(bright score) – Good afternoon, I’d
like to welcome you all to the September 19th meeting of the Johnson County Community
College Board of Trustees. 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.” – Before we do the roll call, I’d like to welcome Dr. Larson
to the president’s seat, Dr. Sopcich is tending to his wife, who had some real serious back surgery and is dealing with recovery today, so welcome and kind of an
interesting way to have your last meeting with this
as the president but we’re glad to have you here.
– Thank you. – [Chairman] Roll call and
recognition of visitors, Miss Liecht?
– Okay. This evening’s visitors include: Dick Carter, Jana Holwick,
Colleen Cottingham, Jamaya Haynes, Lori Bell
and Roberta Evaslage. – [Chairman] Thank you and welcome. We appreciate your attendance. Words and recognitions, Dr. Larson? – [Dr. Larson] We have no awards or recognitions tonight, Dr. Cook. – Okay. Open forum is our next item on the agenda, the open forum section of the
board agenda is a time for members of the community to
provide comments to the board. There will be one open forum 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
and 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 and our suggestion processes, or are otherwise the subject of review by the college or board. There are two registered
speakers at tonight’s meeting, can you please come to the
podium, and state your name, and address and make your comments. The first is Beth Edmonds. Beth? – Good evening, my name is Beth Edmonds, I am speaking tonight as president of the Johnson County Community
College Faculty Senate. I will use prepared
remarks for two reasons, one, I’m not an excellent
extemporaneous speaker, and two, I would like to keep
under the five-minute limit. Anyone paying very close
attention to events at JCCC right now, has heard
about shared governance. It is an easy phrase to
say, much more difficult to explain or define, even
harder still to live by. Hearing the words shared
governance spoken should not lead the listener to
presume that the speaker has an understanding of its basic tenants, what we say and what
we think are important, but even more important is what we do, the actions we take. With the creation of two task forces, charged with determining the near future of shared governance at JCCC, we have committed to educating ourselves about shared governance, but more than that, JCCC has
declared its desire to design and then implement policies and procedures that show to our community
and our accrediting body that the faculty, administration,
and trustees of JCCC will do more than speak or
think about shared governance, we will commit to act in
accordance with its principles. If we are honest we must admit that this will be particularly
difficult for us. We have not shown an inclination in this direction in the past, but speaking for the faculty, we approach the work of these task forces over the next few months with
renewed hope and enthusiasm. The good news for us is that
we have a unique opportunity right now to engage in
meaningful discussions, followed by actions, which
could lead to a substantive cultural change, especially
within the academic branch. I hear from many JCCC faculty
members, full and part time, about their wishes for a
real turn-around at JCCC and I am very hopeful that we can help bring this into being. (clears throat)
Perhaps when you hear the term shared governance, you cringe, because it is your paradigm
that the boss should make the decisions for the employee. But at an institution of
higher learning to make all decisions, top-down, often
leads to poor decisions. To ignore expertise in matters
of teaching and learning exposes us to consequences
that are not fully-understood by those doing the deciding
and makes untenable situations for those who must deal with and those who must live
with those consequences. Last year I celebrated by receiving my 20-year service pin at JCCC. When I took on the role of
Mathematics Department Chair, a little over three years ago, I was secure in the
knowledge that the faculty and my department were trusted
and valued as colleagues and knowledgeable professionals. It was understood that we are faculty with our primary focus on
the success of our students, on our adjunct partners, and on our community as
a whole. (clears throat) It took me fully two-years as
Department Chair to realize that my assumptions were not
necessarily based in fact. It has been a deeply
exhausting three-plus-years, as I with the support of my
colleagues have attempted to make the concerns and
expertise of the department not just heard but acknowledged
and then acted upon. It’s no small thing for
me to say here tonight that I have been largely unsuccessful. I am certain this would not have happened at an institution committed
to shared governance. However certain recent events
have given us reason to hope. One example is the diversity, equity and inclusion task force. It was standing room only
at the DEI Info Session during our professional development week. I was excited to see so
many caring professionals in attendance including one of
our Board of Trustee members. One of the stated goals
of the DEI Task Force is to help steer JCCC to
develop cultural competencies, cultural humility and
cultural supporting guidance that encourages students to communicate and lead in a pluralistic community, while also preparing students for a diverse and global workforce. I’m proud of this faculty-led
initiative that has grown into what I hope will be a
real cultural-shift at JCCC. It will take buy-in and
lots of purposeful hard work from individuals at all
levels to affect the whole course correction,
or shared governance. If you will search for faculty
senate on the JCCC website you can make your way to our blog. There is a 30-minute
video presentation there of the recent faculty
information sessions, recorded on September 6th. You can get more information about JCCC’s history of shared governance, including the HLC-accreditation process, as it relates to shared governance and also information
about the new task forces. In closing, I would like to note that when I was refused a place on
the agenda for this meeting, I was made curious about
the basis for recognition and legitimacy of service for this board. When the Higher Learning
Commission acknowledges the role of the faculty senate at JCCC, why does the Board of
Trustees fail to do so? I was elected as an at-large
senator by the full faculty then elected president
of the faculty senate by unanimous acclamation. If not this, then what
is the threshold which makes me a legitimate
voice for the JCCC faculty? What voices are the trustees
interested in hearing, if not faculty leadership? And what purpose is served by disallowing an elected faculty representative
the courtesy of either a place on their agenda, or
reason for their exclusion? Thank you.
– Thank you, Beth. We really have considered I guess, who’s on the agenda, and how many people are the agenda. There are a lot of groups and clubs that would love to be on the agenda, and think at this point, the faculty association has
been given the position, as they’re the negotiating
unit of the faculty. But that’s something that,
again can be discussed. But thank you for your remarks. We have a second person,
Dr. Barbara Larson. – Barbara Larson, 14616
West 78th Street, Lenexa. Thank you, Dr. Cook, members of the board, and especially my colleagues here today. I’ve been fortunate to spend
more than three decades as part of this extraordinary
experiment called community, in America called community colleges and even more fortunate
to conclude my career at Johnson County Community College. I knew of JCCC’s
reputation before I arrived and it has surpassed my expectations. I work with faculty of
enormous talent and innovation. I work closely with staff
who are highly knowledgeable and competent and together
we share a commitment to our students and to their success. Members of the board I
appreciate your vital role, as public servants and volunteers, you make exceptional commitments
of time and of judgment, and in the coming months, you will make the most consequential
decision a board makes, the selection of the
college’s next president. I have been through transitions,
such as this in the past, and I’m hopeful that the
coming year will be approached in a professional, positive manner. Although your role includes
oversight of the president and the administration, in my experience, successful colleges are those
in which the administration and board operate from
positions of mutual respect and partnership, not as adversaries. As I said, my colleagues
in this room are the most professional and
competent I’ve ever known. So it concerns me when I see
that competence questioned, particularly in public settings. JCCC is well-managed and staff
here know their jobs well. But when they are challenged
with gotcha-questions or treated like hired help, or accused of something other
than their best of intentions, it is demoralizing. No doubt, future candidates
for the president’s role are watching these meetings, and observing the tenor of deliberations. If we are to attract the best candidates for the next president,
we need to do better. I understand your need to
learn about the college. Fostering that learning is most effective when it is grounded in
courtesy, listening and respect. In my past, a common practice,
I would say a best practice, is when board members reach
out to the president’s office and explain that in the
interest of transparency, they would like to hear
more about a certain topic at the next board meeting, in this way, staff have appropriate advance knowledge and can be prepared with
the information requested. Our objective is to
provide you the information you need to make the best judgements about decisions within your purview, but we can not be expected to recall all aspects of our work at a moment’s notice. Please help us serve you better
by communicating in advance, so that your issues may be
comprehensively addressed. In closing I’m honored
to have worked for JCCC for President Sopcich and
for you as board members, together we can be proud
of many accomplishments. At the same time, many of us
spend more waking hours here, than we do with our families. Consequently the college
becomes our second home. In this home we nurture our
students in transformative ways. I’m convinced that we can be
more nurturing of one another as well, thank you.
– Thank you, Barbara. We’ll have a chance to
thank Barbara at the end of the meeting but thank
you for your remarks. – Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair?
– Next item on the board report is students– (sighs)
– Mr. Chair? – Mr. Musil?
– Well I think, Professor Edmonds raised some points that are important to the board. Not necessarily with
respect to who gets to speak at board meetings because anybody
can speak at an open forum but I do want to make it clear
to the folks in this room and the viewing public that, I don’t think we have
ignored shared governance. I don’t think we have a
consensus on what it means, or how it is to be implemented. But I wanna make it clear
to the people watching this that pay for this college that we have exercised shared governance in various forms and we can do better and I agree with her that there’s
an opportunity to do that. I also want to make it clear that I don’t think we have
ignored cultural diversity, cultural sensitivity on this campus, in fact this campus is the most welcoming place in Johnson County. Our percentage of Hispanic,
Asian, African American students is well above the county’s
percentage of average population. So can we do better? Yes, in both shared governance
and cultural sensitivity. But the sense that we
are not doing anything, or we are not doing it well at all should not be left with
the viewing public. Every one of these areas
can be done better. I also wanna make it clear that I don’t think disagreement
between faculty and staff, and faculty and administration, or faculty and trustee, or trustees and staff is
ever a one-way street. We can all do better
listening and responding. I appreciate Dr. Larson’s comments, it was fortuitous that she ended up here, coming from Florida. She has served us well, and her comments should be
taken to heart by everybody. Thank you. – Next report, student senate, Mr. Prasai. (projector whirring) Ankeet, good to see you smiling. – [Ankeet] Yes, yes. – Every good in the student center? – Yes, how do I turn… Oh, there it is, all right. So great to see so many
familiar faces again. I’m Ankeet, the student
president at the moment. We just got done with
our senator elections, we’ve got a lot of new
faces on board with senate. One of our main goals was
as an executive board to try and fill the senate and we’re
well on our way to do that. We’ve got nine senators already sworn in, and we’ve got nine prospective
ones that are waiting to be sworn in, that leaves
around six places open and we’re hoping we can fill that over the course of the semester as well. Aisha is our first one. We’ve got Aliza, Arielle, Benedikt, Jennifer, Danielle, Emma and Michael. So they’re from various
different walks of life, different experiences, they all bring something new to the table that we haven’t seen before. We’re also trying to build a bit more diverse senate this time around. We’re trying to encourage
participation from different clubs and basically from
people all walks of life, who experience the college differently. So that’s our main goal. We also decided we didn’t wanna kind of just stand by our goals. We wanted to kind of incorporate all the senators in creating the goals. So we don’t have a lot
of goals at the moment that we’re trying to do over
the course of this semester, but hopefully in our
first couple of meetings, once I get to talking with
and get to know all of them and see what they want as change, we’ll come up with our own
specific goals that we can all kind of work towards as a team. That being said, we are still helping and continuing on with the goals
of the last executive board and making sure that we kind
of see those to success. That’s all from me, thanks for listening. – Thank you and good luck
with all of your initiatives. We really appreciate all that
student senate has taken on, so many projects over the years, and we’re anticipating
that will continue soon. Ankeet, thank you very much. Have a great year. College lobby is Mr. Carter.
(projector whirring) – I got a new phone.
(everyone laughing) This might be a student, this might be a student. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
members of the board. I will skip going over the report verbatim and just kind of highlight
a few areas that I think are going to be important
moving forward as we think about the next legislative session, the first issue being that
of tax policy discussion. That is going to be a large
and encompassing issue that dominates the discussion
this next legislative session and in doing so we’re
going to have very diverse views on that that tax
policy should look like. Next week the governor will
convene a tax policy reform group that she has appointed
a number of folks to, that group will begin
taking a look at issues such as food sales tax reduction, I think they’ll be looking
at some income tax reform, or reductions in personal income tax. Commensurate you have a group meeting at the Kansas Chamber
looking at tax policy issues related to the corporate structure, Internet sales tax, property tax reform, so you can write in
parenthesis “dark store theory” if you want on that line. At the same time you have
this senate tax chair who is, has an at hawk group that’s
meeting across the state to look at various ways to
deal with tax policy reform and certainly I think one of the issues that either that group
or the state chamber will be looking at is decoupling from the Federal tax policy
that was passed in 2017. There’s a lot yet to come
from all of those groups but it is a large conversation
that will definitely dominate the legislature during the 2020 session. Let me talk a little bit about
higher education budgets, just yesterday the Board
of Regents approved the unified budget request that it will be submitting to the governor’s office. That number is around
93-and-a-half-million, that includes 13-and-a-half-million for bringing CTE and Senate Bill 150… Actually the Senate Bill 155 piece will be a supplemental request, but that includes bringing all of the tax cuts back into, back up to par, as well as some new dollars
for higher education. I think the concern that
I began to see as some of the conversation played out
both in the board meeting and some of what we heard in some of the committee conversations is, there is likely to be
a conversation at the board of regent’s level
on a state-wide mill levy for community colleges and that’s incredibly concerning, Mr. Chairman. That I think there is a
request that has been made to discuss it at the committee
level in the month of November and to be on the board agenda in December. What does that look like? I don’t know right now. I do think that there is
a regent that is close to a legislature in South-Central Kansas, that has concerns about
one particular institution, I talked a lot about it last session, during the legislative session. And so I think that when
you have an umbrella board that helps coordinate and
advocate for higher education begin to look at issues like that, that is concerning, I don’t think it speaks
for the entire board, but it’s something that we
need to be critically aware of and involved in and we will be and so I just wanted to
bring that to your attention. Mr. Chairman there is a
link in my report to a study that was released just last
week on student attitudes towards guns on campus
that is a series of, it is an ongoing survey
based on some other surveys that occurred in 2016 and
2018 from the Urban Institute and I would encourage you
to take a look at that. I do think that with next
year being an election year, we’ll be having those conversations again, because it’s politically
popular or unpopular, depending on which side
of the issue you’re on, and likely will be one of
those issues that we’re talking about at the very end of
the legislative session. And then finally, I don’t
know if the final version was approved over the weekend, I think one of the trustees
may have some additional information on this but
the KACCT board developed a legislative agenda,
not dissimilar to ours, maybe even a little more detailed than what we use here at the college to help guide us when legislative issues come up. I don’t know if it’s out for
public distribution yet or not, but it soon will be, I would imagine. And it will help guide the
association as it navigates the session moving forward. I don’t believe they’ve ever
had a document like that in the past and so we
supply it at their request, we supplied what we use, and I don’t know how it was used in the development of their document but I would just stop there and see if there are any questions. – Yeah, I have two items, and we do have a KACCT report and view trustee laws or
Trustee Ingram can speak to that but on the tax policy, are you anticipating any lightning bolts? Any new ideas, or issues that have not
been discussed previously? – Well certainly when you talk about the introduction into the
conversation of a state-wide mill levy that would be viewed
as a new state-wide tax. I don’t see that getting a lot of play. That is a highly charged issue. And certainly one that
we will be at the table and at the podium on. With regard to the
remainder of the issues, I think everything is
pretty much out there, whether it’s Internet sales tax, whether it’s reduction in food sales tax, whether it’s decoupling
from Federal tax policy, corporate income tax and
individual income tax, all of those issues I
think will be discussed, but I don’t know that there
are any that we’re not already aware of the, that what I
consider lightning bolt issues. – And regarding the state-wide mill levy, as I recall that was
percolated a little bit through the county commissioners
last year and died there, I guess my question of you is that, is there any courage by anybody
around this state to look at service area mill levys rather
than a state-wide mill levy? – I think that would become
part of the conversation. – Because we have a
number of service areas that don’t have a mill levy assessment for the counties in which they serve because they realize it
probably wouldn’t pass. Trustee Cross.
– Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair, I guess I don’t know, Mr. Carter, the regents has oversight with respect to our curriculum, right? They don’t have any statutory authority to implement a mill levy. That would have to come
from the legislature to raise taxes, right? The legislature would
have to pass some sort of statutory authority to implement
a state-wide mill levy. – With regard to a state-wide mill levy, they would have to have a
bill at the legislative level that does that presently. The first, is it 20 mills, 25
mills go to school districts and then there is a one mill levy that goes to the
educational building funds for higher education for
state university campuses. – But the legislature
would have to raise taxes– – They would have to raise that. They would have to initiate
that, and pass that, and send it to the
governor for a signature. – Quite right, thank you. – [Chairman] Any other
questions of Mr. Carter? Trustee Musil?
– Is the gambling revenue stream included in the tax,
the interim tax tax discussion, or is that completely separate? – I… You know, I think there’s
going to be issues related to sports betting, I don’t know if the
revenue streams from gaming will be included in that
conversation or not. Sometimes we create
silos in the state house. I’ve not heard it in
the mix of conversations that I’ve been a part
of but that doesn’t mean that it’s not bubbling up
somewhere in the background. – Part of the reason to even look at that is a revenue stream, right? That would have to be taxed. – You’ll of course recall
when the lottery was passed in 1986 that all of the dollars raised were gonna go to fund public education. You probably have a hard
time tracing those dollars, even today going backwards. – Trustee Snider?
– If the Board of Regents was doing something that wasn’t
aligned with our interests, how would we address it? I mean, do you talk to regents personally? Do you talk to Blake Flanders? Matt Casey, is that Dr. Sopcich’s role, how does all that happen?
– Well all of the above, of what you mentioned has occurred and has been occurring even this week. I think that the goal
probably would be to speak with a unified voice
through KACCT as a group of 19 colleges to the Board of Regents. And I know that their executive director has had some conversations
with all of those folks, that you mentioned as well. Similarly, I’ve had some conversations with both Blake Flanders
and with Matt Casey, just this week, and we have
a weekly government affairs group that gets together
on behalf of the colleges. Sometimes it’s just a
short conference call during board weeks. There is an actual face-to-face meeting and so there was one of those this week and some of those budget
issues came up this week, not the one’s that I
specifically reported on but… So I think it’s a little
bit of all of the above. – Okay, while we have
Mr. Carter at the podium, Trustee Lawson or Trustee Ingram, any remarks to his question about KACCT in either their legislative platform or in the state-wide mill levy? – I have that, the KACCT
legislative agenda, is it public.
– It is, okay. – Yep. This is a public copy, too, so it’s very meaty, it’s very detailed. So it’s definitely worth a study, and I think Dr. McCloud
can speak a lot about some of the ins and outs
that we’re doing here. And there are some accomplishments, like you mentioned the fully-funding, that happened, that was a big
accomplishment for the CTE, for the Senate Bill 155. So having a good
relationship with the KACCT, I think is a really good step forward, and if that’s something that
you’re feeling is worth while, ’cause I know you’re also
on the KBOR’s government committee, is that still something that? – There is a group of, they call it System Council of
Government Relations Officers SCOGRO is their acronym,
they love acronyms, and that is the larger group of all of the university legislative liaisons, the tech colleges, community
college associations, and then there are a couple of independent institutions that are
represented, like JCCC. I believe Cowley College has a contract lobbyist as well, so. – So I think that’s a good, do you feel like that’s
a good place too for you, where you are–
– Yeah. There’s the opportunity
to exchange issues, and ideas, and that’s where
that conversation occurs… And then there is of course, it’s coordinated by the Board of Regents, so Matt Casey being there, their government affairs person, sort of coordinates those meetings. – So we, in essence, have two voices, because we are, the lion’s
share of the membership for KACCT but we also
have you in that group, because KACCT lobbyist is
also in that committee. So I think that’s helpful and
I think it’s very valuable for us to continue a
membership with the KACCT because it helps the rural communities be able to have a voice
at that table, so… Is there anything else that?
– Well I think the only thing that I would add, in addition to that, and you did a really nice job of covering, but there have been a
number of conversations that I think they referred to
at the meeting this week and that was with Blake Flanders, that was work KBOR, that was with the governor’s office, I mean there is just a lot
of conversation that’s taking place right now and our
executive director is new but she is extremely well-versed
and very well-connected and seems to be doing a really, she’s got her pulse on all of this, but I do know there’s a
lot of information that is being asked now of us, and they were speaking with
the presidents about that, I think on Friday night. So I’m not as well-versed with that but I know they’re asking
for a lot of information, a lot of detailed information on funding. And we’re curious as to where
that’s actually gonna end up, so.
– Trustee Cross? – If very quickly, Mr.
Chair, I just wanna comment, I think that this
administration and this board, my 74 months here, like Mr. Carter, have done an excellent job, with paying attention to our interests and fighting for what we
need from the legislature. I think they do a lot for us
and we’re thankful for that, but I also think that we’re
keenly aware of what’s going on and I commend us for that, so. – Okay.
– And Mr. Carter. – Very good, anything else? Thanks, Mr. Carter,
appreciate it very much. Faculty association, Dr. Harvey. (folks murmuring quietly) – Hello, so classes are in full swing. Faculty are teaching, they’re also organizing and participating in some incredible educational
events for the community, such as just this week,
Once Upon An Artifact. I know a lot of my
colleagues presented at that, it was at the Johnson County
Arts and Heritage Center, just the other night. Our students are learning. I do a research project
with one of my lab classes, and it is organized chaos. Last Friday I planned way more than apparently we could finish, and we started at 9:00 a.m. And then I had to leave at
noon to go teach another lab and so I told ’em, I said, okay
just leave your stuff here, no one’s in here in the afternoon, and I will come back and finish it, just leave your lab books. And then I had two students
who asked to come back and help me and I was like, okay. So I told ’em when I would be coming back, and they met me there, and helped me finish everyone else’s work, and we talked about their careers, and they quizzed me about
my educational history, and what I did, and how
I ended up in this job, and then I had to go to some meetings, and come back, and clean up, and I was washing dishes at 6:30, by myself on a Friday night, (chuckles) but then I finished, but I don’t plan to do that
much work again in a lab, I don’t plan to choose that much for our lab that, in another day, ever, but I was inspired by their enthusiasm, and their genuine interest, and it was really something to
have students voluntarily say I’m free this afternoon, I’ll come back and work more in the lab. And it was really wonderful. And that is why I do this job, and I know that my colleagues
have opportunities like that and experiences like that all the time with their students,
that’s why we’re here. Of course I need to talk about
a couple of other things, as I always do, first I wanna read a
motion that was just made at my faculty association meeting today, so I’ll read that. This was just passed and
worded by some of my members. Since it is an established
practice in academic institutions that faculty members make
up a significant share of search committees for presidents and other academic officers, and since this college
is currently working to strengthen its commitment
to shared governance, the Johnson County Community
College Faculty Association calls on the Board of Trustees to support the faculty association’s
appointment of at least three faculty members to the
presidential search committee. The association also urges that the search be conducted in
a fully transparent manner opening all events to the
public whenever possible. So that was a statement that was drafted by association members and I
wanted to share that with you. The next thing I wanna talk about is over the last week or two, two different groups
have formed on campus, we’ve talked a little
bit about it tonight, they’re in response to
the second HLC request related to shared governance. One is the college-wide task force. And the other is the academic branch, is about, it includes the academic branch and it includes representatives from all the divisions on campus. In the vast majority of the
committee, of that committee, I’ve seen the membership list, and the vast majority are FA
members with few exceptions, part time faculty, deans, but the faculty association
has also selected DennisArdo to represent us specifically in that group and they are charged with researching and recommending
inappropriate policy structure for faculty-shared
governance complete with inoperational practices framework
for the policy structure. That’s their charge, okay. Last year, our negotiations team presented a number of proposals
as negotiations stalled, and this was an effort
to come to an agreement. Many of our proposals didn’t
have any monetary costs to them but they were dismissed and rejected, with sometimes little or
seemingly no consideration. At least that’s how it felt to us. And exactly one year ago today, we met with the Federal
mediator to work on ending our impasse in contact negotiations,
that was September 19th. And that day our team proposed
a deal that we would accept the last board offer to end our impasse, in exchange for an
agreement that we would be part of a task force to
fix the shared governance. And this is the memorandum
of understanding that we proposed as memorandum
of understanding between the JCC Faculty Association
and JCCC Board of Trustees. Parties agree to form a task
force of no more than 10 persons, five of whom must
be FA members appointed by the faculty association
and headed by two co-chairs, one of whom must be an FA member appointed by the faculty association, who will research and negotiate a plan to improve shared governance
and vertical communication, as it relates to the instructional
branch of the college. The agreement reached by the
task force will be included on the college’s report to
the Higher Learning Commission due September of 2019 and will become part of the JCCC Master Agreement upon ratification. Both parties agree that the
substance of the HCL report and the revised language
of the Master Agreement will be in alignment. The task force will meet as needed until the submission of the HCL report, at which time, it’s allowed
to contractually expire. Task force is authorized to delegate assignments to subcommittees
or other branches of college leadership,
as it deems necessary. So this is something we proposed
exactly a year ago today, and there was no guarantee that any language would be agreed upon, the point was that we would
be part of the process of solving our shared governance problems and being valued in a way that was worth ending impasse for us. There are things worth more than money, and this was rejected and we ended impasse with an additional parental
leave policy instead. And this decision
forever altered our hopes of feeling valued by the
Board of Administrators who were part of the
decision to reject our offer. Our issues during negotiations
were never about money or fiduciary responsibility, it was more about power and respect and that’s how we got here. Had our proposal been accepted, we would’ve had a different
attitude leaving negotiations. We would have been included
in the efforts to solve the shared governance
issues here at the college. We would’ve been included in
drafting the first response to HCL instead of reading
it for the first time just a month before it was submitted. We would be a year farther
along in the process and not pressed by this
HCL imposed deadline and very compressed
deadline as we are now. Instead our request to be included and take joint ownership of
faculty governance was rejected and now here we are
doing exactly, (chuckles) almost exactly the same work that we asked to be part of doing and it’s a year later. So I wanted to point that out because as we were all
discussing it amongst ourselves, we’re like, we offered to
take on this work a year ago. Okay so I also wanna
shift now to a topic of, that keeps surfacing, of mandatory negotiable items. So we also asked for a retirement benefit, numerous times throughout negotiations and we were rejected every
time we brought it up. And suddenly, just a few months later, after we signed contracts,
the VERB benefit, that we’re all very happy
to have for our retirees but looks a heck of a
lot just exactly like what we were asking for
during negotiations, that we would’ve gladly ended impasse for, was suddenly proposed and rolled out just a few months after
the contract was signed. To our amazement, outside negotiations, outside our contract, and it puts us in an awkward position because it was something
we very much wanted, we always wanted it, but then here it is, immediately
just a few months later, rolled out when we had asked for it. This last may we also had an
issue with faculty evaluations being changed in one division. And it took considerable
amount of back and forth, between myself and others to
sort of communicate the why and how this was not okay. And it’s been, it was a very collegial
conversation the whole way. It’s my understanding and I’m hearing from faculty
that it’s being resolved and the evaluations are
being redone appropriately, and I’m gonna continue to
follow-up with everybody and make sure that it’s done and corrected before my window
closes to file a complaint if I have to but I don’t think
I’m gonna have to do that. And that’s not why I’m here,
it’s not to say I’m you know, it’s not to be threatening in some way but this brings me to my final words, there are some mandatory negotiable items, and these are items that you don’t change without negotiations, there’s a list. It’s included in the state statutes. And I realize that not
everyone has time to learn ’em, or look it up, or find ’em, it takes a little bit to find ’em, you kind of have to know they’re there, and know what you’re looking for. So I’m gonna read you a
small section that spells out the major issues that keep popping up, so hopefully we can be on the same page. So this is really just to be educational, kind of make sure we’re on the same page, that these are the items
that we have a union, we’re supposed to negotiate them, if you want to change them. And I realize that we
do three-year contracts, so there’s gonna be stuff that happens in the span of three years. You know and our, and we feel
rushed when we’re doing it, and so there’s gonna be stuff that happens that has to be revisited,
that’s absolutely gonna happen. But there’s still a process. And it’s supposed to be, things are supposed to be negotiated. Okay so this is from a Kansas
Statutes 722218 definitions, and I’m just gonna read part L, and I’m just reading part A of that, terms and conditions of
professional service means, and so these are the items
that are mandatory negotiable if you wanna change them, salaries and wages, including pay for duties
under supplemental contracts, hours and amounts of work,
vacation allowance, holiday, sick, extended, sabbatical,
and other leave, and number of holidays, retirement, that’s the VERB thing, insurance benefits, wearing
apparel, pay for overtime, jury duty, grievance procedures, including binding
arbitration of grievances, disciplinary procedure,
resignations, termination, non-renewal of contracts, reemployment of professional employees, terms and form of the individual professional employee
contract, probationary period, professional employee
appraisal procedures, that’s the faculty evaluations part, each of the forgoing being a term and condition of professional service, regardless of its impact on the employee or on the operation of
the educational system. So I just wanted to read that out, just because I feel like I keep
having the same conversation of trying to explain the
things that are mandatory items that if we wanna change them, we have to sit down and negotiate. And I feel like you know,
we’ve been pretty collegial and pretty open to sitting down with folks and talking about things, and especially if it’s
something that we want, we’re not gonna, we’re gonna fight against
something that we want, but there is a process
and it’s spelled out, there’s also a process
in here, in the statutes, that you know, lays out what, what we do if the rules aren’t followed, and what our options are, and I don’t want to go those directions, I don’t think anybody does, but I would like to just have
a commitment from folks that you’re going to consider
that things that should be in our contract and
should be negotiated, should be negotiated and
then put in our contract, and it’s in everybody’s best interest, it helps the administrators, you’re trying to carry out
the things spelled out, ’cause they can reference
it, it’s right there. It helps faculty know what to plan on, things like a retirement benefit. If we don’t know if it’s gonna be there, for at least two or three years at a time, it’s hard to plan your life. So–
– Dr. Harvey, as Chair, I’m going to stop you there. – [Dr. Harvey] Okay, that’s
the end of my report. – I would just say that, in the spirit of trying to be collegial, I probably should’ve stopped you long ago, because we don’t negotiate, or talk about negotiations
in this setting. We will in the fall of 2020, establish the negotiation process again and that negotiation team will
begin in February of 2021. And I would summarize what you’ve said, in terms of what goes into
the negotiation process, you’re right, compensation
workload is one thing to negotiate, benefits is another, but the third, parties agree to negotiate, and they have a chance to put the items that they wanna negotiate
within that contract, and those discussions. And so we have a process to go by, as you have a process to go by, and that will begin, like
I say, in the fall of 2020, activating discussions
for February of 2021. In light of collegial steering
I think I’m acrid in that, in our last meeting I’m
the only one that put items on the agenda for collegial steering and for the benefit of the board, I would say we have representatives from this faculty senate,
faculty association, the administration and trustees,
and educational affairs, and the two items I put
on were shared governance, and the engagement survey, and no one else put
anything on the agenda. I guess I’m getting more
concerned that we try and raise these issues at a business meeting when we have several committees, and we’re gonna talk about this issue a little bit later in our
agenda, under new business, but we have several committees, and a collegial steering
would be a great place. I applaud Beth Edmonds for
saying there’s hope and we are, we have hope that we’re
moving into a new era here with this shared
governance discussion. In collegial steering we spent half of our time on shared
governance and I got the sense, and Nancy can speak to
herself, Trustee Ingram, that all of the groups felt, yeah, the process is in place. And from the HLC-standpoint, and I can’t think of a
better person to chair that whole committee than Dr. Barrett, who is a national renowned person in HCL. The engagement survey, Karen
Martley is engaged with that. We talked about that
for half of our meeting, and everybody seemed to agree that yes, that process is in place
and steps are being taken. So for you to say that, the VERB situation was
something you negotiated but then it came on later, that was something the trustees
really didn’t have to do, it came after everything was all over. So I think we’re at the point of who’s gonna get the credit for what, I’m not saying that trustees
should get the credit, or anybody gets the credit, I do agree with you 100% that
we need to work more closely together to resolve
these particular issues. But this is not the place
to discuss negotiable items. – I think you’re missing
the point of my message. So the point of my message, so I probably said, I wasn’t clear, the point of my message is that, I’m not asking to, I’m not bringing new
proposals to the table today, the point of my message was, the last part of my message was to say, that if the institution
wants to make changes to the items that are
mandatory negotiable, outside the three-year contract, they absolutely can approach us and we can negotiate those items but they can’t be made
around the contract, outside the contract, without negotiation. So there’s items that don’t, even if it’s in the middle, you can make changes, but
you have to negotiate them, that’s what I’m saying. And so that’s my message,
it’s just asking that, people wouldn’t be working
around our contract, but would be following the statutes. – Thank you.
– Mr. Chairman? – Trustee Musil. – I’m frustrated because
there appears to be a desire to create some crisis
urgency on every issue here. You were represented by council
throughout the negotiations we were represented by council
throughout the negotiations, there is a statutory
framework that does that, why you went to impasse, I don’t know, I know they were three-and-a-half-percent
and three-percent, and what we heard was that you wanted three-and-a-half-percent, after starting at about
five-point-eight-percent. So I don’t appreciate
the appearance that there was one-sided bawking at
any reasonable agreement, that this board somehow
came up with the decision that we don’t like faculty, and that you can state, “it forever ended hopes of being “valued by the Board of Trustees”. I don’t believe faculty
on this campus as a whole believe they are not valued
by this Board of Trustees. And the fact that we created
a very valuable benefit for the faculty and the staff through the voluntary employee
retirement benefit program, it’s amazing to me sometimes that I’m not looking for gratitude, I’m just looking not to be
blamed for doing something that was to be benefit of
everybody on this campus. And so when you, if we wanna get into a legal discussion, we probably oughta have our
lawyers get into that discussion about what this statute means and what we did or did not negotiate, as the chairman told us, each side gives lists of
things we’re gonna negotiate and then we do that because
there’s a statutory process. But this notion that you are
sending to the public that, boy the negotiations
last year went to impasse because this board
doesn’t value our faculty, doesn’t care about their
workload or their compensation, or their retirement, is simply misleading. And I’m… It upsets me, because that’s not what happened last year when it went to impasse on July 31st. And that’s not what
happened last September when we passed the collective
bargaining agreement, the new Master Agreement. And I don’t think it benefits
us going in the future, to have that continuing attitude that both of us have to fight each other over everything related
to the Master Agreement, because it’s not true. – I’m not going to let this go into a two-hour debate tonight. I would say that, just last Friday, I think it was last Friday, time goes by so quickly, we had an all-staff picnic, and a number of faculty and
staff came up to me, said, thank you for the picnic,
thank you for your leadership, we love working here. And so I guess I’m saying
that to the general public, that this isn’t a place
where we have this ongoing disharmony between groups of
employees and the trustees. I guess I didn’t expect
to have a lot of people come up to me and say,
“thank you for a picnic”, and “I love working here”, but they did. So with that, Trustee Cross.
– Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Professor Harvey, I
think I hear you saying, with respect to the
statutes, I wrote it down, case A72-2218, that you referenced, the statute specifically states, if I understand what you’re saying here, is that an item like that
probably should have been renegotiated and that
there are remedies pursuant to the Master Agreement if things happen outside of the Master Agreement. Correct?
– Yeah. – Thank you for your message tonight. – [Chairman] Next item
is the Johnson County Education Research
Triangle, Trustee Cross. – Mr. Chair, the Johnson
County Research Triangle has not met since we last did. The next meeting for JCERT
will be October the 28th, 2019, at the KU Clinical
Research Center in Fairway, and that concludes my report Mr. Chair. – [Chairman] Thank you. KACCT, Trustee Lawson.
– Thank you, Mr. Chair. We had a good meeting in Neosho County, we certainly wanna thank
Dr. Inbody for hosting. I was really impressed with
his auditing background and his commitment to transparency. He had a presentation showing his website and a lot of the salary ranges, data, enrollment figures were
all out online ready, and I thought that was really great to see that level of commitment. I think there are always
opportunities to learn from other Kansas colleges and this
was a good weekend for that. So this report is a little bit lengthy, so I hope you bear with me, because there was a lot of
information as you can see, this was the Board Packet
that we received… Or not the Board Packet… This was the packet we
received from KACCT, so this is available to any trustees, and I can pass that around
as well as the public. It was of course good to
catch up with other trustees, and to understand some of the
very incredible difficulties that they are experiencing right now. Issues exploring (stammers)
also included the KBOR on the student transfer
credits to universities, we heard some of that
with Dick Carter’s update, but then also updates on the Federal reauthorization of the Higher Ed Act, there was Second Chance
Pell and college funding. There’s a lot of gridlock
at the Federal level, as we probably are aware of, about how to support the higher education and which plan is gonna move forward. We discuss the upcoming U.S. Census, and the governor’s counting committee, talked about how colleges can help encourage the counting process, and to make sure that students and families are properly counted. The census also makes sure that we have the right number
of elected representatives, if size changes so does the support from the state and Federal level. So of course those
levels are very critical. Case day came and did a great presentation about adult education
and education leadership. We discussed the change in population that we are seeing in
the state demographics, so that the majority white communities that are becoming
majority persons of color, and how does a community college adapt to those changes in their community? How does their board adapt to
the need for more inclusion, diversity in their board, and staff through their policies, and hiring practices to help make sure the board is more reflective
of their community. We also reviewed a new KACCT by-laws, which I have a copy here, and talked about the importance of good by-laws for an organization. Then the meat in the
gristle which I’m almost, if Dr. McCloud is open and willing, he might be more in ability to explain some of the real details that I think he’s got the expertise on. The overall gist is, KACCT presented their legislative agenda, focusing on excelling
career-tech education from Senate Bill 155,
we’ve heard a lot about, asking to fund the one-third
of the gap in tiered and non-tiered which is a 9,000,000, but there’s actually an update on that, and I’ll give that over to Dr. McCloud to give that information
which is really exciting. And have more discussions
around high-wage, high-demand careers because
there is a need to have more accurate charts that
KBOR needs to look at, that is more reflective of what is going on in the community colleges. So there is discussions about having accurate input for those charts and wages. Of course and then supporting
concurrent enrollment and local control which that’s items that Dick Carter had to say. And then the executive director alert is that KBOR was lobbied by some groups to drastically underfund
community colleges, arguing that the majority of all funding must come from student tuition, and that we should all tighten our belts. Of course KACCT will be lobbying against these kinds of efforts. And this was the flyer that
was passed out in KBOR Dinner that we all received which
was also very alarming. That concludes my report. It was a long, good weekend, and I’ll let Trustee Ingram take over if there was anything else that I– – [Trustee Ingram] I don’t
have anything to add, no. I think–
– Here, this one. – Just the comments that I made earlier, about some of the funding issues and the request for more information and more detailed information
than I think we’ve expected and understood for a long time. – Yeah, and then, Dr. McCloud, did you want to speak on more detail? – Yeah, the big shift was
that the vote yesterday, taken by KBOR seems to indicate
that they would fully-fund all of the programs still currently tiered under Excel in CTE which
could exceed actually, the 13,000,000, the conversation on the table went up as high as 21, but that is tied to the number
of actual students connected to programs that are still
tiered within Excel in CTE, because several of those
programs will become untiered at the end of this academic year, so for this year, at least, they have committed to
fully-funding every student who is a part of a course
that is in that tier. – [Chairman] Trustee Cross? – [Trustee Cross] Trustee Lawson, did you say where the next meeting’s at? I might’ve missed that.
– I’m almost done, so I can– – I’m sorry.
– No you’re fine! I was gonna go over the national (Cross murmurs quietly)
and then the next KACCT, too, but wanted to give Dr.
McCloud that opportunity to talk about the funding
that level that happened. And then next KACCT meeting
is actually going to be here at JCCC, December 6th and 7th, then we also have the national
organization that we’re a part of October 16th through
the 19th in San Francisco. Trustee Ingram will
actually be speaking in the removing policy
barriers increase access to student’s success with Randy Weber and then I will be speaking in a panel for perspectives on student policy. So I think that it would be a
really exciting opportunity. And then Trustee Ingram
did you wanna speak about the committee
that you’re on, as well? – [Trustee Ingram] We
haven’t met recently. – No?
– I think our next meeting is maybe the 14th, it’s
that week in San Francisco, so I don’t have anything
to report, thank you, – And then the Diversity,
Equity, Inclusion Committee that I’m on also has not spoken… We had a conference call
that I reported to you in the board meeting the last
time, and that would be the, I will present any
information that comes forward but at this point we have not
received an agenda for that. And that concludes my report, unless there’s any other questions? – Thank you.
– And I’ll pass around the legislative agenda for KACCT, and that flyer so that you guys are aware. – Thank you. Foundation, Trustee Musil. (Trustee Musil whispering quietly) Foundation, Trustee Musil.
– Gotcha! (chuckles) About 50 foundation members, and other peer leaders
attended the foundation social on August 22nd at the Hugh
Libby Career Technical Education Center, led
by Dean Richard Fort. The foundation will
also host a celebration luncheon on Thursday, October 10th, as part of the official
ribbon-cutting and dedication, the luncheon will be 11:30 to 1:00, and at 1:15 there will
be the public ceremonies officially opening the CTE building. The foundation also hosted the annual scholarship celebration
at lunch on September 4th, and the annual gathering of
foundations scholarship winners, they take a microphone around and we always hear very powerful stories about what a difference these
private scholarships make to students who are able
to attend the college and it says here, I have to thank Earl and Dr. Jerry Cook for being one of the microphone walker-arounders. – We missed you.
– I know. – I hated to miss that. Table sponsorships and
individual tickets are available for Some Enchanted Evening,
which is November 9th, that’s the cap-off, the 50-year
anniversary celebration, and it’s the biggest fundraiser
for scholarship funds that the college has. Mike and Susan Lawley are event Chairs and Frank Devicel is being honored as Johnson County of the Year, basically built Olathe Health Systems, Olathe Medical Center
into what it is today. More than 730,000 has been raised to date, special employee pricing
was recently announced and we’re excited to
see a number of faculty and staff signing up to support this great event benefiting our students and that’s my report.
– Thank you very much. Audit committee is the next,
you have in your packet, the minutes from the
August audit committee, that report was given at
the August board meeting, so the minutes are there for your review. Collegial steering, I’ve already spoken to collegial steering and don’t believe I need to add anything. Trustee Ingram, learn
equality, Trustee Snider. – Thank you, Mr. Chairman, the learn equality
committee met on Monday, September 3rd at 8:30,
minutes are in the packet. The highlight of the
meeting for me at least was a presentation by a
librarian, Barry Bailey, on open educational resources, or probably in my view,
E-books that are free, there are a lot of
opportunities with this, also some challenges right now, even though there are a
vast range of E-books, or open education resources available, not all are a perfect match
for our course instructors and so that evolution onto our campus is a little bit slow-going at this point, but offers a great opportunity, and just to kind of
underscore the, you know, this board has gotten
bogged down at times about a $1.00 increase or
where that should be set, and by giving someone a free book that could save them you know, a $100 to $400 and so just
to put into perspective what the potential with
E-books could eventually be. So I’ll look forward to
more discussions on that. Have no recommendations this month, but there are two affiliation agreements in the consent agenda and
that concludes my report. – The questions of
Trustee Snider, thank you. Management, Trustee Ingram.
– Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Management Committee met at 8:00 a.m., on Wednesday, September 4th, 2019, here in the boardroom. The information related to the
Management Committee meeting begins on page seven
and runs through page 23 of the Board Packet. The Management Committee
receives several presentations from staff, Dr. Jay Antle, the
college’s executive director at the Center for Sustainability
for finding highlights of the college’s sustainability efforts, the college continues to make
progress toward its goals, to reduce energy consumption, and to increase its reliance
on renewable sources. With its leadership in recycling,
energy use, curriculum, and projects, such as
the bird collision study, the Center for Sustainability continues to be recognized regionally, and at the national level
for its innovative work. I’m gonna take a moment to add
a little something in here, because Jay’s presentation
included a list of the overall top performers among associate,
baccalaureate, masters, and doctoral institutions
of the Association for the Advancement of
Sustainability and Higher Ed, and out of over 800
institutions we rank number 10. That same institution at, excuse me, the same
association just elected Jay, Vice Chair, Chair-elect and he will be the first Chair from a community college, so I wanted to include that, worked really well, really
well. (everyone applauding) I couldn’t see him, I’m
glad he’s still here. Barbara Larson, executive
vice president for Finance and Administrative
Services presented information on an agreement with the American
Association of University, excuse me, yeah, University Professors, this agreement can be found
in the consent agenda, on page 41 of the Board Packet. Rachel Lierz, the associate
vice president for Financial Services CFO
updated the committee on the year-end audit for fiscal year 2019 and initial planning for next year’s fiscal year 2021 budget process. Our next report was
from Ashawnte Thompson, Bookstore Manager, he gave a presentation on
textbook affordability and sales. He highlighted the option that students have for accessing course materials, such as new textbooks, used,
rental and day-one access, which is digital courseware. During the last academic
year, new book sales, the more expensive
option for our students, accounted for just 36% of all textbook sales of the bookstore. Janelle Vogler, associate vice president for Business Services provided information on the competitive solicitation
requirements policy, as it pertains to local vendors. She also reviewed the
Procurement Services’ current and planned practices and recommendations for increasing local vendor participation. Next she presented the
single-source purchase report. Rex Hays, associate vice president, Campus Services and Facility Planning, provided the monthly progress report on capital infrastructure projects and this report is on
page 16 of the packet. Rex gave an update on
the construction projects across campus and
reviewed the report on the financial status of the
facility’s master plan. That report is in your packet on page 17. The Management Committee has a number of recommendations to
present this evening. There were four recommendations based on request for proposals or RFPs and bids. First was an RFP for the
renewal of an annual contract for housekeeping services,
it is a recommendation that the Management Committee
that the Board of Trustees accept the recommendation of
the college administration to approve the renewal of
the annual contract JCCC-1387 with ABM on-site services for
ongoing housekeeping services for a current-year amount of $1,032,367, and an estimated amount of $1,032,367, for the remaining optional
renewals through 2021 for a total estimated amount of $2,064,734 and I will make that motion.
– Second. – [Chairman] We have a motion
and a second, any discussion? Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying “I”. – [All] I.
– Yes. – [Chairman] Opposed? Motion carries.
– Next was annual contract for prime vendor for
food and food supplies. 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,
JCCC-1389 with Sysco for prime vendor for
food and food supplies, for a current-year amount of $750,000 and an estimated amount of
$750,000 for the remaining optional renewals through
2021 for a total estimated amount of $1,500,000 and
I will make that motion. – Second.
– We have a motion and a second, any discussion? Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying “I”. – [All] I.
– Opposed? Motion carries. – Next is the annual contract for athletic apparel, gear and equipment. 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
JCCC-1383 for athletic apparel, gear and equipment with BSN
Sports for a current-year amount of $200,000 and
estimated amount of $200,000 for the remaining optional
renewals through 2021, for a total estimated amount of $400,000 and I will make that motion. – Second.
– We have a motion and a second, any discussion? Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying “I”. – [All] I
– Opposed? Motion carries. – Our final recommendation is for the annual contract for the college’s Benefits Administration &
Online Enrollment Services. It is the recommendation of
the Management Committee that the Board of Trustees accept
the recommendation of the college administration to
approve the annual contract for Benefits Administration
& Online Enrollment Services with Workterra for a base year of $37,344 and a total estimated
expenditure of $186,720 for all option years through 2024 and I will make that motion.
– Second. – [Chairman] We have a motion
and a second, any discussion? Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying “I”. – I.
– I. – I.
– Yes. – Yes.
– Opposed? Motion carries.
– Finally, as the board is aware, the college recently issued
a request for proposal 20-006 for executive search
and recruiting services for JCCC’s presidential search. The Board of Trustees
evaluated responsive proposals and at a special meeting
of the Board of Trustees held on August 20th, the board heard presentations from four shortlisted firms. Following those presentations,
the board unanimously voted to narrow consideration to two firms, RH Perry and the AGB Search. Procurement services staff then performed reference checks on these two firms and forwarded that
information to the board. This evening you have a
short summary page comparing pertinent information between
the two firms at your places. Potential recommendations for action are found on page 15 of the Board Packet. At this time I will turn the discussion over to Dr. Cook for further action. – Thank you Trustee Ingram. I wanna thank Trustees for
the time you’ve put into this. We scaled it down to
four, had those interviews and a special meeting and
then you have unanimously chosen two for our consideration tonight. Dr. Larson is there anything
else you wanna add to this before we discuss this topic?
– I don’t believe so. Again, you received reference
checks from procurement. I think that you’ve narrowed
it to two very fine firms and really either could perform successfully for the college. – Think what I’d like to do, thank you, what I’d like to do is
go around each trustee, make your comments about the
two if you have a preference for one or the other, we’ll
follow that up with a motion and hopefully unanimous decisions. So let’s start with you Trustee Snider. Any thoughts you have
about these two firms? – I think Dr. Larson kind
of hit it on the head. I think both are very capable firms that would serve us well,
my preference is AGB, but I would be comfortable with either. – Trustee Lawson?
– Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a longer assessment. I’m looking at the references, and of course the confidential fact sheet. I know when we’re looking
at a screening committee, when I was at the KACCT, one
of the trustees that have been longstanding at another community college, mentioned a recommendation
during their screening for president, that there was
about 15 people in a committee and it was a balance of
trustees, faculty, students, business owners, so enough
stakeholders that gave them the best candidate for their
board to vote on so I thought, I’ve been thinking about that a lot. I do have some concerns
on the cost for AGB. It asks for, which was
apparently last time in the public meeting one-third
of the salary of the higher, of the top search fees. The estimated number that is shown here, I don’t know if that is
accurate because when I compare what we pay for a president at this point, I don’t know if that is the
cost that is based for this, if that’s correct. The second question I have
is what is the actual range of pay we are offering
because that of course will impact the cost at
the end of the contract, if it’s at a one-third percentage. Considering how there are already roughly about $25,000
difference in the two firms, I’m worried about a starting-base salary that is likely the difference
between those two firms and that could actually increase. So those are things. My other questions about
AGB is what is the baseline, the range of pay being offered, but that, if the range of pay that we
are offering based on this estimate is not exactly what we commit to for the person coming in, because maybe there’s more experience, maybe there’s more something on the table that warrants something
of a higher base-pay. This of course could impact that contract, and as a result increase the amount that we budget for this search process. Obviously they do financially benefit because the bigger the starting salary, the more they get paid,
so I have some questions, about how does the board set
the presidential salary cap with AGB, or is the cap
on top amount be paid that the Search firm would
rather you know, have them, just the one-third base-salary. So of course that one piece for me is, has a lot of weight and a lot of concerns that I’ve been thinking about. When I look at RH Perry, especially their references as well, I’m really impressed with
their presentation that we saw, which I found to be the
best and most informative. And I felt it was really
informative of the answers they provided, the articles
that they write online were very impressive, they spoke
to and do a lot of teaching for their clients around
diversity, equity and inclusion. So it feels like RH Perry
is one that is really leading the way for the
term DEI, for their clients. They also had strong notes
that I remember reading about the solutions to
help communities grow with their community college
by bringing these issues to the table that others
may at times overlook, or maybe I just didn’t hear them in the interview that we had. And as well as being able
to adjust power dynamics, so RH Perry seems to be the better value considering the cost
and also since we agree that both of these firms are really well, it’s hard for me to decide
the more expensive one, if we’re both getting the same
quality of the organization and our typical RFP processes, if it’s something that’s the same quality, or the same value ad then
we go with the lesser one. So I wanna hear the rest of the board and be able to make a
more final vote, end it. – Thank you, I’ll try and answer your question on the pricing. It is an estimate because it is that, and the more you discussed your questions, I think, the more you
answered your own question. The discussion of the salary for the new president will be determined by the board, not by the Search firm.
– Okay. – However when we look at those resumes and those applicants coming in then, that too will probably drive our decision, but our decision as a board, as to what we’re going
to pay the president will be based upon who that president is and will be a board decision
separate from the firm. And I think to answer the question, we have no range right now, we’ve not, no one’s talked about a range of what that salary may or may not be. Trustee Musil?
– Well I’ll speak to the salary just because I think we should all be prepared
to hire somebody, at a materially higher salary
than Dr. Sopcich has achieved. Dr. Sopcich was hired cheap, if you will, because he was on campus.
– It was an austere measure, Trustee Cook said (mumbles) austere. – Austere… He has refused any salary increases beyond that given anybody else on campus, except for one year when
we forced it on him. He gave all that money
back to the foundation, in turn for scholarship use. So when I was Chair and you
looked at comparable salaries, with our peer institutions
or the league of innovation, Dr. Sopcich was always below the mean, and he was always below the
median by a significant amount. So I think you’re right
to point out that we’re, I think that number’s
low. (fingers tapping) But as I said when we discussed, I think it was at our special meeting, I’m hiring a president
for five to seven years, this college is hiring a president, hopefully for five to seven years, even though the average
might be three years. And I’m not going to nickel
and dime the process, if they were dramatically different, but if it’s $30,000 difference, over a five-year period
of a presidential term, I’m not gonna worry about $6,000 a year. We certainly seem to spend
less time worrying about $4,000,000 in new money
or whatever than that. I struggled with both of ’em, like Trustee Lawson, I was
glad that we’ve moved RH Perry into the interviews and I
thought they were very good. The thing I liked about them best was community college experience. But when I looked at, when I went back over them in
preparation for this meeting, I did land on AGB. I liked their, my notes
indicated they talked about pre-search, including K12 and KBOR, the ascending and descending
institutions in the process of deciding the kind
of president you want, they convinced me that they weren’t just looking at their stable of normal names, they were going to look for fresh pool. I liked their inclusiveness, both in terms of diversity
and searching for candidates, but diversity of including
community in the process of figuring out what our
posting is gonna look like, what the job description looks like and then when we bring finalists
to campus, who we include, how broadly we include people
to make sure that’s true. They talked about training
the search committee on implicit bias and
other diversity issues that I think was something
unique that they do. And I guess finally they talked about the importance of confidentiality. And I know Dr. Harvey mentioned
keeping the search process open and transparent,
quote, “whenever possible”, I think was the quote. I think it’s worth reiterating
that we will not get as many candidates or as good a candidates if the search process is not confidential up to the point where finalists
come to campus to interview, because people are not going to, not gonna put their name
in, out in the public, so that their existing institution knows they’re looking to leave, and that’s just the reality. I think our search committee
will be sufficiently diverse and we need to keep
confidentiality in mind and I thought AGB did a good job on that. So I’ll leave it at that. I end up coming down with AGB. – Thank you, Trustee Lindstrom? – Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I also, like Trustee Snider,
think they both are qualified, I would lean toward AGB and
would defer to my colleagues because I have not been
able to participate to the degree I would
like to in this process. – [Chairman] Trustee Cross? – I don’t know the difference. (chuckles) Hire ’em both, I think
there is obviously lesser impressive candidates that we eliminated. I think they’re both probably fine. My preference would be probably be toward RH Perry and Associates, but this is no hill I wanna die on, nor do I think it’s that big a difference. Like I think they’re both
excellent institutions. I do like RH Perry’s
community college experience, which has been said, and I’m
trying not to repeat things that have been said but, I really do like AGB’s
Board of Regents experience, as much as I like to poke ’em
in the eye, I do love ’em, I’m a product of theirs (mumbles), and I love ’em, and I have indoctrinate my children in Kansas Jayhawk football
because I love them so much. (everyone chuckles) So I think that’s impressive. I could flip a coin, but my preference would be RH Perry. – Okay, Trustee Ingram? – Much like Trustee Lawson, I
had several pages of comments, but I will narrow it
down at this point to– – Preferences.
– Along with everyone else, I could be happy with either one. I did prefer and would suggest, that I would feel like
there’s a little more strength in the experiences of the qualifications of the two people who would
be leading us through AGB, and that’s one difference that we have really not talked about. I did some comparison
with both of the folks, or both of the sets of folks
who would be leading this. The other thing that we haven’t
mentioned as far as AGB, they offer transition planning and that was something
that they considered to be one of their, they referred it to, it was a key attribute is what they said, and RH Perry said “upon request”, and so I just kind of
felt like that drew me in a little bit further, you
know, I mean, it’s down to the, little teeny-tiny differences
that you can find, but I think ultimately
we’re going to be prepared, they will all be well organized, they will be inclusive, we will find high quality candidates, from each of them,
(papers rustling) but I still felt like the
strength with the qualifications for the executive search
team was stronger with AGB, so that would be my preference. – Thank you. (clears throat) I like all of you, think
they’re both really good firms, I appreciate your concern
Trustee Lawson and Trustee Musil, viewpoints on the cost and the
AGB cost would be bearable, depending upon the salary. They do though wave some
administrative fees, that RH Perry does not wave. I guess I like AGB from the viewpoint of their Midwest experience, and I’m not saying that
our next president, or a vice president could
certainly come from Florida. (everyone chuckles) But I think AGB when you look
at all of their institutions, outside of the Kansas Board
of Regents and university systems they’ve had strong
experience in the Midwest. I like Nancy, looked at the two
people that would be leading the firm and I guess what I
highlighted with Dr. McCormick, McCormick, he’s a frequent
speaker on addressing characteristics of leadership, governance, workforce development, higher education, opportunity for the underserved
and underrepresented, and as we look at our diversity statement, as we look at our governance issue, as we look at leadership issues, he seems to add a little extra resume there in addition to just doing searches. So I can go either way, I like Trustee Cross, I can I
guess throw a point in here, but I really like AGB’s
Midwest experience, and what their two consultants coming to this account will bring to us. Trustee Lawson and Trustee Snider. – Mr. Chair, thank you so much, so it sounds like the
board wants to go with AGB. I do have some suggestions then, because I think AGB would be
a great firm to do the search. The concern I have is around the one-third pay of the salary, if there’s a way because
fees are always negotiable, not… Can we look at possibly asking AGB to cap their fee at the
quoted rate that’s here and because the concern I have with that is that this would free up
the search for a candidate without the concerns
of increasing our cost. So if there’s a candidate
that comes forward that negotiates a higher contract salary, that person is not taken off the table because we look at the contract
that now I’m gonna go up. Right now there’s a 25% difference with increasing the salary at right now, where President Sopcich
is to what might be industry standard we might see a stronger increase in difference between the two, but that we can also go
back to the constituents and justify this increase, why
we’re doing this, but to… Also, I don’t want to see great candidates that come forward potentially eliminated because you know we know
that hiring a great candidate could increase what
the pay is of the firm, but that we could also come to the table, loaded up with limits
because the increase in what we pay for their firm
could harm the college, it could harm the candidate, or harm the public dollar support, so. I’m trying to make sure that
the firm is also not harmed, by limiting the kind of
candidates that they should offer because I don’t want them to only go out and get candidates that
are at the quoted rate. So having this cap I feel
might provide that freedom with the board as well as the firm. But then to also offer an option here. Cap at the estimated rate right now, and any difference from where we are now to the official contract rate, that difference of the one-third be given to scholarships for the students. – Okay, the–.
(clears throat) – [Trustee Lawson] To the
students benefit and then– – I don’t know if that’s
a question or a comment. I guess you’re correct
that we certainly can negotiate rate with the firm. I’m not sure how solid they are on that. I… But that’s something we
certainly can consider. Trustee Snider then Trustee Musil. – The substance part I wanna say was, essentially what Trustee Lawson said, I guess my differentiation would be that, on a cap I’m willing to go
above their current estimate, how much above, I don’t know, I was thinking 110, 120,
something like that, something that would give comfort but it’s not going to escalate significantly. But I do like the idea of a cap, if that is a reasonable
way to move forward, and allow us to take action, have procurement negotiate
that, and move forward, I guess I would have some
concern if they said no, and then if we’ve now wasted
a month in our process. – Trustee Musil.
– I guess, I’m first of all, making sure we understand
the procurement process and can, are we at a position
now where we put out an RFP, they respond to it with the fee, we’ve interviewed ’em based on that fee, and now we’re getting ready to select, are we okay than saying, well, we still wanna negotiate
some more visions– – [Chairman] Would you
respond to that at all? – [Representative] We can negotiate that, but it would just be (murmuring distantly) And I do wanna clarify, the
95,000 was not AGB’s estimate, that was our estimate based on
speaking with human resources (murmuring quietly) estimated
salary (mumbles), so– – [Trustee Lawson] So the estimated salary of one-third would be 285?
– No. – Yes–
– No, it would be 385… 285, 285.
– 285. – 285.
– 285. – [Representative] Yeah and
that was the pinpointed range, when you look at it (mumbles). – Okay. So even with that, I think that’s an underestimation of where even we are right now. So that’s my concern is, finding
out where we are right now, and if we are needing to
increase that base-salary, where are we with this estimate, or just how much are we looking to spend, if there’s a one-third rule here, versus someone of equal
liking, equal experience, being able to have a flat rate of 68,000. So for me, if all of our
RFP processes have been, if we see something very similar
we go with the lowest bid, so I’m trying to understand how do we know what exactly we’re going to pay… If 95,000 is already under than where Dr. Sopcich is right now, and if there’s talk of increasing that, it makes me a little bit
hesitant as to whether that– – If the (clears throat), if the board would choose AGB tonight, would it be possible to
discuss within the campus, Trustee Lawson and Trustee
Snider have suggested? – [Representative] Yes, absolutely. You (mumbles) I think the
question becomes (mumbles) if they aren’t agreeable to
the cap that we bring to them, then we wait another
month to come back for– – No I don’t think we’d
wait another month, I think that the decision
tonight would be, if we can work out an agreement
with AGB that is comfortable in terms of what that unknown
amount is, on the base-salary, and they deny that then
we would go with RH Perry. I think is what I’m probably hearing. – Mr. Chair?
– I’m not (mumbles), I would say, we, if we pick AGB tonight, we go back and see what they
do on a cap, and then we just, if we’re not, then we have
a special board meeting, or something to figure out if
we’re comfortable with that, ’cause I don’t know what
they’re gonna come back with and we may have a different comfort level, might be 105, one might be 110, so, I think it’s, if Jim
and Janelle take them, the concerns expressed here, I mean I would be surprised
if it’s more than 110, but there are salaries that
are way above that everywhere. (Trustee Musil trails off quietly) – Trustee Cross.
– You know, I would, I don’t work hourly very often, perhaps like Trustee Musil, but I would caution against a cap as, I’ve been cautioned by colleagues
around the country that, you know, a number of these firms, I’m not saying either
one of these two will, but they’ll just reach out
to an existing pool of talent that they have and then say, boom done, like we did our due diligence. So I think you know, I don’t
wanna open it wide open either, but I think a cap is with all due respect, I would caution against it. I would want them to go
see you’re traveling, meet with somebody that
they need to, rather than, if they know their cap,
they’re just gonna put in so much effort trying to
bank profit from a flat fee. Just my two cents.
– Trustee Lawson. – How… If we don’t do a cap, how do we insure that the candidates that are coming forward, ’cause it’s in their best
interests to get a candidate that might ask for a bigger salary because in the end they
get a bigger salary, and I don’t want to cause
any doubt of the ethics here, I just want to point out what is there. So how do we manage that, knowing that is in their best interest to get the biggest salary
for someone possible. So how do we make sure that someone could come to us and say, I think I’m worth $500,000.
– If I may? – There’s no way to, there
would be one-third of that, and we would be having to pay that. – Trustee Snider then Trustee Cross. – I don’t, in response to that, I don’t know if there’s an explicit way that we can control that and verify that, but I think based on, these firms all run on their reputation and if they have a history of doing that, I don’t know if their
references would’ve been what they were.
– Pardon? – I think it’s an excellent
question, Trustee Lawson. I think if they’re hitting
Jackson Hole, Denver, you know, every major port on the West
Coast to go see the sites, like we could begin examining, you know, breach of fiduciary duties or
good faith in fair dealing, frankly, and I concur Trustee Snider that, they’re rolling on their reputation. So with that said like, I think it’s an excellent
point to discuss, and I thank you for discussing
it with me, I’m just raising, frankly, having worked
on a number of flat fees, it’s hard to find motivation
when you know exactly… You know, why put in more work or effort, when you know exactly
what you’re getting paid. – Trustee Lindstrom.
– I’m okay with the cap, in fact, I like the idea. I don’t think, I think
if it’s a reasonable cap, and if they go back and negotiate that, or at least offer that, I don’t, I think their ethics are gonna be… If they find a more qualified candidate, they’re gonna bring that, I think this firm will bring that to us. I don’t have any fear of that. – I don’t believe any of us
want the pool to be diminished because of what we’re
gonna pay for the firm, and so we’re gonna have a lesser salary, none of us want that. And this is one of the big
decisions we make, so I… We pay a little more to make
sure we’ve got a great pool then I’m for that. So I guess at this point, I’m going to challenge all of
you and entertain a motion. – I… Based on what’s in the packet, it is the recommendation
of the Board of Trustees to approve the proposal from AGB Search and the amount of one-year,
the first year salary, plus estimated additional
expenses of $13,500 to serve as an executive search
for the College President. With instructions to our procurement staff to negotiate a cap and bring
back results to the board. Is that, John do you
think that’s adequate? – We have a motion–
– Or do you want some number, do you
want a number in there? – [Representative] I think
you could potentially bypass the fact that (murmuring distantly) – [Chairman] Right, right. (representative responding distantly) (everyone chuckles) Everybody watching.
– Right, so. – Exactly.
– But maybe you could arrange or something the
team that goes out there, you can get somebody to negotiate
tomorrow and (trails off). – I would put $120,000 on the salary, because I don’t believe
we will entertain anybody in anything above $360,000, and I think we’ll get somebody
very good for less than that. – We’re lacking a second to–
– I’m second. – Lindstrom has seconded, so–
– But I also would say that, do we need to put a number in there? If we just used the language “acceptable”? – [Representative] That is fine, as well. – That way we’re not giving away anything, we’re just saying–
– Reasonably accessible– – Yes and that–
– Exactly. – And that way it just comes to– (board deliberating quietly)
– Right then the cap is– – Right.
– A major (mumbles)– – And they know what
we’re, they’ve been here, and heard everything that’s gone on here. – [Trustee Musil] So
I’ll take out the number, they know where I stand, then.
(everyone laughs) – Okay, Trustee Lawson.
– I move to make an amendment to this motion, I like the 120, and give option that if
it needs to go higher, for whatever reason,
that additional amount go for student scholarships
so that there’s not a punitive feeling of the firm, if they bring someone in, that they still get motivated, they’re helping students out, but the property, the tax payers, they’re paying 120 for the
estimated cost of the search, and then helping out. So if there’s a small 5,000 extra, or maybe it could go to 35,000, or 135, and there’s no–
– So your thinking is that, in essence, the college would be paying its own scholarship fund
for any excess over a flat allow it back to scholarships
rather than the firm. – Yes.
– Yeah, we can’t do that. Well we have a motion
for amendment, do we… We have a second for that
amendment. (chuckles) – [Trustee Cross] Just
a moment, Mr. Chair. Can we do that council?
– You need to have a second for the–
– You’re just asking for a transfer of money to
(mumbles) paid by JCCC to the foundation and us, too. I mean–
– I won’t– – You’re kind of negotiating–
– Yeah, I just, I don’t see a correlation there. If we wanna give
scholarship we can do that independent of this negotiation. – [Chairman] Yeah, I
think this is becoming much more complicated than it needs to be. We appreciate you thinking,
and I appreciate your thought – Second.
– So we have a second on the amendment.
– Love they can’t vote. – [Chairman] Do we vote on
the amendment first, Tanya? – Yes.
– I guess we do. So if we wanna a have the
amendment to the motion, we have a motion and a second, all in favor, signify by saying “I”. – I.
– I. – Opposed?
– No. – I.
(various mumbles) The amendment fails. Read the motion. Does the motion deal with a cap
or I’ve heard Lindstrom say, reasonably acceptable.
– That was probably, Trustee Cross.
– I will accept a friendly amendment to a, to impose a cap
that’s reasonably acceptable to the college. It’ll be negotiated by procurement
and brought back to us, to make sure we’re comfortable with it. – Before we approve?
– Correct, yes. Before we sign a contract, before we authorize you or Dr.
Sopcich to sign a contract. – Yeah I think I’ll vote against that, because I don’t wanna have
another meeting in a week or two to decide who this is gonna be. I think if we’re close on this amount and we can allow procurement to advance to negotiate the best deal for us, otherwise we’re gonna be into October, and now we’re getting a little strained, in terms of the whole process.
– So don’t pick a number? Is that what you’re saying? – We either have to pick a number, or we put in really acceptable and leave, and then you either give
full-discretion to procurement staff to negotiate
whatever number AGB says, or you come back to us, and we have the ultimate
decision about what the cap is. I–
– They could get it done for, they could, if we tell ’em
we’ll do it at a cap for 108 and they’ll do that.
– Then they, but they say no. – [Chairman] They may take the cap at 95. I mean they might say, we’ll do it for 95. – Mr. Chairman, I’m comfortable delegating
that authority to procurement. I think they’ve heard the
discussion, it’s been recorded, I think they will execute a reasonable contract.
– I concur. – In our plan with
procurement was that the chair and vice chair representing
this board would meet with procurement in the
morning and with the firm and this is one of the things that we can discuss as early as tomorrow morning. So what’s, you’re shaking
your head favorably, you’re the one that made the motions, so what would the motion say? – Everything you said before, reasonably acceptable cap as
negotiated by procurement. – That’s the important thing.
– We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
– So to clarify, nothing in that motion requires it to come back to the board. – Correct.
– Thank you. (papers rustling) – Trustee Lawson.
– You could also make this super simple and look at RH Perry, that does not have that
clause for the one-third, so we already know
exactly what we’re paying. And to be fair they’re RH Perry, the cost value is not exact
replication of their experience. – I thought you said you
were gonna make this simpler? (everyone chuckles)
You just complicated it. – Call for the question.
– What? – Question’s been called, all in favor signify by saying “I”. – [All] I.
– Opposed? Thank you and I appreciate
the unanimity of the motion. Procurement will meet with,
we’ll call the company in the morning and we will
see what we can work out. Thank you very much for
your patience and your time. – [Trustee Cross] Can I just say that, Miss Wilson’s reaction
was one of my favorite moments in the history
of a JCCC board meeting. (everyone laughing)
– She what? – (laughing) She shrugged
her shoulders at me. Can we do that?
(woman comments distantly) But I, I thought she was like (mumbles), so I’m teasing.
– Okay, yeah. Any other report from
the Management Committee? – [Trustee Lawson] No Mr.
Chair, that concludes my report. – Thank you.
– Thank you all. – President’s recommendations for actions, treasury report, Trustee Musil. – The Board Packet contains a
treasury report for the month, the end of July 31st, 2019, starting at page 24 of the packet. Page one is a general
post-secondary technical education fund summary,
July was the first month of the college’s 2019-2020 fiscal year. We received grant payments
in August of $11,000,000 from the state part of our state funding, that will be reflected
in next month’s report. The unencumbered cash
balance as of July 31 was 88-and-a-half-million, which is 14,000,000 lower
than the same time last year in expenditures in all
primary operating funds are within approved budgetary limits, which is good since it’s only
the first month of the year, we need to get out of whack. It’s a recommendation of the
college administration that the Board of Trustees approve
the treasury report for the month end of July 31, 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 “I”. – I.
– I. – Yes.
– A motion opposed? Motion carries. Next item is a monthly
report to the board. Dr. Larson?
– Yes, thank you. You have the 33-page report
from Dr. Sopcich of the number of activities and accomplishments
across the college. Because these reports are prepared several weeks in-advance
of you getting them, you’ll see several references to preparing for the staff picnic as
was discussed earlier, the staff picnic took
place on September 6th. I think it was a huge
success by all accounts. We’ve heard great feedback and
I certainly wanna thank all the many, many volunteers
that made that possible, and thank those who came out,
including many board members. I think we served 1900 meals. So it was really just a wonderful event. So you know, thanks to Karen,
and Susan, and so many people, that were involved across the
campus in making that happen, we really enjoyed it and appreciated it. We have a few presentations as part of the president’s report. First is Dr. Randy Weber, and he’s going to give an update on our annual student satisfaction inventory. (projector whirring)
(papers rustling) (technician instructs quietly)
– All right, now we get to see it in advance (mumbles), that was it, hope you
liked it. (everyone laughs) Thank you for the opportunity
to speak this evening, what I’m gonna share with you tonight is our student satisfaction inventory, also referenced as our Noel Levitz report, we’ve got a lot of conversation
going on around the college around perception of stakeholders, and this is what students are telling us about their experience at JCCC. A couple of and pieces of information here that the Noel Levitz is
our student feedback. We use it and administer
it annually in the spring. So that way we could do
some college planning and use for KPIs. This is a direct comparison that we use year over year for us as
well as comparison data for other national community colleges. I’m going to skip this slide real quick and tie this to our KPIs. The KPIs that our Noel Levitz contributes most directly to are our course success and our full-time student success rates. This is an example of an
externally measured tool that we utilize to measure our institution as well as when we look at
student success reports. So now I’m gonna give
you a quick cheat here and a heads up, ’cause there’s
quite a bit of information that follows so it’s presented
in the very same format, so you’ll start to see the themes here. What we look at when we look
at the Noel Levitz results are we look at how important this
information is to students, how satisfied they are in it, and then ultimately what’s the gaps, so it is really important to students and are they, were they satisfied. So something with a narrows gap means that satisfaction is directly
related to its importance. So low importance, low satisfaction okay. What bad would look like
with the high gap score would be something that’s really important and they’re not very satisfied with it. So in this instance as we go through this, a low gap score is good. And what you see here is our results, and I’ll call it goldenrod, and then in green is a national
community college average of institutions that administered it in the spring of 19, or in 19 as well. So as we go through this
you’ll see as dotted around there are satisfaction comparison
to the national community college average satisfaction
and then that’s the difference. Now the difference,
the big number is good. So low gap good, big difference good. And so that just means that
our satisfaction is higher than the national
community college average. But you see here referenced
is student centeredness, that’s a scale, there
are a number of items that students answer that
make up a composite score that gives us a score average. So in this student centeredness,
our satisfaction score is point-35 higher than the
average of the community college so that’s a good thing.
– Weber? – Yeah.
– What is the scale, or range of–
– Thank you for that question and I brought that
but didn’t… (chuckles) So it’s a seven-point Likert Scale, so seven being for
importance, very important, six being important, one
being not important at all, two being not very important and the same thing for satisfied, very satisfied, not very
satisfied, then being the lowest. So it’s a range, so seven’s
the highest that you can score with very important or very satisfied. – [Dr. Larson] I just have to say, thank you so much for using
the seven-point scale. – I’m sorry?
– I said thank you so much for using a seven-point scale.
– We’ll pass that forward. This is out of our control but– – Very–
– Noel Levitz, they’ve been around for a long time, they’re pretty smart at this.
– Thank you. – [Dr. Weber] So they must
use that methodology well. Moving forward with some of the results, there’s two key takeaways
I want you to take tonight. The first is on this slide here, there’s a lot of information, but what you should see in goldenrod and green are our prior
four years, administration, and in the blue is the fifth year for each of the 12 scales
that we administer. So the first piece of information
I want you to take away tonight is on all 12 scale items, we’ve outperformed ourselves
over the previous four years. Student centeredness, safety,
security, all 12 of ’em, we’ve outperformed. The little black dots are the national community college average
in those given years. So the first thing you’re seeing tonight is we’re outperforming ourselves and they’re outperforming
the national average in all 12 scale items. That is important to note. As we move forward and you
start to see a lot more data, this is an example of how
we’ll use the information across the college but different
areas get their information from IR and in pieces of information. So this first one is safety and security, and so safety and security, as
a scale has a composite score of satisfaction of five-point-84, compare that to the national
community college average of 5-point-54, we have a scaled
difference of point-three, so that’s a good thing. And what you see in each
of the items in this scale is that our difference is
higher than the community college average in
everything but one thing. And that’s the amount of student parking spaces on campus is adequate. Now you have to remember we
administered this in this spring of 19 when we had a lot
of construction going on and a number of our accounts, our spots were taken up by
construction so we are hoping to maybe see a better result
to this, this coming spring. It is worth noting
throughout the entire survey, there were only two items where
we had a negative score on. This one and I generally know
what is occurring on campus. And we’ve got some communication
strategies around that. So every single item in
this survey, but those two, we out perform the
community college average. Trustee Cook?
– Randy, on the parking, can we drill down to say a
parking space, convenient to me or parking space available.
– We can’t, and those of us who have
experienced higher ed outside of Johnson
County Community College are always baffled by this response, because we’ve seen institutions where they charge for parking, we see where we’ve
frequently said in the past, we don’t have parking problems,
we have walking problems, a lot of people don’t like to
walk from the available spots. I will say, this fall
and the construction, we’ve had some parking strains
and our police department’s worked really well to try to open up some parking and some dry fields and that. But in years past, you could
find available parking, it just wasn’t necessarily
where you wanted it. But yeah that is, that’s an
item that some of us are like, I don’t think they have good comparison because there are schools
where they charge you for parking and there still
aren’t spots available. – Randy, what was the other?
– The other was I generally know what’s happening on campus. And I think it was like a
point-04 or a point-05 negative, but every other–
– It is bad. – item on the entire survey
we, our satisfaction score outperformed the national
community college average. – Would a digital sign on the
corner of career? (laughing) – Yes, we would–
– We’ve yet to ask that. We could see how they
do it year over year. – [Chairman] Would that improve that? – I see we’re digressing very fast here. – You only have two months
to go, my friend. (laughing) – If we did it, we may have
to name it in memory of you. (laughing)
Your time on the board. The next item is one, it’s got the next scale is one that’s got a number of items in it, but I wanted to highlight this, ’cause this is
instructional effectiveness, and this is the core of
what students do here. I’m able to experience
intellectual growth… The quality of instruction I receive in most of my classes is excellent, and what you see is, those are very important to our students. They have important scores of
six-point-65, six-point-64, so even though they’re extremely
important to our students, they’re still more satisfied than their peers across the country and that’s important for us as we look at how they’re guiding it. So a positive different score and instructional effectiveness. Again, I’m going through
this fairly quickly, this is just to give you
examples of what we look at, how we look at items,
I’ll just pick one here… Faculty are understanding of students’ unique life circumstances, a different score of a point-32, but it’s a six-point-47 in importance, so this is the most important
thing to our students. I will say the fastest
growing thing of importance to our students is safety and security. They’re, as incidents
occur across our country, they become more aware of
their safety and security, I don’t know that’s been
incidents on our campus. The third thing I wanted
to highlight tonight was an item question that they
don’t measure importance on, but they measure satisfaction on, and this is a really key one, so, our satisfaction on the scale of responsiveness to diverse populations, which is something we’ve
talked about a lot here, is a six-point-11 compared to the five-point-eight national average. I have it from our IR department, that our score at six-point-11, puts us in the 94th
percentile across the country. So we know that this
is an important issue. I share this in a way to say,
we do have at first going on with DEI on campus, it was
spoken to earlier tonight, but this tells me that
we want to get it right, we don’t necessarily
need to get it urgent, because our students are telling us that we are doing a lot of
these things in there, their why is right, but it’s definitely an
issue we wanna get better at as we focus on being a continuous
improvement institution. So then you saw some items
there like faculty are caring, parking and so some of the things some people own collectively and there are things around
student centeredness like, people at this place
genuinely care about me, well what’s a great item, but
we don’t know who owns that. So this slide here is
some examples of some very specific items across
the survey that areas will build into their performance
review to say we own this. New student orientation services students to adjust to the college. We know what department offers
new student orientation. There are convenient ways
of paying my school bill. I mean that’s got a score of
six-point-26, that’s terrific, that’s our Bursar’s office, who’s put, this has been in their program
review for a couple years. They put a lot of intentional effort into trying to improve students’ experiences. So this validates their work and also gives us some idea to decide what we need to work on again, if we looked at those items
with larger gap scores, that’s when we start to
say collectively we do it and they’ve done a great
job of improving their gap. Then the other two are
equipment and tutoring services, so we keep plugging on those.
(papers rustling) So there’s quite a bit of information here and I told you there were two
things tonight I wanted you to remember, the first was that we’re (mic glitches)
outperforming ourselves over the last five years
and the rest of the country, the second thing is this all-encompassing question that students were asked, “All in all, if you had to do it over, “would you enroll here again?” Nine out of 10 students
would return to JCCC. That’s better than five out
of six dentists picking Crest. (everyone laughs)
But actually, that nine out of 10 says that, that’s a 99th percentile, the 99th percentile of community
colleges across the country when students are asked
the most basic question, would you come here again
and they say, yes I would. So I think as we continue to
have these conversations about how we can get better as an institution, how we can focus on student success, and I’ll point out that I’ve
talked to you previously about student outcomes and how
student outcomes are raising. So students are doing
better, students are happier, I know we want to continue
to be a better institution, we say that to ourselves all the time, but I do ask as we have
these ongoing conversations, that we keep in mind that,
the voice of our students and some reminder that
they like what we’re doing. And with that I’d probably
entertain many questions. – Randy, I have two comments
and then I’ll ask questions. (clears throat) How is this
communicated to our staff and faculty?
– Yeah so we’re working on that with institutional
effectiveness to develop a plan, there are different ways,
different cabinet members historically have shared
their items with their areas. So for example, some departments
across the country have already built their items
into their program review, and they start asking
annually, “where’s my results, “I need to put it in so I can compare it”. There are definitely opportunities for us to leverage this more and
use it across the college to make more decisions and
those are kind of conversations that we’ve started with
institutional effectiveness. ‘Cause we’ve, I think
we said we can document administering this for
the past 15 years, plus, and I think that, you know, I’m excited for us to
get better as a college, I’m really nervous about
our ability to improve these scores, these are phenomenal scores. But I know that we don’t
rest on our laurels, we’ll continue to work hard, but– – My second comment would be, and maybe to the viewing audience, because those in the room have
a little different insight, a lot of you are staff and faculty and have been to meetings
here several times, is that (clears throat) if you
observe this meeting tonight, there were differences of
opinion on how we do things. I think everything boils down
to how to write an news story, who, what, when, where, why, and how, and we oftentimes stumble and
stub our toes on the how part. I would say that I think a
difference of opinion is healthy. And how we come together
with difference of opinion, and work for the benefit of
what just has been presented. We’re all here, I think we’re all here
for effective teaching and learning for the
benefit of the students, and when we see results like this, this tells me that we have
an outstanding faculty, we have an outstanding staff, we have an outstanding custodial
and law enforcement team, everybody on this campus
tells me when you talk about student happiness
and student centeredness, but that’s just not one person, or one department, it’s the whole team. And I continue to be increasingly
concerned about safety and security, just what’s
happening nationally, and so Randy, I really appreciate
you sharing this tonight but I wanna compliment our
whole team on this campus, and we’ve got outstanding
faculty like I said and staff, and support people that make
these results a reality. And so thank you very much. Any questions of Dr. Weber?
– If I may? – Trustee Cross.
– Mr. Chair, thank you. Mr. Weber this is outstanding. I think it’s you know, welcome news in what’s
been a difficult year. Is there a demographic
breakdown for this survey in terms of who answered
it and by ethnicity or– – There is, IR is pretty
intentional about getting that. We’ve not split that out,
because we’ve yet to decide… You know, one of the things we try to do when we look at data and
that is if we break it out, how are we going to use it, so we’re start first introducing ourselves to the institutional data,
they’ve shared that they do, they have the ability
to pull out if we have kind of a research question
that says, you know, we want to know the
response of this population, so a good example would be
under responsiveness to diverse populations, one of the items was, supporting the needs of
students with disabilities, well that’s one of the items on there, so if we wanted to specifically ask that population how they
felt their needs were… We could filter to that. So it has that capability, we’ve just yet to really
start slicing and dicing, until we figure out what’s
the question we’re answering. – Could we see that? Perhaps upon request? Is that possible to–
– Well again, I think I would ask what’s the question, then we could answer it versus, because of that is, it would
be, IR would break it out based on the question that’s being asked. So for that we would slice
that out by that population. If there’s a different
population group that there’s an answer for like
how did they answer it, the first question is, did we get that itemized
to be able to get it. – I’m not trying to catch you, man. I mean I sit down with Netflix, I don’t know what I wanna watch, you know, I wanna thumb through some stuff, so. – Yeah.
(everyone chuckles) – I was just asking is a academic dork, I mean I wasn’t you, I
wasn’t a gold star student, but I was silver star, and I
wanted to just know, like… (everyone chuckles)
Anyway. With respect to safety and security, I do concur with the Chair, I know Chief Russell and
others helped us speak to the legislature, speak
with some authority, and then I think in the lack
of wisdom from a previous legislature that passed,
or allowed guns on campus, it was Chief Russell, that got the phrase in my head, you know. “If you wanna bring your
weapon to this campus, “it’s your weapon, your burden”, (person claps)
which I think is a phrase he learned in the military, and so I share Trustee
Cook’s concern for safety, but I think going back to the
totality of the team for me, the faculty, the administration, and there have been a lot of
good things here, great things. And in any successful organization, I see frankly and candidly, to this board and to this administration, something of a tussle to
determine who is responsible. And I think the simplest
answer is we all are. But I did wanna comment Chief Russell, because I can’t repeat that phrase enough, “it’s your weapon, it’s your burden”, you bring it, it’s your responsibility, you separated from it, it’s a violation of our code
of conduct, you’re in trouble. – I would say my last
statement is we were fortunate, in addition to last, this
evening’s presentation, able to present this yesterday
afternoon at our management topics meeting and said
exactly that to teams, these scores are indicative of the efforts of all of the college and we’ve
received a lot of comments that it was that they
appreciated the message and liked seeing the results. – [Chairman] Okay, good. Trustee you wanna–
– No. – [Chairman] Anybody else? Thanks Randy, appreciate it. Dr. Larson.
– Yes. Next we have a video, I think, reflective of our student success from the foundation luncheon held recently. Thanks Derrick. – The community here,
I love the people here, they are so welcoming. (bright gentle score) Sharing that with other people and then receiving the
seam hospitality back is an amazing feeling that I
get from almost everyone here. – I am the first one to be in
my family, to be in college, and being in college helped my mom, make the decision of getting her GED. – I wanna be a drug and alcohol counselor. I have three years of sobriety. I’ve fought my whole life with addiction, but the best thing is to see
my kids get to see me sober, and (sniffles) my youngest
is at home with me, he’ll be 16 this month. And he’s just really proud of me. (cries) I work 40 hours a week
and I come to school, but I mean, I’m excited and
would like to see the world the way I’m seeing it now,
and to share it with my kids, and the people here, I’m
just, it’s really a blessing. – Thank you for being so selfless. Thank you for not only
your hard-earned money, but your time. Thank you for donating the wisdom, so us scholars can excel and
continue on our education, whether it be lowerclassmen
or higherclassmen, we’re all on the same
path and we’re trying to strive for excellence.
(audience applauding) – It’s a privilege and
honor to attend this college and I’m just so thankful, for all the opportunities
that they offer here. (everyone applauding) – That concludes our report, thank you. – Thank you.
(projector whirring) Trustee Lawson?
– Dr. Weber, I just had one question. I think you mentioned this, what was the response rate for the survey? How many students were–
– I think we had approximately 1200 students take it, is that, I’m– – That’s the response rate?
– Closer to 1400 completed it. I don’t know the response rate off hand but you can get that.
– So (mumbles) to 1400, accoladed surveys.
– Okay. – Thank you.
– I don’t believe we have any only business tonight. We do have one new business. I will give us all a chance to come back and make a comment about
Dr. Larson if you desire. But under new business Trustee
Lawson had sent me an Email regarding some concerns
about our policy and whether we had by-laws, we don’t have
by-laws but we have rules and policies and so I would just open up the opportunity for you
Trustee Lawson to share your concerns about our
policies for the board. – Sure, thank you, Mr. Chair. My goal tonight is to really
just kind of explore with the board to find out if there
is agreement to have by-laws. I think over the last
couple years I’ve seen a lot of discussion around policies in looking at other community
colleges around the country especially our own peer
institutions there is a lot of boards that have by-laws
in addition to policies and procedures, our faculty
association has by-laws, also the student senate,
there are student, the honor society here
on campus has by-laws, there’s other organizations around us, there’s also KACCT that we look
up to, put by-laws together, as well as the national ACCT, KBOR has by-laws for their board, there are very specific
items around the difference between rules and by-laws
and there’s a hierarchy of going documents, of the Kansas
Constitution is the highest. The lawyers in the room
have more say into you know, what exactly some of
those hierarchies are, and I’ll leave that to their expertise. So part of what I would
just like to explore is just finding out if this board
would be interested in having by-laws, streamline process, make the productivity provide
accountability of course, transparency with the cleries so that people know input process, as well as dissemination of information. This could also be very
helpful for onboarding process, for any new trustees
as we have an election, we know we’re gonna have
at least one new trustee. Also the onboarding
process for a president. So those were items that I’d
just like to turn ’em back over and find out if the board is interested. – Well thank you, I’ve been
on the board now 10 years and as I look back during that time, whether there are by-laws or policies, I’d like to remind this board
that we’re really driven by three major areas, Kansas Statutes, one, and our policy, HLC
certification requirements and that our own JCCC policies. Last month I distributed to this board, a whole series of policies
regarding the board, I think one of the issues,
Trustee Lawson raised with me is, you did give that to me
seven days in advance, but you say you couldn’t find any place where there was a policy on that and there is a policy on
the seven day advance, it’s actually on meetings of the board, which is policy 112. We have a whole series of 100 policies. Let me just review them again. Duties and responsibilities
supported by Kansas Statute, that was revised in January 18, of 2018, and I think this board
with the exception probably of Trustee Snider was on
that board at that time. Number and selection of trustees is explicitly outlined by Kansas Statute. Most of these were revised
January 18, of 2018, officers’ policy, duties of the officers, committees policy, what
the committees form, and I think there’s a line
I’d like to reinforce there that I think Dr. Larson referenced earlier in her open forum statements. The committee system is not intended to supersede the primary responsibilities and leadership roles of the
president and administration, and so I think this notion
of committees solving lots of issues and
problems and getting into micromanagement is not the
purpose of the committee. Meetings of the board, that’s where the seven
day notice of agenda placement is made, we
have a policy on that. We have a policy on
professional development and you for one have taken
really good advantage of a professional development
for trustees as well as others that have gone to the congress
and the legislative summit. We have a code of conduct,
which is policy 11401, actually that originated in 1990, but was a revised again, January 18th, code of ethics, revised
again, Kansas Statute, and a resolution of central
policies so I guess if there are other by-laws that you’re
thinking of that could be a policy that are not included
in those several policies we already have for board members, we certainly could go
through the policy procedure of creating those, just
as this board has done, since its inception, years ago. And I think whether it’s
called a by-law or a policy, is I guess I would defer
to our in-house council, the difference between for this college, a by-law and a policy. Tanya do you?
– Right, so, a lot of times the
corporation will have by-laws and since we’re statutory,
they need to rely on today’s statutes as the original
(mumbles) over the college, so the by-laws have been
through that board (mumbles) trustee, they’re very similar
to, what you would have by offering by-laws or (mumbles) corporation, some of the structure
goes back to committees, officers and (mumbles) they
have along with the communities and the officers are, et cetera, so I kind of agree with
what you said, Dr. Cook, I don’t know what in addition
we would wanna look at (person coughing muffles Tanya’s speaking) it could be an amendment
to the policies for sure. And I don’t know, I think that
I saw something from KACCT, I think their by-laws do all have the same provisions that are
sitting in our policies. It does address officers and
it has a number of (mumbles) financial information in there,
but that would be (mumbles) and it’s a lot of those
(murmuring quietly) as well, (mumbles) so I’m not
sure about the (mumbles). – Trustee Musil?
– I… I’m a nerd, I keep these in my notebook, because I had ’em when I was Chair and you needed to refer to ’em about how to run the meeting
and what was obligated to do, but I think you adequately
described those, Mr. Chairman. Our policies tell us everything,
I think we need to know, about meetings, committees,
votes, obligations of trustees, if there is something that
you specifically think we are missing, we have a
process to evaluate that. I don’t know what problem
we’re in search of solving, at this point because I’ve
not heard anybody say, this policy is inadequate
or this one is wrong, in fact we did it in January of 2018 because I didn’t get it
done in December of 2017, when I was still Chair. And Tanya was pushing me and
we went through the process of revising all of those
policies and if I remember right, they were unanimously
approved by this entire board. So I don’t want another layer of language and bureaucracy layered
over board policies, which do all the same things, I think, I’m not a corporate attorney, but when you look at what
normal by-laws include, they include the things that are already in our policies, so. I’m always hoping to listen
to a specific problem that’s out there but I haven’t
heard that yet tonight. – Trustee Ingram?
– Well I think I would just have to lean on council. You know, so if you’re
satisfied with that, and you feel like we’re covered, if there’s not anything
specific that you believe is not covered, Trustee Lawson,
I would defer to council. Is there something (mumbles)? No, okay. – I think that when you
look across the country and you have other boards,
governing boards specifically that are instituting by-laws,
or 16 out of the 20… It’s about two-thirds
of the peer institutes that we look up to have
by-laws for their board. I think by-laws are a clear
approach of knowing procedure and process, that is something that’s different than policies and procedures, in the hierarchy of governing documents. I just thought it was something
worth while to move forward. – Tanya?
– We can go look but I’m guessing that the by-laws may be the equivalent
of a policy at that one. It just happens that we, when I got here, that one (mumbles) already existed. It could’ve just been that
the policy structure here was only with respect to
students and employees and that the board had you know, 50 years ago adopted by-laws. But at some point they adopted
all of their requirements with respect to meetings and officers and conflict of interest into this one pair of series, is my guess. I can go back and look at
that demonstration (mumbles). – Trustee Lindstrom?
– Trustee Lawson, do you know if those peer
institutions also have by-laws that have by-laws, also have
policies, do they have both? Or they have one or the other?
– I can bring those forward and present them to the
board if you’d like– – [Trustee Lindstrom]
But do they have both, or do they have one or the other? – [Trustee Lawson] When
I looked up the by-laws, there were some
institutions that had both. Some of ’em, it’s in a long form, where everything is
together, they had by-laws, and then the second-half
was policies and procedures, those were separated.
– Was there a justification for those institutions
moving in that direction, that was explained in
what you’re presenting? – That could be something that we can look forward if this goes forward. – I would be interested in
hearing that information, but I also think that policies and by-laws are really just semantics. I don’t know that it’s a difference. That’s how I look at it, I’m not saying I have the answer, but that’s certainly my
knee-jerk reaction to this. – Trustee Cross?
– Yes, Mr. Chair. (clears throat) I’d like to tell you, I’m from a freedom-loving people, but I also welcome rules and regulations, so I’d like to hear
more, certainly I think, when you, when the “Ten
Commandments” were issued, there became a day that those
were outdated, or antiquated. So I’m open to exploring
if there’s a need for more, I just, I concur with Trustee Lindstrom, I mean, it would be
interesting to look at, I’m not saying, it’s
not a worthy endeavor, I just, I’m not sure why we need it. – Okay, well if our council
could look into a little more definitive explanation
between by-laws and policies, I believe we have several
effective policies, and we just need to apply by them. – [Trustee Musil] Mr. Chairman, I’m very concerned about
sending staff on a goose chase. – Yeah.
– I don’t know if it’s wild, but to what end, what is it that you think
we are lacking today, other than a document that say
by-laws instead of policies? What would be different about that document that is already in our policies? – If I could take that real quick? I interned for a political
organization in Topeka, right after I graduated
from University of Kansas, and went to D.C., worked
for an amazing for, that set of politics and
amazing hierarchy of bureaucracy to work for different
institutions and a conglomerate, and there are absolutely
people that seek out policies and procedures and by-laws and everything, and you worked in that town, too, so you have some idea. And I think here, it’s an
interesting issue to be raised, I share your concern, I don’t want staff out
on wild goose chases, but I think she’s merely raising the issue of perhaps outlining in some– – I just have a question–
– And we’re taking too much time on it right now, just to be clear, but I’m just saying,
she’s raising the issue. – [Trustee Musil] To what end? What is is that needs to be
outlined that is not currently in our policies?
– That’s a fair question, sir.
– I mean, that, and I’m not putting her on the spot now, they can come back and tell
us, but that’s you know, to say we need by-laws, period, I just, I don’t know what we’re trying to address. – I think you need by-laws.
(everyone chuckles) – So, if I may, what I heard
you say, Trustee Lawson is that there are peer institutions that have this and they have it for a reason
so maybe it’s a reason, maybe it’s a best practice
that we should look at, too. Is that what I hear you saying? – Correct.
– But there’s not a specific thing that you’re trying to
drive at within those by-laws, is that also what I hear you say? – Correct. I’m not looking for a
problem, or a goose chase, I’m not looking for specific, I’m not presenting any by-laws, I’m curious about exploring
the idea of best practices, that our peer institutions
governing boards that we look up to have by-laws, that by-laws can actually
reduce regulation because it provides clarity
in the way we communicate, it provides clarity, and what expectations are for the public, so it’s giving a structure
for how we operate. – And I heard you say that,
and I interpreted it that way, but I think our policies do that. There may be a difference of
opinion on the board to that, to my response there, but I
do think the policies do that, and I, that’s why I asked you a question about why those institutions
have implemented, if they have both, what
is the reason there, and that’s really the
answer that I’m looking for. – Mr. Chair?
– Let’s… Trustee Cross.
– Perhaps it’s an issue for learn equality to explore, perhaps it is something that… I’m reading the issue, and
I need to apologize to you, I don’t really think–
– I thought JCERT would look at that.
(everyone laughing) – (mumbles) Take it to
JCERT, so moved, let’s do it! – [Chairman] Let’s let
management deal with that particular issue and they
can give further study, and we’ll bring it back
at another meeting, if that’s the case, so. – And I’m sorry.
– It’s okay. – Thank you.
– Thanks for the discussion. – [Trustee Cross] I don’t
really think you need by-laws. (members mumbling)
– Next item is the consent agenda, it’s the time
when we vote on a number of routine and regular items
unless a board member likes to pull and item off the agenda,
I would ask for a motion. – [Trustee Cross] Mr.
Chair, A3, the USDA grant, somebody could just–
– That’s a favorite for you, we’ll pull out A3.
– I like it. – Any others? I would entertain a motion for approval. – So moved.
– Is there a second? All in favor signify by saying “I”. – [All] I.
– Opposed? Motion carries. A3, Trustee Cross.
– The USDA sustainable agricultural grant that’s something that Stu Schaefer got passed, is there… When will that take effect? May I ask someone?
– Jay is here. We talked a little bit about
it before the meeting, I guess, and–
– Melinda’s here, too– – Oh, okay, I’m sorry!
– I’m excited about it. I saw it and I was… Frankly, you know, I read it.
– Yeah, please. (representative speaking distantly) When will this… Thank you, when will the
six new courses begin? – I’m sorry?
– When will the six new courses begin? – We made a two year plan
(speaking distantly). – What will be the utility
of the two-year degree? Will they be able to transfer to K-State? – To give you my understanding
of that, Stu’s… This is one of the places
where the Master Agreement, I will point out, has provided some space for him as a senior scholar, he’s actually using this
two-year period to build out that curriculum, the grand
is an integral part of that and providing him some resources
to both bring in experts, but also to do some extended research. The hope is that we will create a program that is transferable and
connects to agricultural schools but also–
– Prevent. – Hopefully. (chuckles) Possibly a place where
people wear a lot of purple, but also a–
– Iowa State, too. (laughs) (members speaking simultaneously) – Also a place like Iowa State
where we do have protocols for students right now
have a pipeline, no names, and so we’re trying to
figure out how to create, the most effective pipeline
for our students in sustainable agriculture to reach our ag schools and have all of that curriculum
be useful for them, so. – I believe we’ll be the only
two-year school in Kansas, that has a two-year certificate
for sustainable agriculture and I think part of that
is a result of the grant. So it really puts us in high cotton. – [Trustee Musil] Do we
need a motion for this? – Yes we do, is there
a motion to approve– (members speaking simultaneously) – (mumbles) That grant
I second his motion. – All in favor signify by saying “I”. – [All] I.
– Opposed? Motion carries. Before we adjourn, I would like to make a
comment about Dr. Larson. As I said earlier this is her last meeting and first as president. Now the two aren’t related by the way. (everyone laughs) At least sitting in this seat. And you came here at an
interesting time for this college and we were very fortunate to have you. I don’t know how many of
you know in this room, but I know many people
in the public don’t know that Barbara has several responsibilities, it’s not just managing finances. We’re in a $105,000,000
college enhancement program, Rex Hays, you’ve been a
rockstar with that whole thing and really appreciate
your efforts as well. But Barbara has decided to retire and I thought I would like
to share a piece with you as the people think about
what they’re going to say and many of you know that
one of my favorite writers is Edgar Guest and I wasn’t
gonna tell you what the name of this title is but,
of this little piece is, but I will because I think
everybody in this room gets captured by this and so I’ve
edited only the last paragraph, but here’s what Edgar Guest
has to say about work. For this and that and various things, it seems that men must get
together, to purchase cups or diamond rings and discuss
the price of leather, from nine to 10 or two to
three or any hour that’s fast and fleeting there is a constant call for me to go to some committee meeting. (everyone chuckles)
The church has serious work to do, the lodge and
club has need of workers, they ask for just an hour or two, surely I will not join the shirkers, though I have duties of my own, I should not drop before completing. There comes the call by telephone, to go to some committee meeting. No longer may I eat my lunch
in quietude, in contemplation, I must forgather with the
bunch to raise a fund to save the nation, and I must
talk of plans and schemes, the while a scanny bite I’m
eating, until I vow today it seems my life is but
one committee meeting. When over me the day shall end, and my retirement experiences are winging, and that beautiful land of Virginia, (Dr. Larson laughs) where all is bright with joy
and laughter with singing, I hope to hear my husband say, and I shall thank him for the greeting, come in and rest from the day, Barbara, for here there is no committee meeting. (everyone laughing)
(audience applauding) So thank you for your leadership, and all of those committee meetings and the various roles you play. One thing that I learned
more about Barbara tonight is her humility and she
grabbed my shoulder, my coat, a little while ago, and she said, “everybody wants to go
home, don’t say anything, “don’t say anything”. (everyone laughs)
So any comments? Trustee Musil.
– I wanna go home, too, Dr. Larson, but I won’t do
it without thanking you for the years of service to
this college and community and to you and your husband,
the best in retirement. We tend to take for
granted around here that, things will run right. You have responsibility
for $160,000,000 a year, and a $110,000,000 faculty
or facility improvement plan, and you know, for those of
us on the board that have the level of trust we have in what you do and what your team does, that’s out there, it is just a great comfort
to know that you’re in charge and we’re gonna miss you. – Trustee Lindstrom?
– I vote no. (everyone laughs)
– I. – Barbara thank you.
– Thank you. – You honestly, you’re one of
the joys of being associated with Johnson County
Community College, thank you. – [Dr. Larson] Thank you so much. This is–
– Dr. Larson. – Thank you.
– If I may? Congratulations on your retirement. You’ll be missed and I
think you like the rest of the administration
demonstrate some good decisions by Dr. Sopcich (mumbles)
six years and the confidence that we have and then certainly
the results that we see tonight are in part to your
hard work, so thank you. – [Dr. Larson] Thank you. – I think it’s the
comments that I’ve heard over the last several months
that have really struck me. And I know what our relationship is like with you on this board, but
when I hear other people say how much they are going to miss you, and how helpful you have been,
we do take it for granted. We do take it for granted,
so thank you very much, you will be missed.
– Thank you, thank you. – Congratulations.
– Thank you. – I have some bad news for you. – What is that? (laughs)
– The lantern fly is invading the East Coast.
– Ah, yes. – And so you better watch
out for that (mumbles). – Thank you for your well wishes, this has been a really unique meeting in that I think we’ve
talked about students perhaps more than we have in some time and this just such an
amazing place and we make such a difference for
students, thanks to all of us, so I really appreciate your kind words and I will truly miss it here, thank you. – Motion to adjourn?
– Yeah. (Trustee Snider interjecting)
– Trustee Snider? – If you don’t mind, so
our next meeting next month is on Halloween, so thank
you for the indulgence of moving that up an
hour, but I would request, as we set the agenda, to keep it light, I’ve got kids at home,
as do many other here, and grandkids and others,
and in fact I will probably need to dismiss myself
around 5:30 that night. – [Trustee Cross] I will second that as, this is not a hill I wanna die on. (everyone laughs) Let me say that–
– We will need to, (members speaking simultaneously) we will need to clear with administration, as their schedule, but I was
going to be gone on the 24th, Dr. Sopcich was going
to be gone on the 24th, I think his plans have changed and we will be visiting with
Dr. Sopcich in the morning. I think you guys are back from the– – We’re back.
– ACCT, so if you don’t mind,
we’re going to pursue putting the meeting back
to the 24th of October. (members speaking simultaneously) – Two points there before you agree, so he is scheduled to
go, he’ll be in Calgary, potentially for the league– – He’s not going.
– Okay. The other one I have is, I
am going to be gone that day, in Calgary for the league board meeting and I’m supposed to give
an update on promise. – [Chairman] So let’s do it on the 24th, and no I’m just–
– No that’s fine– (everyone laughing)
– No, we will, we’re just gonna be–
– I wanted that to be the reason but if we can–
– We’re going to review those issues tomorrow and, but if you get a note
saying we’ve moved, we will, but don’t do anything until
Miss Liechtz sends you the note. All in favor of adjournment say “I”. – [All] I.
– Yes. (members murmuring quietly)
– Opposed? Motion carries, thank you, have a good evening.
– I moved, wait a second– (bright orchestral score)