. As my colleagues Professor
Schmidt and Edmonds mentioned before, this past week saw a series
of town hall meetings held by the two task
forces studying the issue of shared governance. Judging by the pretty amazing
turnout at the Monday session, as well as the one this morning, both of which I attended, I’d say there is an awful
lot of interest in this campus-wide and not just from faculty. It’s not up to me to
provide the particulars, but suffice to say that the
Institutional Task Force proposed a statement of philosophy outlining important principles, while the group working
on the academic structure proposed a new branch council that would serve as a communication
nexus for various groups affiliated with construction. Some of my colleagues have
reacted with cautious optimism, others I would say cautious skepticism, everyone is reacting with
caution for good reason. These discussions have only
begun and the committees have more work to do before
asking faculty to vote on specific proposals or even
deciding, for that matter, if such a vote needs to occur. I’ve heard a lot of good
feedback from the proposals, or about the proposals, but some of the reluctance
I’ve heard concerns the future role of the Senate
and of adjunct representation, which you heard before, and for that matter the
Faculty Association, which is an independent union
and how it’s going to fit into this particular structure. Others, and I put myself in this category, question what effect
these proposals will have without some administrative
and board buy in. Shared governance is
merely a polite synonym for shared power. And without agreement as to
how power will be reallocated, where is it being relinquished, where is it being gained, and of course, what corresponding
changes and responsibility come along with that. What we’re really left with
is a theoretical abstraction. No one in the FA is interested
in a toothless model that satisfies higher learning
commission requirements and then allows us to return
back to business as usual. For that reason, I encourage
board and administration to follow the task force’s work and weigh in before faculty
are asked to reach consensus. All that said, I applaud the
efforts of these two groups, especially their chair, Sheri Barrett, and Jim Hopper Thank you for taking this on
and we expect to hear more. I’d like to draw the Trustee’s attention to a splendid event
last week in the co-lab hosted by the JCCC Writes Committee. Writes as in W-R-I-T-E-S,
not the other kind. Jessica Tipton, Farrell
Hoy Jenab, Miguel Morales, and the rest of their team invited authors from the campus community to
submit titles for inclusion in this booklet that
honors 50 years of writing at Johnson County Community College. I brought extra copies, I’ll leave them here, I hope everybody gets a
chance to look at them. More than 50 authors are represented there and it’s by no means an exhaustive list and it’s not just from
areas that you would expect, like English and journalism. Do take a look at it because
you’ll learn some things like I did. For instance, I was
aware that my colleague Andrea Broomfield from English has become one of the leading, if not the leading, food historian of Kansas City. I knew this a few years ago
when my next door neighbor said, “Now you work at JCCC, right? “Do you know Dr. Broomfield? “You do? Oh my god, that’s wonderful! “Because my reading club “is discussing her book tomorrow night, “what’s she like?” So I get that a lot,
actually, about our colleague, so I was aware of that, but I was unaware that
Doug Copeland has been a contributing author to textbooks
in business and economics for more than 30 years, and has been a frequent contributor to Kansas Business Review, which believe it or not I used to follow back in the early 90’s. Or for that matter that Sarah Morgan, from Academic Technology Services, who installed my new computer a month ago, is also an accomplished poet. These are things I didn’t know. I point them out as reminders
for myself and everyone that it’s easy to miss
the expertise of the folks who work here. It seldom occurs to us that
this tutor or that counselor or that engineering
professor might be an expert on something we’re eager to learn about, and learning comes first, right? Our work lives are defined by titles, titles like staff, adjunct,
full-time professor, deans, presidents. Those classifications determine
not only compensation, but decision making authority and the amount of respect
that an opinion carries. This is a large institution, those classifications
are important, I get it. That’s necessary for any
big bureaucracy to work. But I think the problem emerges when the titles become labels. Much of the angst that’s played out in the shared governance conversation
stems from the fact that people have expertise which
they feel is being ignored. This is why events like the writers reception
last week are important. Not only for morale, but to know which minds
could be at the table when particular problems are tackled. It was good to see Trustee Lawson there as well as Dr. Weber. Whenever senior leadership
shows an interest in these things is highly appreciated, so thank you. I intend to boast to Dr.
Harvey that I can give shorter board reports than her, so I’m gonna stop there. What questions can I answer for you? – Dr. Leiker, thank you. Any questions or comments from the Board? – Well my only question would be I would agree with you that
without the Board of Trustees buy in- I’m not- cause I
don’t know where you are in the shared governance task force and I would like to know more about when those meetings are happening and what the stages are as we go along because I believe we’re
important to shared governance and I wanna make sure I understand the concerns and questions, and the specific
criticism of what you call “business as usual” so
we can address those that deserve addressing. – So I think the best
people to address that, to answer that question, would be the folks on those task forces. So I would make contact
either with Dr. Barrett or with Professor Hopper. And we can certainly alert
you as to when the next round of big mass communications will be. – [Musil] Thank you. – And by the way, most of us only learned about the work of those
groups this week ourselves, so we’re not that much far ahead of you. Any other questions? – [Cook] Any other questions or comments? Dr. Leiker thank you very much. – Thank you. – [Cook] Appreciate it
and thanks for you time. Trustee Cross, are you on the phone? Johnson County Research
Triangle is the next item. Trustee Cross, are you there? – [Cross] Yeah I’m here. Apparently I had the wrong number, I am sorry for the problem. – No we’re glad you’re there. Do you have a Research Triangle report? – [Cross] Yeah, Research
Triangle met last month, I think I gave a report
on it back in October. We’ll meet again in April, I don’t have anything else
to report at this time. Thank you, Mr. Chair. – Thanks Trustee Cross. Kansas Association of Community Colleges, Trustee Lawson do you have a report? – [Lawson] We are hosting the college on December 6th and 7th for the next meeting of the Kansas Association of
Community Colleges Trustees. – Is there more?
– [Lawson] Can you hear me? – Yeah we can, is there more? – [Lawson] That is the current
meeting that is coming up, and their agenda I believe is coming out. So did you want me to post that or do you want to put that publicly? – No I think Terri
Schlicht has posted that with all of the Trustees and I think we’ve got
that posted accordingly. So I think we’re in good shape, we’ll look forward to having
all of the community colleges on our campus. – [Lawson] Okay, thank you Chair. – Thank you. Foundation, Trustee Musil? – Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Foundation would like
to thank the Trustees for their attendance at the 33rd Annual Some Enchanted
Evening Scholarship Gala held at the Overland
Park Convention Center earlier this month. It was a historic evening
filled with memorable moments. Chair Mike and Susan Lally and Pam Popp who served
as sponsorship chair and the entire committee did
a great job for the evening. Frank Devocelle was honored as
Johnson Countian of the Year, and Jake Burkhart, a JCCC student, did a great job of sharing his story. We celebrated a record more
than $1 million dollars raised in support of scholarships. I wanna recognize a few special sponsors. We had a record five, $50,000
or more visionary sponsors. Burlington Northern Santa Fe, Educate, Enrich, and Enable Fund, Friends of Barton P. Cohen, J.E. Dunn Construction, Midwest Trust FCI Advisors, the Bergman Family. Over $25,000 Legacy Sponsors included Clay Blair Family Foundation, the Kirk Foundation, and LMC Truck and the
Regnier Family Foundation. And one Sunflower Sponsor
at the $15,000 level Dick and Barbara Shull. Eight $10,000 Open Petal Sponsors, Barton P. And Mary D.
Cohen Charitable Trust, Black and Veatch, Larry Brubaker, Adam and LaVon Hamilton, Lockton Companies, Mindy Campion Scholarship Fund, Sue and Lewis Nerman, and Olethe Health. I also want to mention that there was an outstanding tribute. I want to thank Kate and Rob and Chris and whomever contributed to
the tribute to Dr. Sopcich and his 26.5 years, which will be 27 years
when he retires in June. It was an outstanding effort and I know a significant
surprise to Dr. Sopcich. It was well deserved and Dr. Sopcich your
comments were excellent. So thanks to everyone
for the amazing support. We give away over $1 million
dollars in scholarships every year now and we
raised $1 million dollars in this one night, so it was a very successful event. Thanks to everyone who participated. That’s the end of my report. – Any questions of
Trustee Musil or comments? – [Lawson] Mr. Chair,
I don’t have questions but I do have a comment. – Yes? – [Lawson] So I just wanted
to thank you Mr. Chair and Mr. President for such a great event and also the Foundation. I was happy to sponsor
two tables at this event and give our students an
opportunity to meet so many wonderful businesses like
Garmin, Black and Veath, K-Med, it was a real opportunity. Also make sure that they got introduced to a lot of our legislators and educators so that was a real great opportunity. I had a comment for Dr.
Leiker that was not something that was able to get
through when I was talking, so I just want to make a comment about the shared governance, is really something that I believe and gives us an opportunity to build trust with our faculty and adjuncts and that is it, Mr. Chair. – Thank you, appreciate it Trustee Lawson. Committee Reports and Recommendations, first is the audit. Trustee Ingram and I sit
in on the audit committee, we met on November 7th with
a large contingency of staff. We had a presentation
of our external audit, Mr. Moyer, Partner along with Mr. Robinson, of the Audit Manager from RubinBrown presented the draft about
financial statement report, of our Annual Financial Statement Report and Compliance Report for the
year ended of June 30, 2019. Mr. Moyer informed the
committee that the college received a non-modified opinion. I would point out that the audit includes a financial analysis, compliance procedures, how departments work within each other in about 41 different
areas with subtitles. The 42nd area was the federal compliance, which includes another
24 areas of compliance. And I was pleased to hear that the representatives of
RubinBrown really think this college is exemplary. They applauded the cooperation from all staff members and departments. They applauded the discussion
that obviously takes place between and among all
departments and staff and faculty and so I really wanna thank
all the staff for that. Very, very, very clean and glowing audit that reaffirms that the
daily operational procedures at this college are top notch. And with that I would ask Trustee Ingram if she has any comments. – [Ingram] I don’t have anything to add, but those certainly would’ve been comments that I would’ve made as well. It’s always good to hear
the positive feedback, so it was a great meeting. – So thank you, it is the recommendation
of the Audit Committee that the Board of Trustees accept the administration’s
recommendation to accept the audited financial
statements for the year ended June 30, 2019 and I’ll that motion. – [Ingram] Second. – We have a motion and a second, any questions? Any comments? Any questions? All in favor signify by saying aye. – [All] Aye. – Opposed? – [Cross] Aye. – Motion carries. We also had updates from Mr. McDaid on in-house audit projects and reviews, including facilities rental, athletic clubs and student activity. Ms. McLeod presented
background on higher education specific compliance environment challenges and resource commitments. These benchmarks will
be useful in comparing the College’s compliance
efforts with peer institutions. And again, we rank very favorably with our peer institutions. Ms. Boyd presented
information related to the 2018 IT Cloud Security audit and efforts by information services to implement those recommendations. Sandra Warner gave a presentation on our mission continuity and
discovery-recovery strategies and we’re really in good shape in terms of where we are timeline-wise in case we should have an
event hit us where we can’t continue operations as
normal on the campus. Audit recommendation follow up matrix was shared by Mr. McDaid. We had our quarterly report on our ethics report line. Between July 15th and October 30th, nine reports were received. Three reports were received anonymously. As of October 28th, all nine
reports have been reviewed. Seven of those have been
appropriately addressed and two reports are ongoing. We had the review of the Internal Audit/Audit Committee Charter contained in Board policies
as practices consisted with the Institute of Internal Auditors- International Professional
Practices Framework. As a result of this review, Audit Committee proposes no update to the internal and external audit policy. And I would like to
remind this Board again that we’re blessed and privileged
to have an internal audit component of our operation. Many colleges do not have
that internal component and we really appreciate the
work the internal audit team does and the work that goes on. An example of that is that
the Information Security is in the process of putting out an RFP and the Internal Audit
Committee has been working with Mr. Pagano very
closely to make sure that that RFP hits all of the
key parts of what that significant audit that needs to include. So we appreciate that dialogue. With that, again I
would ask Trustee Ingram if she has any additional comments. – [Ingram] I don’t think so. – That concludes the Audit Committee. You have the audit schedule
in your Board packet of upcoming events. And that takes us to the
Collegial Steering report. I appreciate the comments
of Beth and Irene and Jim in terms of how collegial
steering can impact those various groups. And as Jim very well pointed out, we’ve charged each of
those groups to bring forth to the Committee issues,
trends, challenges that their organization
faces as they relate to the teaching-learning activity
of students on this campus. And Nancy volunteered the
Trustees to do the first one in December and that’s
coming up, December 2nd. So this agenda will go out
to all the committee members next Tuesday. But we thought- and it’s interesting to me that even though we
sit in those committees and the Board of Trustees is represented by the Chair and Vice Chair, but that will turn over when we have new officers in January. And I have failed to realize that as the elections
impact the faculty senate, the faculty association,
educational affairs, new people come on board and we shouldn’t always
assume that the replacements are in lockstep with what’s been going on. And so I believe that our decision to have each organization
bring forth on an annual basis, hopefully if that continues
with the committee, as to how the challenges
for those committees impact what goes on on campus. And so Beth and Irene, your
comments about adjunct faculty is important, significant. And I’m not necessarily one
that should wait till then to pay heed to some of those issues, but we certainly in Collegial
Steering have kind of a formal way to address
those types of concerns. So I will present on
behalf of the Trustees is where do the Trustees
get their authority? What allows us to be Trustees? And we’ll specifically
talk about Kansas statutes, our own Code of Conduct policy and directions from the
Higher Learning Commission. We’ll talk about Trustee responsibilities. What are we responsible for? In that area, things we’ve
talked about will include hiring the President, supporting the President, evaluating the President, and helping the President be successful, set policy for judiciary responsibilities and be an advocate for the College. Trustee constituencies, and I think it’s important, while every constituency we have feels that they’re the most important one, or probably should feel
they’re the most important one, I think Trustees have to be sensitive to all their constituencies and how they represent all of the players that come to make this college what it is. And so we’ve listed a whole
series of constituencies that we’ve worked with. And then the Trustee partnerships, like KACCT, ACCT, K-12, and four-year institutions
of higher education. So we’ll condense all of
that into about 33 minutes and then leave some time
for questions and answers and other things, but I really am looking forward to whoever our successors
are on the Trustees to carry through with that plan and listen and hear how we can
make this place even better. So I thank you again,
speakers, for being here and again, Nancy, do you have anything you’d like to add to that? – [Ingram] I do not. I’m
sure looking forward to it. – Very good. Learning quality, Trustee Snider? – Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Learning Quality Committee met on Monday, November 4th at 8:30 in this room. Minutes to the meeting are in the packet. The main focus of that committee meeting was a sabbatical update from Librarian Jessica Tipton that focused on efforts
that she’s undergone to ensure that online
students can equally utilize library resources the same
as students on campus. And she’s come up with a
lot of creative ideas that are being implemented more down the road, so that was informative. I have no recommendations this month, but there are affiliation
agreements in the consent part of the packet in the agenda, and that concludes my report. – [Cook] Any questions of Trustee Snider? Thank you. Management, Trustee Ingram? – Yes, thank you Mr. Chairman. Management committee met at 8 a.m. on Wednesday, November
6th in the board room. The information related to the
Management Committee meeting begins on page 9 and runs through page 26 of the board packet. The Management Committee received several presentations from staff. Elisa Waldman, who recently
transitioned to the role of Dean of Continuing
Education from the position of Director of Kansas Small
Business Development Center, gave a presentation on
the work of the SBDC at Johnson County Community College. The Center is funded through the Federal Small Business Administration, the Kansas Department of Commerce, and the college. Jessica Johnson, Director of Kansas Procurement
Technical Assistance Center, gave an overview of activities and services provided by PTAC. These include contractor
registration and certification, identifying bidding opportunities as well as bid and proposal preparation. Randy Weber, Interim
Executive Vice President for Finance and Administrative Services, presented information
on several agreements with outside agencies. These agreements can be
found in the consent agenda on pages 45 and 46 of the board packet. Rachel Leirz, Associate Vice President
Financial Services CFO, provided the semi-annual
update on college investments in the Kansas Municipal Investment Pool. She also provided
recommendations for approval of the budget calendar and guidelines, including the proposed
2020-2021 tuition raise, which will be brought forward
to the Management Committee at the December 4, 2019 meeting. At this time, there are no
plans to increase tuition for the next academic year. Next she reviewed a five
year projection model of college finances. In Jeanelle Voglar’s absence, Jim Feikert, Director
of Procurement Services presented the single-source
purchase report and the summary of awarded bids
between $50,000 and $150,000. That summary can be found on page 18. Rex Hays, Associate Vice President, Campus Services, provided the monthly update on capital infrastructure projects, and this report is on
page 23 of the packet. He also reported on current progress of the construction projects on campus, then reviewed the report
on the financial status of facilities master plan projects. That report is in your packet on page 24. The Management Committee has
the following recommendations to present this evening. The Management Committee
has reviewed the recommended changes to both the Donor
Expense Reimbursement Policy and the Identity Theft Prevention Policy, which were reported by Dr. Weber. The updated policies can be
found in the board packet on pages 10 through 16. It is the recommendation
of the Management Committee that the Board of Trustees
accept the recommendation of the College Administration
to approve deletion of the Donor Expense
Reimbursement Policy 216.05, and I will make that motion. – We have a motion, is there a second? – Second. – Motion and a second. Any discussion? Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. – [Board] Aye. – Opposed? Motion carries. – Thank you. It is the recommendation
of the Management Committee that the Board of Trustees
accept the recommendation of the College Administration
to approve modification to and renumbering of the Identity Theft Prevention Policy, 540.00, and I will make that motion.
– [Cook] We have a motion, is there a second? – Second. – Motion has a second. Any discussion? Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. – [Board] Aye. – Opposed? Motion carries. – There are three recommendations based on requests for proposals or bids. The first was an RFP for the renewal of an annual contract for athletic
team charter bus service. It is the recommendation
of the Management Committee that the Board of Trustees
accept the recommendation of the College Administration
to approve the renewal of the annual contract C18-087-00 with Crossroad Tours for
team charter bus services for the current regular athletic season in the amount of $74,153, post-season as needed in the amount of $69,654, and a 10% contingency for unforeseen costs in the amount of $14,381, for our current year
estimated amount of $158,188. An amount of $474,564 for all seasons cost for the
remaining optional renewals through 2023 for a total estimated amount of $632,752. And I will make that motion. – Second. – We have a motion and a
second regarding the contract for athletic charter bus, any questions? Any questions? All in favor signify by saying aye. – [Board] Aye. – Opposed? Motion carries. – Next was a bid for the remodel of the Carlsen Center third floor restrooms. 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 XL Constructors for RFB 20-017 Carlsen Center third floor restroom remodel in the amount of $167,200, with an additional 10%
contingency of $16,720 to allow for possible unforeseen costs, for a total estimated
expenditure of $183,920. And I will make that motion. – New motion, is there a second? – Second. – We have a motion and
a second. Any questions? Any questions? All in favor signify by saying aye. – [Board] Aye. – Opposed? Motion carries. – Our final recommendation this evening is for the Commons Building
Kitchen Hood Make-Up Air System Replacement. 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 SGI for RFB 20-025, Kitchen Hood Make-up
Air System Replacement in the Commons Building
in the amount of $270,515, with an additional 10% contingency of $27,051.50 to allow for possible unforeseen costs, for a total estimated expenditure of $297,566.50. And I will make that motion. – We have a motion, is there a second? – I’ll second that. – We have a motion and a second. Any questions? Any questions? All in favor signify by saying aye. – [Board] Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. – Thank you, Mr. Chair, that concludes my report
unless there are any other comments from my fellow trustees. – [Cook] Trustee Snider?
– I have a quick question, I apologize I didn’t notice this earlier. In our Management Committee
we approved a contract for a solar canopy, and I expected to see that
tonight for final approval. And maybe it doesn’t need to be here? I apologize I didn’t catch that earlier to send that over to ask. And I don’t expect you- – [Cook] Solar canopy question. (Board Members talking indistinctly) – It’s on the 50 to 150. (Indistinct female voice) – Okay, thank you. – [Cook] Okay, okay. Any other questions? Thank you, Trustee- – Chair, I think it’s important, given last year at this time, this is my ninth year on the Board, every year in the November meeting we get a report from
the Management Committee that the Management Committee
has started its budget work for the following year, and that includes looking
at tuition and fees and whether they should
be increased or not. And the last year we did the same thing and we gave notice of it to everybody, and then we had a dollar increase and we had our brew-ha-ha. So, this year I would
anticipate no brew-ha-ha because we’re not looking for
a recommendation increase, but just to make it clear to everybody that we do this every year in November. We alert people that in December we’re gonna adopt budget guidelines, which include revenue sources, tax mill levy, tuition increases, and other expenditures. So I think it’s important to understand that this process has been going
on at least for nine years, and I assume it will go on in the future where we give people that type of notice. I also think it’s important,
Vice Chair Ingram, that all the bids we approved
tonight were low bids? – [Ingram] Yes. – We do have a bidding
and procurement process and they resulted in low bids
that met all the requirements on all of those action items. So, thank you, Mr. Chair. – [Ingram] Thank you for those comments. – Thank you, Trustee Mucil. Any other comments? – [Lawson] I have another comment. – Trustee Lawson. – [Lawson] Thank you so much. So as we are considering going into the budgeting process for December, I would like to, Mr. Chair,
have those considerations and property evaluations as
well as our current reserve. I hope the budget will consider either an expanded use of the fund for educators or a mill levy roll-back
in our next budget. Thank you. – Thank you, appreciate it. Next item is the Nominating Committee. Each year at this time
the Chair can appoint a Nominating Committee for
officers going forward. I have asked and Trustee
Lindstrom and Trustee Snider have both agreed to be on
the Nominating Committee. They will come forth
with recommendations for officers going forward that
will take place in January. So we’ll act on that in December. – Does someone need to mute their phone? On their end? – Lindstrom are you still on? – [Lindstrom] I am. – I think he’s going through
a traffic buzz or something. – [Lindstrom] Yes, I am still here. – Okay, good, thank you. Next item is President’s
Recommendation for Action, Treasurer’s Report. – Thank you Mr. Chairman. The board packet on page 27 includes a Treasurer’s Report for the
month ended September 30, 2019. Page one is our standard
general post-secondary technical education fund summary. September was the third month
of the College’s fiscal year. We received $5.1 million
in ad valorem property tax distribution from the country treasurer. That was distributed
mostly to the general fund, some to the capital outlay fund, and some to the special assessment fund. Another $1.3 million in property taxes were received in October
and that will be included in next month’s report. The unencumbered cash balance
at the end of September was $93.6 million, which is $7.9 million less
than last year at this time. And the expenditures in
the primary operating funds are within the approved budgetary limits. So it’s the recommendation
of College Administration that the Board of Trustees
approve the Treasurer’s Report for the month ended September
30, 2019, subject to audit. And I so move. – Second. – We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. – [Board] Aye. – Opposed? Motion carries. Trustee Musil does that conclude your- – I’m sorry, that concludes my report. – Monthly report to
the Board, Dr. Sopcich. – Thank you Dr. Cook. I’d like to start off by pointing out the monthly
report to the Board. This one is about almost 40 pages. It’s amazing what everyone does, does every month and
we’ve talked about this. But I do have, Dr. Weber,
a quick question for you. On page- and Dr. Weber is
not aware I was going to ask him this question. (laughs) The prerogative of being in this seat. On page eight, there is the Success Advocates Pathways Touch Point. And usually these line-
they kind of run parallel, but this one, this current year, just shoots up at a much
higher rate of ascent. Is there anything causing that? – Well, I think that’s the
number increased contact for our success advocates
is attributable to some of the communication
strategies that we’ve done. We’ve spoken a little bit in
our Pathways work in the past about bringing on AccuCampus, which is a student success
tool that allows us to track student’s activities
and connect with them. So a lot of it has to
do with their ability to track student’s behaviors on campus and connect with them
with some what we’ll call Just In Time strategies versus
Wait Until It’s Too Late and we call it early alert and then try to do damage control. So proactive measures. – The success advocates
have been in place now for how many years? – I think this is their fourth fall, we approved the success advocates- well, maybe Fall of ’17. So, third fall of the
first full time advocates. – That’s terrific. A few things, several of which
have already been mentioned. I would like to talk briefly
about Some Enchanted Evening. Give kudos to Kate, her leadership, Rob Wyrick and Judy Riley. We talked about the
million dollars in revenue, commemorating Frank Devocelle, who led Olethe Med for 42 years. But most importantly about all of this is the number of students
that will benefit from that fundraising. So Kate, I think we’re up to about- is it $1.2 million distribution every year and over 1,000 students? – [Kate] Almost 1500. – Almost 1500. That’s terrific! I remember in my day we
were hovering about 200, so this is a terrific increase and thank you for all your hard work and pulling off this event. A few other things that
I’ve been able to do the last couple days. On Tuesday, November
12, Governor Laura Kelly hosted a discussion on Medicaid expansion at our own Olethe Health Education Center. I was honored to be about one of 50 people invited to participate. The invitees were leaders primarily in local healthcare arena, hospital, social services organizations. Because it was our building, I think that’s how I got the invitation. When given- and Laura Kelly was fantastic. It was a very vibrant discussion. But when given the
opportunity to ask questions, I did ask the governor, who earlier said they were anticipating Medicaid expansion as approved, it would create 2,000 jobs
I guess across the state. So I asked her if there
would be financial incentives for people wanting to get
training for those jobs and would there be financial
incentives for the providers of that training, a.k.a. Johnson
County Community College. The governor replied that
I was a good lobbyist and then went on to
explain the possibilities for empowering the work force to handle the increased demand. Our staff at Olethe
Med did a fantastic job pulling this off with
collaboration of Olethe Health. It was really a wonderful get-together. It’s so terrific to have
Johnson County Community College to host something like this. On Tuesday, November 19th, and Dick had mentioned this earlier, I had the opportunity to
testify in front of the, what is it, the Higher Ed
Legislative Budget Committee. Heather Morgan, the CEO of
KACCT did a fantastic job in testifying. Carter File, President of
Hutch, and myself were there simply to provide color commentary and augment her presentation. We followed Dr. Blake
Flanders from the K-Board, who gave an overview of the
budget situation for higher ed, and we were followed by Jim Genandt, who’s President of
Manhattan Technical College. He also did a wonderful job. The crux of the discussion focused on the different ways community
and technical colleges are funded, as well as a discussion on Excel in CTE, or Senate Bill 155. This provides subsidized
current technical education training to high school
students taking CTE courses. The demand for this program has exploded way beyond anyone’s expectations when it was introduced in 2012. It’s a real success story. Yesterday we hosted Mayor
Quinton Lucas on our campus. This visit was arranged
by Sue and Lewis Nerman. We believe it may have been the first time in the history of our college
that Kansas City’s mayor visited our campus with the
intent to learn more about us. The Mayor was entertained
by Bruce Hartman, who gave an informative
tour of The Nerman, including it’s new exhibition
“Queer Abstractions”, which is opening tonight. We then gave Mayor Lucas
a tour of the campus as we moved in breakneck speed
toward the direction of the Hugh Libby Current Technical
Educational Center. Dr. McLaud was a part of the group and explained to the mayor
the many program offerings in that building. While there, the mayor visited a job fair organized by Deputy
Ruloaf from Continuing Ed and worked the crowd. I have to say Mayor Lucas
is really a cool guy, it was just great being
able to talk to him and spend some time with him. We then toured the first
floor of the Student Center and we look forward to
working with the mayor to find new ways of working
with his office in Kansas City. Now I’m gonna backtrack just a little bit to Monday, November 11. The Blue Valley School District honored Johnson County Community College as one its four 2019 Friends of Education. This is an annual award
given for the district. Dr. McLaud and Dean Richard Fort joined me to accept the honor. Over the last few years, we’ve worked really hard to
cultivate our relationships with our local- our
six school districts in Johnson County. I think it
was in my second or third year I visited every high
school in Johnson County. We’ve honored all six superintendents here in Trustee Meetings this
past year in appreciation of our close working relationship. These relationships are critical when you think of the over
4,000 high school students who take our College Now courses. And most importantly, Dr. McLaud, Dean Fort and Dr.
Weber have all joined forces to provide greater opportunities
for high school students at Johnson County Community College. The initiatives underway now and those being planned for the future bode well for this college and county as more and more high school
students are being given the access and opportunity to benefit from what we have to offer. Before we get to this little
video we’re gonna show, I would like to present Dr. Cook with the plaque that Blue Valley awarded us. We were deeply honored to be
one of the four recipients. – [Cook] Wow. – There you go. – Thank you, but this goes back
to you and the entire staff for the great work you do. But, wow, that’s gorgeous. Thank you. – It’s really nice. Okay can we now run the video? (upbeat electronic music) – Last fall we were investigating some career technical experiences
for our students, and so we approached Johnson
County Community College and said, “what would be
the opportunity of having “some of our students
come to their programs “at the College?” And they were willing to sit down and have a conversation with us. We landed on two programs
to initially start, which was our automotive technology and construction management. The partnership has been great. Our students are enrolled in both the automotive technology and
construction management, and the instructors at
Johnson County report that they can’t tell
the difference between our high school students
and the students who are traditional college aged students. You know, our Board of
Education has the mantra all means all, and we knew that in our
high school programs that there were some
students who needed more of the traditional career
technical experiences, hands-on experiences, and we didn’t have those
here within our buildings. This has provided an
opportunity for students to go outside of our buildings and still meet their educational needs. Johnson County Community
College deserves the Friends of Education Award because they said yes immediately. They see themselves as a partner with everybody in the county, and they wanted to make
this work for our students. It is my honor to congratulate Johnson County Community College for being a friend of education and to thank you on behalf of the countless number of students
who are going to benefit from the services that you provide. (upbeat electronic music) (applause) – That was shown at their
Board of Education meeting. It really commemorates the hard work by so many on this campus
who realize the importance of working closely with our K-12 partners. So, Mr. Chair that concludes the report. – Thank you very much. Great news and appreciate
all of the good work that goes on every day. I don’t believe we have any old business, but I do have a new business item. And it’s a Board Communication, and I’m saddened that we
have to address this tonight in light of the heels of the
very good news we’ve heard from our auditor, we’ve heard from Student Senate, we’ve heard from all the things going on, the Blue Valley Award
and so on and so forth. But we received a letter, quite an extensive letter, that we sent to you as Trustees that was important for
you as Trustees to know. The name at the top of
the letter was redacted, as well as the signature was
redacted when we received this, but it did say from a Johnson County Community College Trustee. So, Trustee Lindstrom
are you still on board? – [Lindstrom] I am still here, yes sir. – Trustee Lawson are you still there? Trustee Lawson are you still there? – [Lawson] Mr. Chair I can
reply, can you hear me? – Yes. Trustee Cross are you there? Trustee Cross? So what I wanted to do
tonight is to make sure you’ve all seen the letter. I guess the question would be, being it comes from a trustee of Johnson County Community College, and no one has signed it that
one of us wrote the letter. And there are some
implications in the letter that I guess we could draw conclusions as to who that might be. I want to share a cover
letter that I sent with you for the people of the audience and for our viewing audience because I think it’s important to note- for them to understand
what we’re dealing with in terms of this extensive memo. And here’s what the cover letter has said. “On October 15, 2019, Dr. Blake Flanders, “President and CEO of the
Kansas Board of Regents “contacted President Sopcich to alert him “of a letter that a member
of Kansas Board of Regents “received from a Johnson County
Community College Trustee. “The letter outlines concerns
related to the alleged “lack of transparency at
Johnson County Community College “and the Kansas Community
College system as a whole. “After reviewing the document, “President Sopcich asked
staff to vet this letter “and provide responses
to these allegations. “Out of concern for the amount
of misstatements and untruths “President Sopcich
contacted me, Jerry Cook, “to alert me to the original letter “and the College’s response. “To my knowledge, “the author acted independently
from all other JCC Trustees “and administrators in the
submission of this document. “It was sent to an unknown
audience at this time “without any of the concerns
being brought first to the “JCC Trustees or underlying
departments in question. “It is also my belief that no JCC Trustees “were aware that it had
been drafted or submitted. “A majority of the statements
and allegations are inaccurate “and could’ve been easily addressed “through transparent
conversations on our campus. “As such, we have gathered
impacted employees “to address the concerns in writing. “You will find those
answers below in red.” Which is the document that you received. “We acknowledge the issues raised below “implement a significant
communication breakdown “on our campus with this Trustee. “We will continue to work to
improve that communication. “The reality is JCC
continues to be dedicated “to transparency wherever
possible within all levels “of our institution. “We benefit from outstanding management “from hundreds of people
who work hard everyday “to inspire students and
strengthen our community. “The allegations in this document of “mismanagement and
incompetency by our staff “are not only inaccurate, but hurtful. “Being outvoted on a governance
issue during a Board Meeting “does not justify these
allegations against JCC “and its employees. “Being outvoted also does
not equate to harassment, “require a subsequent KOR,
Kansas Open Meetings Request, “nor imply unethical behavior by those “on the other side of the issue. “We find it reckless to
cite situations that fellow “KACCT institutions across the state, “where this Trustee is
not an elected official “or even a member of those communities. “We would hope our fellow
Kansas institutions realize “these allegations are
not the views of JCCC. “While the submission of this
document marks an unfortunate “moment in the history
of the JCC Trustees, “we embrace the opportunity to
highlight not only the facts, “but the wonderful students,
employees, and programs “that make our institution so special. “Please do not hesitate
to contact me personally “for any further discussion. “Dr. Jerry Cook, Chairman
of the Board of Trustees “for Johnson County Community College.” I’d like to make four points to this issue and then open it up for your
thoughts, your concerns, and if a Trustee is willing to say, “Yeah, I wrote the document,” that would be helpful. My first concern is that we have, over the last several months, referred to our policy
114.01 Code of Conduct. And I would just review a
couple of those bullet points. “We expect our Trustees to
work with fellow board members “in a spirit of harmony and cooperation “in spite of differences in opinion “that arise during vigorous
debates of points of issue. “Civility and mutual
caring for one another “for the employees of the
college shall guide the conduct “of board members. “Board members should
promote mutual respect “among one another and
among all college employees “and shall not use their position to “embarrass, intimidate,
or threaten employees. “Members of the Board of Trustees “are leaders in the community “and their conduct is important to “the College and to the community. “To base personal decisions
upon all available facts “in each situation, “devote their honest
conviction in every case, “unswayed by partisan bias of any kind. “Therefore to abide by and uphold the final majority decision of the Board. “To remember at all times
that as an individual “the Board member has no legal authority “outside the meetings of the Board. “And the press-on basis of
this fact in engaged private- “no private actions that
will comprise the Board.” That’s just a few pieces
of our Code of Ethics. I would also point out that the reference, the memo made reference to following the Higher Learning Commission. Higher Learning Commission has criteria for Trustees as well. And it says, “Establishes and follows
policies and processes “to ensure fair and ethical behavior “on the part of its governing board. “The governing board is
trained and knowledgeable “so that it makes informed decisions “with respect to the institution’s
financial and academic “policies and practices. “The governing board delegates
day-to-day management “of the institution to the
institution’s administration “and expects the institution’s faculty “to oversee academic matters.” So that whole issue of Board
behavior and Code of Ethics is supported by Kansas statute, by the Higher Learning Commission, and our own Code of
Ethics and I feel badly that we still have a Trustee
that doesn’t follow that Code of Conduct. A second point I’d like to
make is that while the memo makes reference to unethical
practices of the college, I think the representation in this memo is very unethical of the
college, staff, faculty, foundation, administration,
Board of Trustees, including the daily operations. Much of the information was based on simply inaccurate data. And again, if the person would have been able to visit with us about that, we could have resolved
many of those differences. A third point I’d like to make is references made to proper oversight, requesting the legislature
takes action to have oversight of community colleges. And I believe this person lacks
the thorough understanding of the role of a Trustee
to have proper oversight. The memo talks about
promoting transparency, and yet the transparent activity, or lack thereof in this memo, is very, very obvious. And then the fourth point I’d like to make that I think is really the
bad news for this college is that it has a very negative impact upon our elected partners, whether it’s city council,
county government, states legislators, and
the governor’s office. It has a significant negative
impact on our KACCT partners. This allegation points
out two other colleges that this Trustee really
should not have any influence or say about how those colleges operate. It really impedes our national reputation, and this will become- has become and is out in the nation currently, and I believe then it
has serious implications for our presidential search and who will want to
apply to this institution. So I apologize for this kind of bad news, but I think it has to be addressed. When you’ve heard all of
the good news going on every month in these meetings
and everyday on this campus, I’m embarrassed and I’m saddened that we have to have this discussion. So with that, I’ll open it up
to any Trustee for discussion and again, we’re not
taking any action tonight, but I would entertain your thoughts. – [Lindstrom] Chairman,
this is Dave Lindstrom. First of all, I applaud your leadership in handling of this issue, but I also feel a huge (mumbles). It’s unfortunate that they feel this way, that they do and they don’t bring it up to the other Trustees
or the administration. But I applaud the way you handled it. Thank you. – Trustee Snider. – Thank you. Just for the record, I
did not write the letter or have any knowledge of the
record until you sent it out. Two things I’m curious about. One is do we have a good feel for how widely this letter has spread? To the legislature, to the Board of Regents, other community colleges, etc? And then the response
that Dr. Sopcich provided, is that being disseminated in some- I know it was sent to the Board, Kate sent it to many of
our community partners, but what is our strategy going forward? – Good questions. I don’t think we’re aware of how broad the letter has been distributed, but we do know that certain
legislators are aware of it. We do know that the Kansas
Board of Regents is aware of it. In terms of how broad our
distribution has been, because the Foundation
has been implicated, because our donors who have
donated to the Nerman Museum have been implicated, we have distributed to
the Foundation Board, Executive Board, I think past recipients of the Johnson County End of the
Year have received it, community members who have been kind of implicated in the letter. – [Ingram] Did you mention KACCT? – Yes, and we’ve distributed to KACCT. This memo points out weaknesses that two community colleges in the state, which I don’t believe our Trustees have the knowledge or wherewithal
or commitment to make a comment about any college in the state. And so KACCT is very concerned because it says to the legislature, “We need oversight at the state level “because local Trustees
don’t have the ability “to oversee their colleges.” – Well if it would be
helpful if we decide to be more forceful in any
communications back, I’d be happy to sign any letter with the rest of our Trustees
to show that this is an outlier compared to the
prevailing provision of being- – Thank you. Trustee Musil. – I am curious and sometimes
I play lawyer on TV, but I’m really interested in
not dancing around the issue. I did not write the letter, is there a Trustee
participant in this meeting that wrote the letter? – [Snider] I did not write the letter. – [Ingram] I did not write the letter. – Trustee Lindstrom says he
did not write the letter. So that leaves Trustee
Lawson and Trustee Cross. Trustee Lawson and Trustee
Cross, are you still there? Trustee Lawson and Trustee
Cross, are you still there? – [Lawson] Yes I’m here. Is it possible that this e-mail- is this been actually verified? – Yes. – Well I’ll go on. There are two possibilities, one is that an elected
Trustee in this college wrote the letter, which is of serious concern to me, both for immediate needs of the college and for future needs, particularly in the middle
of a presidential search. The second possibility is that
somebody forged the letter and said they were an elected Trustee, which is equally dangerous. And so I think it’s important that if nobody on this Board wrote the letter, they need to say so tonight. If somebody did write the letter, they need to say so tonight, so then we can address it
and make sure we improve whatever communication needs to be done so that these types of
letters making allegations of unethical conduct,
breaches of fiduciary duty, bullying, refusal to allow
Trustees to ask questions. If those are serious and
believed allegations, then this Board needs to
address them as a Board. So, I’m asking my fellow Board members to confirm whether or not they wrote or had any hand in this letter. – Again, Trustees Lindstrom,
Snider, Musil, Ingram and Cook have denied writing the letter. Trustee Cross and Trustee Lawson
that leaves it to you two. Trustee Cross, did you write the letter? Trustee Lawson, did you write the letter? Trustee Lawson, did you write the letter? Trustee Cross, did you write the letter? – [Snider] I guess to
follow up on Trustee Musil’s comment there, if we’re dealing with a
possible case of fraud, I think we need to alert the authorities and get that corrected in some fashion. – Thank you. – I guess the only way
to find out then is to- I would be prepared later to make a motion that the Chair and the
President jointly contact Blake Flanders at the
Kansas Board of Regents to get an un-redacted copy of the letter and a record of from where
it was sent because otherwise we can’t determine whether
it was sent by a Trustee or sent by somebody else. And all we received was a redacted one. So I think we have to know more
about where this came from. We earlier this year had
an attack on Dr. Sopcich, which was anonymous, and the U.S. Postal Service
did what it could do to find that and various
constituencies around the campus quickly denied they had
anything to do with them, and I believe them and
trust them in good faith. This is much more serious in terms of college governance than that, and so I think we simply have
to further investigate it if we can’t determine within our own Board who drafted it or had
a hand in drafting it, then we need to take the next step. – Trustee Musil, thank you. I’ve indicated we will
not take action tonight, so we will not take action. But I will share with you
that I’ve tried over the years to make decisions that’s in the
best interest of the College and as the Chair at least
through December 31st, I’m going to go everything I can. We have ways we can find
out who wrote the letter and we will pursue those. And as we determine who wrote the letter, we’ll inform the Board of
Trustees about that author. And so with that, I think unless you have
further discussion tonight, and you will get that as soon as we- we’ll work on that post haste. This is much too serious
for our college to have two Trustees who won’t
commit one way or the other to resolve this issue. And it is a Trustee issue
where we need to really look at our training and our collaboration, but it seems kind of interesting to me that when the person criticizes
the Board of Trustees to not be transparent, that they’re not transparent. So with that, unless there’s a final comment, I’m gonna close discussion
on this topic tonight. The next item is the consent agenda. The consent agenda is an
item where we routinely deal with a number of items. Unless a Board member has an item to be pulled off the agenda, I will entertain a motion to approve. – So moved. – Second. – Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. – [Board] Aye. – Oppose? Motion carries. Again, thank you for
attending the meeting tonight. I apologize that we had to
deal with a negative issue but it has to be dealt with. Congratulations to all the good news and the great work going on. I just would make a final comment that, what do you call those things? Advertisements have been made
for the president’s search, and those are out working. AGB is receiving resumes I’m sure, and we’ll just receive resumes
in November and December, and then our work begins
after the first of the year. A motion to adjourn? – So moved. – Second. – Motion has been made and seconded. All in favor signify by saying aye. – [Board] Aye. (gavel bangs) – Meeting is adjourned, thank you. (mellow guitar music)