Good evening, everyone. Welcome to a special board
meeting on December, 17, 2019. We’ll start by saying the
Pledge of Allegiance, for those who wish to participate. Would you all rise 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. OK– I believe all
members of the board are president, except
for Trustee Gallardo, who I would expect to see shortly. We basically have two items
on the agenda tonight– a presentation of the
2019-2022 Student Equity Plan. And they report on the
Diversity and Inclusion Survey. We’re going to switch
the two around. We’re going to start with
Mr. Howard Deutsch, who is our consultant, to discuss
the results of the climate survey. And Mr. Deutsch, I’d
just introduce you and have you tell us a
little bit about yourself, where you’re from. Sure. Helen wanted to share
a few thoughts first. Yes– just before
we get started– for the record anyway. Sure. As you know, when I came
to work here in April 1st, we were in the midst
of lots of things. And I drew the
conclusion that we needed to have a climate survey. I think that had already been
some discussion about that. And there some concern
among employees as to whether or not
we should have it and whether or not
they would participate, because they didn’t
feel that it would be anonymous and
many other things. And we decided it was a
thing we needed to do. And the Board agreed. And so we had Howard Deutsch
to conduct the survey for us. He is out of New Jersey. He was referred to me from
some of my CEO colleagues on the East Coast. So I went as far away as
I could to find somebody. I didn’t know and
nobody here knew. But it’s kind of a joke. But anyway, he has
been working with us since April on the survey. And it took us a while. We ran right into
graduation with the survey. So we could not make the
presentation of the results, because we had summer. And people were gone. And so this was the earliest
time that we could do that. And I think, he’ll
tell you that he thinks the participation is low,
based on other organizations. But for community colleges,
it was pretty high. And we’re pretty impressed with
the way people participated. They kind of laid
their souls bare, really said what they thought. That was what we
wanted people to do, just so they felt safe
in sharing how they feel. And how an individual feels
is how that person feels. And so we have this information. And the idea is that
we will share it. We promised that we would. And we promised people that
it would be anonymous and not traceable back to them. And I think that was one of
the reasons for the high level of participation and, also,
for the huge number of comments we received, in that
regard to support– how people rated it each
one of those elements. And so we will have this
presentation for you tonight. We had one earlier. And it was a discussion with
the senior leadership team, because we have taken very
seriously the comments in the report. And we’re working
ourselves a plan to help improve
our relationships with the employees, because
we know how critical that is. And when people think of
their jobs, much of the time they think about the leaders. And that’s where the trust
has to develop first. And we’re very
much aware of that. So we’re really focused on
improving the relationships. So the employees will have
an opportunity, tomorrow and Thursday, to hear
this same report. And we’re offering them on
campus and at the Schott and Wake campuses, so that
everybody has an opportunity to participate. And then on October
1 and 2, we’re having focus group
presentations, where people will be able to
interact with facilitators. We’ll get to hear their
voices and what they think. And one of the
interesting things for us will be if there’s been
any change since May, because some things have
happened since then. And we get to really
see if there’s been any improvement in the
few months since that time. And so, Mr. Deutsch
is here today to share the results with you. And I now turn
things over to you. Thank you. Before you– [INTERPOSING VOICES] –just a couple things. The meetings tomorrow is going
to be three sessions tomorrow and three– Three the next day. –sessions the following day. So hopefully, we’ll have
a good turnout for those. So [INAUDIBLE]. Good afternoon, and thank you
for the opportunity to be here. What I’d like to do– there are over 60 slides. If I cover every
one in detail, we’re not going to do it
in the time allotted. So what I’m supposed
to do is cover some in more detail,
some of them quickly. You all have copies of this. Just a minute–
can I make a motion to adjourn at or before 7:00 PM? That was what was scheduled. OK. Yeah. I think we have to stick
with that [INAUDIBLE].. Does anyone second? Is there a second? I didn’t hear. A motion to adjourn
at 7 o’clock– At or before 7:00. I’m neutral. Can I ask, before I
second the motion– is there a particular
reason why? Well, that’s what
we’ve advertised. OK. And so I didn’t know we
needed a motion for it. But we do need to end at
7:00, because we advertised to the public that we would. I’ll second that. Any discussion? All in– Can I add something to that? I’m here. If, after that, any
individuals want to talk a little bit
longer, just a small group off the record or
something, if I can answer questions
that’d come up, it would be my pleasure,
as late as you would want– until you’ve had enough for me. Thank you. Yeah– that won’t be an issue. [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER] Well– Or– At the discretion of the chair. –deleted it. [INTERPOSING VOICES] Or if not done by
a certain time, we take a break for dinner. All those in favor
of the motion? Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? So as I said, I think
the way to get through it all but also really accommodate
your questions– which I think is at least as important
as covering material because, again, some of you have
had the opportunity to read it. You all have copies. You can read afterward. I’m not going to verbatim
read it all to you. That’s a waste of your time. I want to cover some key issues. And then if you have a
couple of really hot issues along the way, bring them up. But other than
that, I think it may be more productive if we
allocate some time near the end to get the discussion
and questions out, if that works for you. But if there’s something–
a real burning issue– please stop it. OK– I put my bio up for one reason. What’s involved? I’ve been an adjunct faculty
member for a number of years, albeit a while back, at Seton
Hall University of New Jersey. So I’ve got a sense of what
goes on day-to-day on a college campus. Albeit, I did it nights,
not during the day. But at least I’ve got some
sensitivity, I’d like to think, and some understanding of– and actually, even
though I was an adjunct, I was on some
committees as well. So enough of that– what were the objectives? And again, I’m not
going to read anything– most of it directly. But the whole idea
was, there was a sense that things were not working
as well as they might. And there’s some need to find
out what’s really going on. How do people feel? But get that data anonymously,
so people can open up. We had about 30% response– typical for colleges, low for
any other kind of organization, based on 20 years of experience
doing this type of thing. It’s what it is. But from those
30%, some of them– they said, in their comments–
they spent two hours even doing this. 588 pages of comments–
that’s a lot. So we learned a lot. People were real
honest and open. And I think we have some
good results that accurately say what’s going on campus. So part of this is also– you want to establish a
baseline of information so that, let’s say,
in a year or so, you can go back and do another
similar assessment to see– is progress really happening? Are people sensing
and feeling it? Because frankly, we found– that it’s not unique
to this place at all– there’s a lot of cynicism. People don’t
believe you’re going to do anything as a result.
And that’s part of the reason– the low response rate. So it’s showing people– hey,
we really took this seriously. The worst thing about a survey
is asking people their opinions and then doing nothing with it. It sends a terrible– it’s worse
than not doing a survey at all. So the onus is
really on leadership to do something, as a result
of this– something meaningful. So you got that baseline. And it’s also to send a
signal, hopefully, to people– leadership cares. We want to hear [INAUDIBLE]. Today specifically,
tomorrow and the day after, is to share the
results of the survey, to give people an opportunity
to ask some questions, and to let people
know, there will be a process to deal with
these issues that makes sense. So it’s up to leadership to
sort through it all and say, this makes sense. This does. But also, I think
it’s critical– and I’ll say this
again before we done– to come to terms with– here
are the findings of the survey. Do you believe it or not? If you’re going to get
meaningful results, there needs to be some
level of consensus between the leadership team– current and future, with
the new president coming on board, which
is real critical– and the board, among other
constituencies, that– yes– there’s the recognition that
there are some issues that need to be dealt with, some
with greater urgency than others and that there’s a
willingness to look at it, set some priorities, and
have a process in place to deal with it. And I’ll cover some
of those issues. Very quickly– the survey
happened for three weeks in April, May. It was an online survey– English and Spanish. Of the 711 responses out
of almost 2,300 employees that received the
request to do it– with the exception of about,
maybe 10 or 12, everyone did it in English. But there were 10 or 12
that did it in Spanish. We had a reading
scale of 1 to 5. There were 67 questions. 64 of them were statements,
where we asked people, do you agree, somewhat agree,
neutral, somewhat disagree, or totally disagree? And all of them are
done in such a way that, hopefully,
everybody, if they were positive about
things, would say, I agree. There’s no [INAUDIBLE]. You want agrees, to
the extent possible. You never get 100% there. So we’ll give you the
results, based on that. There were three other questions
where, basically, the answer was Yes or No. We’ll get into those as well. I just want to do a
shout-out to Z Reisz. It was a pleasure
working with him. And he had some good
suggestions in the questions, at the beginning. We designed the whole
thing, based on experience at some other colleges. But we added a small number of
additional questions, tweaked the wording on a few. And it certainly
added a lot of value. So thank you, Z. Possible reasons for the
low response rate– and I know people are going
to be concerned. Again– very typical
of other colleges. But we know, from a lot
of years of experience, reasons people don’t– they don’t believe
it’s anonymous. On camera, I will say,
it was 100% anonymous. We, as the survey company,
have no way of figuring out who the people were. There’s just there’s
no way for us to do it. We could look at IP
addresses, someone might say. And I’ll tell you what. When you do it an
organization like this, there are countless people
with the same IP address. There’s 75 people over
here and 27 over there. We don’t know who they are. And if we did– which we don’t– we
said, it’s anonymous. So it would be unethical
for us to tell you. So it was anonymous. Where it may not be is– well, two things happened. One is, some people named names. That’s good. The leadership team
can look at that. But that’s not
necessarily something you might want to
spread around– probably very inappropriate. The other thing is– some people started
talking about themselves and their situation. You know– I’m a mother. I have two children
of the following age. I’ve been here x years. Well, there’s probably only
one person with that profile. And if there’s two
or three, there may be three managers
second-guessing who it is. And quite a few of the comments
had that type of thing. Others– they didn’t
mention a person’s name. But they started saying,
the department head of XYZ department. So those are the things where– I learned a lot. The leadership
team got to see it. But maybe it needs
to stop there. So there’s cynicism. Some people were
saying, why bother? Based on experience,
they’re not going to do anything with the survey. It’s considerable there. Some employees might be very
happy and say, You know? I’m happy. Things are fine. I’m not going to take
the time to do it. And you have another
group typically that– they’re totally disengaged. They show up for
work grudgingly. They’re not going
to do a survey. They’re not going to
get on a committee. They’re not going
to do anything. So somehow, there’s
some mix of this. And those were their
reasons, probably. We’re not sure. But that’s what happens– concerns, fear about the
survey not being anonymous. People told us they
were concerned. And that happens in
every organization. As much as you say– we as an outsider say it. And I’ll tell you, when you do
surveys like this internally, usually the response rates
are considerably lower. Once you get an outsider, at
least some people will say, OK. I believe you. So the validity–
here’s what we know. We know that, for 30.1% of
the people who did the survey, it’s 100% valid, no ifs,
ands, or buts about it. For everybody else,
there’s high probability that it’s probably,
on average, mirroring the rest of the population. There are going to be some real
positive, some on the fence, some real negative, based
on their own reality and experiences. We can’t say for sure. But let’s say, every other
person was totally positive. And that’s why
they didn’t do it. With 30.1% feeling the
way this group felt, there’s cause for taking action. Because it takes a lot less
than 30% of people to feel what we saw here to sink any
ship, any organization. A few people that
are very negative, people that are experiencing
difficulty coming to work every day,
because of who they report to or some other situations– and we found that in a number
of the comments, not just a couple. It needs some attention. But again, each person’s
experiences, their feeling, their perceptions, are
their individual reality. And for some people, the
reality is wonderful. We had many comments
from people saying, I report to the most wonderful,
effective, intelligent, open-minded, just
terrific person. And others were absolutely on
the other end of the spectrum and had trouble bringing
themself into work every day. So you’ve got to
sort through that. This organization and
no other organization is a monolith where everybody–
one standard culture. If you asked to
define it, I probably can come up with a definition– explanation– of
the culture here. But it’s really made up
of a bunch of subcultures, depending on campus, department. And there’s a lot of
variation in that– who you report to and things like that. So it’s sorting through
all that data, the ratings, the comments, to get a good
understanding of how people feel and what’s their
personal reality and whether they’re motivated
to come in and do their best or not. I put this up. I’m going to let you
read it on your own. You’ve got it [INAUDIBLE]. But these are the
key issues that were dealt with in the survey. What’s climate? It’s cultures– those
kinds of things. What’s diversity? What’s equity? What’s inclusion? Not everybody understands
or has the same definition of these things. It’s important– I don’t want
to take your time reading it– but it’s that people get
on the same page on some of these issues. In the survey, again, for those
64 questions with the rating scale, we’ve come up with– frankly, it’s arbitrary. It’s sort of like
the traffic light. What’s relatively good ratings? And on that 5-point
scale, we’re just saying, if you’ve got 4.20
overall for a question, all people responding,
that’s reasonably good. If you get between 3.8,
4.19, that’s not as good, if you will. And again, this is just a
general way of looking at it. Once you get below
that 3.79 or below, really, things need
more attention. So here it is. There’s 64. I can’t cover them all
or we’ll do nothing else. But I want to give you the
concept of what we’re doing. Overall, all
questions– all 64– for all participants, the
overall rating came out to be 3.50. Based on our experience
at other colleges and other organizations, that
number is at the low end. It’s not the lowest. But it the lowest
quartile, for sure. So there’s some sense
for need for urgency to start dealing with it. And so for each
question, we’ve ranked from the highest rated
down to the lowest ratings in 64 questions. They’re in that rank order. Those other columns–
those are percentages. What percent said, I agreed
totally with this thing– or I somewhat agree–
or I’m neutral– I somewhat disagree–
or disagree? And where you want to be
is really as many people as possible agreeing
with something. You’ll never get everybody
to agree to anything. But where these numbers, here
and here, are high, you want, in whatever remedial
things are done, is try to drive the numbers
here, by earning people’s trust and changing processes– doing all those things that can
be done as a result of this. It turns out that several of
the questions in the survey– half a dozen, roughly– are questions that I would
call more aspirational. Should we do this
kind of training? Should we do that,
going forward, that could be positive? And those got some of
the highest ratings. All the others– close to 60– are more, tell me
about how you feel about specific issues going on. Those were all lower rated than
the so-called aspirational. These aspirational ones
are good in that we understand how people feel. Should we do more
to make the changes? And people are
largely saying, yes. But they’re also
saying in it, yeah– but we need some change. But another thing–
recently good news– am committed to
working for the college for the foreseeable future. And those– pretty
high percentages. There’s always
someone out the door, for family reasons, time
for retirement, on and on. Some people just want
to get a different job. So you’ll never be 100%
on the Agree column. But you want to come
over as close as you can. An interesting and
important one is right here. My direct manager or
the person I report to does not bully or abuse
employees in the department. Sort of good news
overall rating. And 73% didn’t fully agree. The reality is, you really
want to get that thing as close to 100% as possible. If 30% almost said, I’m on
the fence, I’m not so sure, or they’re lower down
there, that’s not so good. If you can’t say,
hey, my boss doesn’t bully and it’s
comfortable and I’m comfortable going to
work and all that– it’s not whether you’re high
up or lower down in the rating. But some of these are actually
probably more important questions than others. It’s up to leadership
to figure out which ones are the most important. But what happens is,
if you seriously deal with all these things,
by fixing some things, others automatically get better. People see the tone, leadership
behaviors start to change. People see some things
happening that are good. It changes the mindset. If I can– and I discussed
it with the leadership team earlier today. I don’t know how
many of you, if any, have heard of the
Hawthorne effect. But very quickly,
Western Electric– the manufacturing arm– years ago, in the
1920s, at AT&T– Hawthorne was a
plant near Chicago. And my predecessors,
the industrial engineers that started that profession,
went into that plant. And manufacturing was important. And they started
looking at ways– how do you improve productivity
and satisfaction of workers? And that was a
very novel thing– never done before in history. And what they did is they
improved the lighting. Productivity and happiness
went up and satisfaction. They changed the
color of the walls. They painted them. They kept doing–
they made it warmer. They made it colder. They did this. They did that. No matter what they did,
things got better and better. Then they even reversed
some of those things, and they still got better. And you know what they found? Bottom line– some of
those things really helped. But when the employees felt that
management was paying attention to them and trying
to make life better, that hit the mark more
than anything else. And that’s my message here. That ability to say,
we really heard you– we can’t handle everything. There may be some reasons why
we can’t do certain things. But overall, we’re going to
address as much as we can. We’ll communicate more
than we did in the past. If we can’t do something,
let’s be honest and transparent and say why we can’t. And that sends an
important– there needs to be more communications. And everybody’s busy
doing their thing. But it’s coming out of
silos, breaking things apart a little bit. There can’t be enough
communications. That’s a key issue. So basically, I want to just
quickly go through, maybe pick a few of these. But you get the concept
of what I’m talking about. So as we go down, there
are greater and greater opportunities for improvement. What I recommend– in the
comments, a bunch of people said, yeah, I’d recommend,
but with reservation, because of the department
I’m in or some other issues. So people are missed. Ideally– you’ll never be 100. But you want that to be–
we’ve seen organizations where it’s 80% to 90%
would say, totally agree. So again, you want
to move the curve. You want to move to the
left as much as possible. The commitment to inclusion
and communicate– this communicates to job candidates. This comes to the whole issue
of, how do you hire people? We’ll talk more
about that later. But that whole process for
selecting hiring candidates from within the college
and from outside needs some more attention. That’s what they said in the
comments and their readings. My direct manager
provides strong commitment to excellence– pretty good. But quite a few said, no. It really depends
on your department and who you report to. And an interesting
thing that we see here and in all the other
surveys we’ve seen elsewhere– there are managers,
again, that people revere, that are excellent. And there are others
that, frankly, don’t belong in their position. And some people know that their
boss or their boss’s boss, at some level, isn’t effective. And what happens is,
if I’m an employee and I report to someone
that I can’t respect and that’s making
life very difficult for me and for others– and for students– so whoever
your customers might be– I blame senior leadership
as much as my manager, if not more. Because they should know that
this is existing and this is a problem. And either they know and don’t
care and do nothing about it, or they don’t know. If they don’t know,
they’re ignorant. They’re not doing their job. And if they do know and
they’re doing nothing about it, it’s also a problem. So that’s why senior leadership
gets kind of low marks on this. But you’ve got some wonderful
managers, some in the middle, and some– and every organization–
believe me, Facebook, Microsoft– it’s
no different– same issues. It’s universal. Pick the best of any field– not everybody is made
up to be a good leader. Some would be better
being on faculty again, not moving up or being in
whatever department they’re in. Oh, wait. I just want to go back there. A few questions,
like number 15– I can disagree with my direct
manager or somebody else. There are a few
different variations. The point is– a
lot of people said, I really don’t feel comfortable,
based on my experience. I’ve been reprimanded. My colleagues have
been reprimanded. I can’t talk openly. And that’s not a healthy
culture or situation. Number 16– we had several
questions around this idea– if I’m experiencing
discrimination, because of who I am–
for whatever reason– or I see someone
else experiencing it, am I comfortable reporting it? Do I know how and to
whom to report it– whether it’s a designated
department or person or my boss or whatever. And the process for reporting
and getting results and having it remain confidential– that whole thing is broken. It doesn’t work. There’s no other way to say it. Helen’s jumped on it. And she’s got some
actions going on there. But there’s a real need
to do all that better. So a lot of people
just won’t report. It’s the confidentiality
of the information, even the timeliness. Someone would have
to do research on it. It takes time. But if you don’t report
back to the person– and maybe you can’t
tell them details. It wouldn’t be appropriate. But at least to let them know,
we’re still working on it– that type of thing– is important. But that whole issue– and there
was a good 1/2 dozen questions around it. And we asked the
faculty some questions about their perceptions of
how students feel about some of these issues. And they were very
similar, not thinking that students were
comfortable reporting. And The faculty’s
thoughts about students are really not much different–
almost identical to the way that faculty or all employees
feel about themselves. Direct manager
takes my suggestions about improving
things seriously. Well, only 1/2 the people
fully agree with that. So a lot of people said, no. My boss’s boss is pretty good,
but they’re not involved. And my boss just is overwhelmed
or they’re not interested. Or even if I tell them, they’ll
never do anything with it. So people feel stifled
and turned off. And again, there
isn’t an organization in the world that
doesn’t experience this. There’s nothing here
unique to this college. It’s a question of degree. And it’s figuring out where
the pockets are that need attention. Am I treated fairly
with respect that’s related to my
personal background and characteristics– whether
it be gender, race, religion– whatever. And significant
numbers of people– only 1/2– felt they
can fully agree to that. So as we come down, the
numbers are going to get lower, less percents agree. This was a big one. Lot of comments around 25. My direct manager
holds employees accountable for behavior not
in keeping with the values. You’ve got some excellent– I’d call it– aspirational
statements– mission, values, vision for the future. So the question is,
how do you close the gap between today’s
reality, across the campus but especially in
certain departments, with the aspirations? That’s really the challenge
and the opportunity. Colleagues treated with respect
as relates to their background personal characteristics– should we have a new
student orientation program that includes all this stuff? Does the college, #30, has
no tolerance for discrimination against students, based
on their backgrounds. Well, a lot of people said,
we need to improve it. And again, I want to
be mindful of our time and get to some
of the key things. So– are students comfortable
reporting and all that? Again– very low metrics. That’s the sense. What we’re recommending
in this thing is, go do a student survey,
probably next spring. Find out directly from students. And there are a bunch of
other kinds of questions you can ask, in terms of– do they know who to go
to if they need help just getting through
here– so they’re not going to run into
difficulty being able to get through the programs. So there’s a bunch of
things you can ask students. Get some participation
and really learn firsthand from them. And I’ve done a lot of
consulting over the years. I know what focus groups– I know all this. The beauty of a survey– they could save you money. And this is not a
promotional thing. I’ve learned, there
are the things where you want to
consult with hands-on. You want a focus group
for different reasons. But in a survey, you can get
input from a lot of people. I know, when I used to do a
lot of consulting work, I’d go and I’d talked to some people. It’s as good as who I did. But you can talk to
only some people. And they may have some biases. Or they may have focus on them. The minute you can
give them, en masse, an opportunity to say what
they want anonymously, it’s at least a great starting
point to capture as much data as you can. And then you can
research and drill down beyond that through
other approaches. Let’s skip towards the bottom. It’s this in the next slide. The college takes appropriate
action in response to discriminatory and
abusive incidents– only 21% agree with that. That’s their perception. The college treats
all employees fairly, regardless of their position– so it’s not just who you are,
in terms of demographics. But if you are lower down in the
reporting level, people feel– I’m not taken seriously. And I’ll share– one
person had this comment. I come to the parking
lot, get out of the car. There’s some more
senior level person. They don’t acknowledge
my existence. They won’t look at me. They won’t say hello. I then end up, a
number of times, in meetings with this person. They talk with lots of people. They won’t look at me. And the point is, that person
could initiate the discussion with the senior person. People at a lower
reporting level don’t feel comfortable doing it. It’s got to be the
other way around. Call it civility or whatever. And again– not
unique to the college. Feel comfortable
expressing views on issues important to me, even
if I know others may disagree– these are low numbers. You need some real
attention on that. Students know whom to
report acts– again, perception of faculty is, no. The college handles
reported acts effectively. And then the last four– the college handles
reported acts against employees with urgency. And if you’ll notice,
things just lead on and on. Employees can express their
ideas and opinions and beliefs without fear of retribution– only 15%. That needs urgent attention. Maybe the most important
issue in the whole survey is, essentially, this one– high trust level between senior
leadership and employees. There was a real
significant gap here. Until that gap is closed by
earning that respect and trust, there is a limit to
what can be done. And that’s done by being
visible, by talking, by getting around, much
more communication, and demonstrating
that there will be some meaningful
change– not everything, but things will start to
happen with a reasonable level of urgency. And again– handling
reported acts effectively– these are really low numbers. We don’t see this often in the surveys. We looked at a lot of
different demographics here, in terms of primary
high-level position. And what we found in
each one of them– we gave people the opportunity. We didn’t mandate that
they answer the question. Most did, but significant
numbers didn’t. We put them in that
category of unanswered. The people that we’re not
comfortable answering these– because they felt it might
give away whether or not they’re anonymous. So that was their way of
doing the survey but not– usually, where some answered,
the overall averages are lower than when
people would say. But in every one of these,
there is quite a bit of variation between the
highest rated group, the middle, and the lowest. I wouldn’t overly
read too much in. Sometimes, they’re large groups. Sometimes, they’re small. And this is all
questions combined coming into this thing. By division– some variation. And by campus–
the more remote– not only because they’re
remote but the nature of what goes on at Wake and
Schott is different. And it came out significantly
higher– statistically significant. Gender identity–
some variation there. Men seem to be more
positive than women. Don’t ask me to explain. It’s what they’re experiencing
and how they feel. Sexual identity–
some variation there. Ethnic identity– again,
different variation. Some of the groups– where there were less than
10, we know the number. But we just said, 10 or
less, not to try to push it. And if we told you
there were two people and people know who they
are, you can get it. So we came up with that. Education level–
and what you find there is, within reason,
doctoral and masters– the more education, the
lower the numbers. You can interpret
it the way you want. But that’s what
people are saying. The no high school– there was small number of
people in certain staff– maybe in maintenance
departments. I’m not sure what that was. But that just went down. Everything’s perfect. And maybe that’s their reality. And maybe they just
didn’t feel comfortable saying anything different. By age, with the
exception of people– and there are not many of them– that said they
were 25 or under– it’s largely, the older you
are, the more positive you were. That holds true pretty
much throughout. Military status– some data. Most people were
not in the military. Religious or spiritual– you
get that same kind of variation. Here, we get into those
other three questions where it was Yes or No– very important questions. The first ones– have
you and you, yourself– the person doing the survey– have you personally experienced
exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, or hostile
harassing conduct, interfering with your ability
to work or learn at the college? And what employees said is,
31%-plus plus said, yes. I’ve experienced this stuff. That’s a pretty high number. Then you, not yourself,
but have you experienced it where others you’ve
worked with have gone through those experiences? 1/2 the people said, yes. I haven’t, but I’ve
seen someone else experiencing these situations. And finally, have you observed
unfair or unjust employment practices? That may be, I didn’t get this
opportunity to apply for a job or I did, but it was
a cursory interview. They weren’t taking
me seriously. I’ve seen a lot of comments. They knew who they
were going to take and they just went
through the process to check off that they
interviewed some people. Or they had such a strong
bias to go outside, no insider had an opportunity. Or they went outside. And it was clear that
there were biases to hire people of certain
backgrounds versus others. Others are saying, there’s not
enough focus on hiring people with a lot of experience
and competencies more to bring in other factors. Other are saying,
there’s not enough. So there are people on
every side of every issue. And that’s to be expected. But the process then for
hiring, recruiting, sorting those kinds of things out
really needs some attention. What is the way this
college wants it done? And then train people
on how to do that. And do some checks and
accountability on that. Because what we saw is very
significant inconsistencies in this whole
hiring-recruiting process and also in the
performance-management process– how performance
reviews are done and what kind of
feedback if any is given. Some people do that well. Some don’t. So there’s some processes
across the board that need some real attention. Key things– we had
10 key sections, all with several questions–
some more than others– in the survey. So here’s how it came out. At the top– employee engagement
and commitment to the college. A pretty good score– 4.12. And the reason– I’ve talked about engagement
being possibly kind of low. And you’d want that
considerably higher. But in some departments,
it’s much higher than others. And what a bunch of people
said in their comments– and we see this in any
survey we do like this– is, I feel I’m
personally engaged– they give it a higher rating. But that’s because
I’m professional. I was brought up that way. That’s who I am. But it’s not because
anything my manager or anyone else at
the college is doing. So that pushed it up. Others are saying, I’m
trying my damnedest, but I’m running into
too many obstacles. And that’s why those
ratings were lower. My direct manager–
what’s happening here is there are a lot
of good managers. But it’s also, where someone’s
manager isn’t that effective and it came down more– they’re taking it out on
senior leadership from below. They’re tolerating this
person being manager. So I’m mad at my manager
for being my manager. But I’m even more mad
at the senior people. They need to know who that
person is and do something about it. And that’s really the
way to interpret that. The college culture overall,
especially in certain areas, needs real attention. And this whole process,
again, for reporting acts of discrimination
it’s particularly low. Any questions on this? It’s important enough
to take a second. Concept– organizational
effectiveness. It’s extremely
important concept. It’s basically
creating the conditions necessary for the
whole organization and for people working here,
no matter what their job is, to do their best possible job
every day and to enable them and the people they
support, whether it’s the internal customer
in another department– people in IT supporting
everybody or faculty supporting students– to enable your internal or
external customer to thrive. So what are those conditions? And we found in the survey,
there are quite a few barriers to organization
effectiveness, things that are not allowing things
to work as well as they can be. Employee engagement–
we talked about. But what we’re talking
about here is– when someone is really
engaged, they’re fully involved in their job. They really have
a passion for it. They want to come in every day– do their best possible job. And some people feel that way. But a few others don’t. Gallup has published,
a number of times– this number is 70%. They’re saying, based on
the work they’ve done, 70% of the workforce in
the US is disengaged. That’s probably a little
bit of an overstatement. And most people are not
engaged or disengaged. It varies by time of
day, by day of the week. There may be personal problems
or something’s going on. Some of it depends
on your current boss. There are a whole
host of things. But when someone is
disengaged, they’re just not as passionate in
wanting to do the job they can. And if the mission is
to educate students to the best of their
ability, then anybody that’s not fully engaged– you’re missing an opportunity. You’re not getting as much
value as with somebody engaged. So employees’ experiences affect
their feelings, their morale, and their satisfaction. And their feelings,
morale, and satisfaction affect how engaged they
are, their performance, and how well the
organization works as a total organization,
where each part really relies on the others. It’s like an orchestra. You can have some wonderful
people in the orchestra. But if you don’t
have a good conductor and everything’s
working together, it just doesn’t work right. The third point I want to
get across– this concept of cognitive dissonance. And really what that is, simply,
is people, before this survey, had a perspective, right or
wrong– their own perspective– of how things are going
on at the college. And it’s probably true that,
for a number of people– what we found here is very
different from what people anticipated was going on. And that’s the whole idea. What your brain and what
your experiences are saying versus a new reality. I get new data– something. So the knee-jerk reaction–
do I buy this stuff? Or is it a lot of nonsense? Do I get on board or– I joke with people. I come into meetings like this. I’m really not wearing
a bulletproof vest. But we’re the messenger. Shoot the messenger. You get those issues. Is it accurate or not? For those people that did
the survey, it’s accurate. And it’s probably
reasonably accurate for the whole population. So a bunch of findings– at the topmost level,
many positives. But there are a lot of
barriers that get in the way. And that’s somewhat dependent. Some of it’s across the board,
like in private practices. But some groups are doing
it better than others. Certain things are very
specific to given departments, so there’s a greater opportunity
to take action there. So it depends what
department, who you report to, personal characteristics. And frankly, a very important
issue is expectations. Some people have much loftier
expectations than others. Some have never experienced
something very positive– don’t expect more. And others really
want and expect more from your organization. At the college, many
employees report experiencing inequities and
exclusionary situations, based on their own
personal characteristics. So there a bunch of things. Some because it’s
just who they are. And in each of us
is a combination of a number of things. And one thing that’s becoming
more and more important today, beyond this that was not in
there– but a number of people commented on it. We didn’t give them that
opportunity to talk directly. What happens in
surveys, if you don’t ask a certain question that’s
important to some people, they’ll find a place
to put comments in. You can’t hide from it, so it’s
better to ask the questions. But this whole thing here– there were some issues. We did ask this about
physical ability– some people getting access. Not everything is as
accessible– certain doors to get in, lack of ramps,
that type of thing. But this last one– there are a number of people
that have talked about– I can’t express, because
my political views are conservative. And that doesn’t fly on
this or any other campus. Campuses tend to be more
liberal, to the left, on average, but not totally. So there are students,
there are faculty who does feel they put down–
they don’t dare mention anything, because of that. So there’s so many of
these different factors– that’s the key point– that come into it,
that some of us don’t stop to realize that I
may be seeing something very different than somebody else. You’ve heard of the situation
where sometimes there is an accident or some incident
and five people saw it. And this five people saw
very different things and report them. That’s the same thing here. It’s what we see,
our perceptions, our misperceptions. And I guarantee, there
are some misperceptions. People quickly come
to conclusions. There’s some hearsay
that goes into this. But it’s sorting it through. But everybody’s perception
is their own reality. Differing perceptions–
many people feel that diversity, equity, and
inclusion issues are very real. And people are serious about it. And they’re real issues. There are others that feel that,
overall, things are quite good and that there are some
highly vocal agitators within and outside that
are unnecessarily and inappropriately
stirring the pot and, if we just get rid of
that, things will be perfect. That’s not the real case. But to some people,
that’s the reality. Some people don’t believe that
negative diversity and equity and inclusion
issues exist at all. There are some people like that. Some feel that too
much emphasis is being placed on all this stuff. Why don’t we go back
to when we didn’t? Things seemed to be fine– in their perception. For others, their reality
is quite different. Specific key findings–
the need to increase the level of trust and respect
between leaders and employees– probably the number one issue. And that’s got to be earned. There’s a large perception gap
between leaders and employees on lots of issues. Insufficient and
ineffective communications– you cannot ever, in
any organization, communicate enough. And yet, people
are busy doing what they perceive as
their priorities and lose sight of
this sometimes. Or people are not comfortable. It’s like, they used to say,
management by walking around. Get out there. Talk with people. Find out what’s going on. Share some perspective–
that type of thing. Some managers don’t know what’s
happening at the employee level. There are a lot of managers that
are managing up and not down. They don’t know what’s going on. People said that
in their comments. Based on their experiences, some
employees have a lot of fear and don’t trust their manager
and some senior-level people, based on their own
personal experiences or hearsay from certain
fellow employees. Employees don’t understand some
of the issues and constraints that managers face every day. And some managers at the lower
levels, by the way, whenever they have issues– let’s blame someone
at [INAUDIBLE].. And a lot of times,
that’s totally wrong and
inappropriate– but not taking ownership of
issues they can deal with. Some people– and there are a
number of comments about this– managers at different
levels just are not effective with what they do. They are constraints
to the organization, doing it as
effectively as you can. People saying that they are
disengaged– many employees report having
personally experienced or observed discriminatory
and abusive incidents. Many people report not
knowing or trusting that process for reporting. Again, I’m being
repetitive, but summarizing what I said before when
we looked at the data. I’m going to jump ahead,
because I want more time just to hear you out and respond. I guess, the last two or three– people are concerned
about the effectiveness at senior leadership
team and about who the next president will be. That’s a real critical issue. That person is inheriting a
lot of issues to deal with. Do they have the temperament,
the communications ability? And there are a lot
of process issues here that need to be dealt with,
whether they directly– or they know how to–
manage that whole thing. This is a big project
management test, to start putting all the pieces
together, to plan it out, to hold people accountable
for making real change. And a lot of concerns
in the comments about– will anything really change
as a result of the survey? Did anyone hear it? Report it? We see that all over,
in other organizations. A bunch of recommendations–
and I’ll go quickly. But there’s some general ones. The need to communicate– this stuff– some
of these things are happening now, the
next two or three days. But the idea– create a
comprehensive transformation action plan. All this stuff
doesn’t mean anything if the data isn’t taken,
understood, and then transitioned into
a plan of action. So how to create a plan
of what needs to be done– the starting point,
I would hope, is to take the recommendations
in this report, but then to personalize
them, add to them, and do what the leadership team
really feels needs to get done. So take this as
a starting point, but then going to
much more detail. Getting people involved–
what’s happening is, some people get involved
in every committee. Some people never
get onto a committee. There needs to be more
opportunities from some people. And part of it is, a lot of
people in specific groups tend to segregate
within their group. And there’s not intermingling. You go into a cafeteria
in many organizations, and people of the
same backgrounds go to lunch together,
whether it’s departmental or whether it’s personal
characteristics. I was hearing
things today, having some lunch, about a bowling
league that you have and how diverse the people are. Things like that are
wonderful, because you can get people of
different backgrounds to get to know each other,
while they’re bowling. Over beer, over pizza
later– whatever– you start to get
to know each other and be comfortable in a way
that, sometimes, in the work environment, you just can’t do. There’s a concept
that’s been going around in the last few years,
where people– there are articles about it. Coming up with opportunities–
the way buildings are designed and doing other things– they call it collisions. How do we create
opportunities for people to collide around
the coffee station– walking through
the hallways– so they get talking to each other. Someone has an idea, comes
up with another idea. And the next thing
you know, you’ve got a good invention
or something like that. But it’s no different. Someone’s experiencing
an issue and opportunity. Can you collaborate? Can you talk? And if people are all
not comfortable talking and sharing, then they think– they don’t understand the
culture and background of some people. They exclude them,
where those people may have some wonderful ideas
and can add a lot of value. So how do you, maybe,
exclude some people that are too included? There’s never too
much inclusion. But the same people tend to be
doing the same committees over and over again. Let’s get some new blood in it. Stir it up a little bit. You’ll be surprised sometimes. Wonder things can happen. Measuring and communicating
onging progress– if you can get some wins on the
board as a result of all this and communicate that and if
it’s true and they’re visible, it’s like that Hawthorne effect. Unbelievable positive
things can happen. Selecting the right president– that it’s going to be critical. And it’s not easy. I understand. I can only imagine
the deliberations that are probably going on. I’m going to let you read
this stuff there– a bunch of specific recommendations,
based on that analysis. I’d like to think they
make a lot of sense. It’s based on personal
experiences I’ve had, doing lots of this over decades. But I’ll tell you– this
zero tolerance policy– that’s a real critical one. The idea that you’re no longer
going to tolerate inappropriate behavior on the
[INAUDIBLE] people– give them an opportunity. But not for long. There’s certain behaviors
that just kill everything. And there’s got
to be a mechanism to get people to change. And it’s pretty hard to
get adults to change. And if they’re not
willing or able, maybe they’re the wrong
person for the job. How long? (WHISPERING) 30
minutes [INAUDIBLE].. Put all this equity
inclusion stuff into performance objectives of
employees, especially managers, to start dealing with it. Identify and deal
with those people. And I’ll tell you what– if you can replace some
of the ineffective people with more effective people, that
will be the most important shot fired around– I’ve experienced it
in the world– here– in any organization. I don’t know how else to say it. They finally caught
up with so-and-so. They’ve been screwing
up the place forever. And they finally did
something about it. That word goes like wildfire
through the organization– any organization. You’ve got, I guess,
Title IX Director. Others call it the Head
of Equity Inclusion. Getting the right person in
there– it’s really important. Throw a thought at
you– some people have that position as
reporting at the top. My feeling, my experience is–
get them reporting into HR and get a Cracker Jack
top-notch person running HR. Because most of these
issues are HR related. You need that to be a
very effective function. And all this equity-inclusion
stuff is really a subset of HR. When you isolate it separately,
it doesn’t work as well– so just a thought there. Closing that gap between
the mission, vision, core principles, and reality– make attending
training– there’s a program called Crossroads. A bunch of people
took it upon themself to put it together– got
some really positive response and comments about it. But some– no
negativity, but more suggestions for
making it better. Make it mandatory for
everybody to attend it. And I would agree,
at some point. Make sure managers do it
sooner rather than later. But take data from this survey. Integrate it into that thing. And a real challenge in
any organization is– the people that need this
kind of training the most either will find a
way not to attend or they’re not going
to get value from it. They’re so set in
their ways, they’re going to be repeat offenders. It’s hard to change that. So just by checking it off– OK, we did the training–
that’s not going to do it. It’s the necessary but,
by far, not sufficient thing that needs to be done. It’s the leadership
that’s going to be more important in accountability
and dealing with issues. But it’s a critical piece. It will help make the
culture more positive. A lot of need, people said,
for more accountability– too much favoritism going on
in their own departments– holding managers and fellow
employees for doing their job. And a lot of people said,
my manager isn’t accountable or their co-workers
are not doing their fair share of the work
or other things like that. Review and enhance the
equity inclusion training, as I mentioned. I don’t know if there are enough
people to mentor or doing it, but it’s the
concept of providing for those that particularly
need to become more effective managers and leaders. Is there someone
real good at it that can help coach and advise
them– that they can talk with on an ongoing basis? And if they’re not
internally– and I know, I’m spending your money– but maybe you get some– there are people who do
this for a living, coaching on the outside. And sometimes, you could
even do that on a team basis rather than individual, to
get more bang for the buck. But in some way– that. I would also talk about a
leadership training program, whether you bring someone
from another college that has a good management program
in or send some people out– again, spending some money. But this whole management
thing is critical, together with back-filling
better people going forward, through better
stronger processes. It’s the idea of– how do we strengthen
the current people that needs some strengthening? And leadership– again,
there’s a technical component in knowing how to
manage effectively. And there is that
behavioral piece. And they both have to
be reasonably weighed. So we talked about that. Getting everybody
on the same page– of the definition
of what diversity is and how to deal with that. Enhancing communications
and collaboration– Would you say a little
bit more about number 15? Sure. This– and Helen, please
pipe in– or anyone else. But the whole idea of– what is diversity? How do you feel about
it individually? Am I, as a old white man– and you look at me. That’s who I am. How can I relate to others? Do I have biases again plaid
people or paisley people– or something like that. And why? Or can I be open and
understand the value they bring to the organization. And I have to be open to that. And how do we get the best out
of all of us working together? So starting out of this, I
would encourage the start of much more dialogue,
within training, within department meetings,
focus groups, management walking around and talking
with people and being visible– getting people to start
being open to these things and understanding, my reality
may be very different from someone else’s. Helen– your thoughts? Oh, no. I was just
particularly interested in the part where you talk
about expanding the definition in that first paragraph. Uh-huh. Should we expand it to
include economic diversity, addressing special [INAUDIBLE]– [INAUDIBLE] And diversity of
thought and tolerance– I don’t think we always
go that far with it. Mm-mm. But it’s critical. In any organization, people
come at it from different– I was recommended to
stay at the Eagle Inn. That’s where I’m staying. Has a quick breakfast– and I got to meet a guy whose
wife came from Santa Barbara. They live in Oklahoma. Terrific guy– we got
talking for 10 minutes. And he’s telling me, boy,
this one mindset in Oklahoma– everyone’s the same
way– very conservative. And my sense is,
he was that way. But he’s open to
saying, we need to talk. The red states are one way. The blue are another. The fact is, there are
pockets across the board. How do we get people
to start understanding where everybody’s coming
from and bring it together? Because there’s some validity
to everybody’s perspective. And that’s their reality. And whether it’s at this college
or anyplace else in the world, I think an awful lot of
people have no clue what’s in their own best interest. They live their own reality. Some of it’s because
of what they’re hearing on television or from
a friend or this or that. And they don’t stop to
think enough about what’s really going on. And the more we can
get people to think and be open and say– someone
has a different perspective. Well, why? How did they grow up? What makes them different– to learn and get to
understand each other. That way, we can work
better collectively. There are comments–
people, agnostics, atheists, that type of thing– I’ve seen it elsewhere too. You know what? This place is very
religiously tolerant, as long as you admit to
having a religion. If you don’t, keep
your mouth shut. Don’t let anyone know that. Because people have
trouble understanding– how could it be that you
don’t have a religion and believe in something
beyond yourselves? But that’s the reality
of some people. So it’s understandable. We talked about communication. Accessibility for
employees and students that have various
kinds of disabilities, whether it be sight, hearing,
physical disabilities– some good things have
happened here and elsewhere. Comments, suggestion–
more has to get done. Top, again– and maybe some
money, some other things– but can something be done in the
area of reward and recognition to recognize people who
do real positive things? There’s a lot to be done and
can be done in that area. Some organizations have
done quite a bit of work. The role of HR in
any organization is extremely critical. There were a number of comments
that suggested, in the past, there were some real
issues in HR here. So it’s strengthening leadership
in the whole department. That gets around to hiring
practices and performance measurement and a ton of– HR’s got a list like this. And you need a strong
effective HR department that knows how to deal
with things confidentially, because there were quite
a few comments about– HR doesn’t know how to
handle things confidentially that need to be
handled confidentially. Again– I’m going to
suggest a student survey to hear directly from them. Do this survey again,
probably, next spring. Hopefully, you’re going to
get enough done between now until about the same
time that this was done. Or in fact, even, say,
the spring of 2021. But out a while, come
back and do this. Conduct a comprehensive
engagement. There are a bunch
of issues that are done in more broad
surveys than this that you probably
want to look at. So down the road, two
to three years from now, you probably want to do that. But for now, you’ve
got more than enough to chew on with this data. I wouldn’t go do that. But maybe, three years
or so down the road, it would be worth getting into
some other important issues. I can show you examples of other
kinds of issues to look at. So some of the key challenges
facing the college– addressing and overcoming high
levels of cynicism, distrust, fear, and low levels, for some
people in some departments, of satisfaction,
engagement, and morale. Again, conducting a survey sends
a message you want to hear. If you do nothing about it– very problematic. And if people don’t see
positive things happening, you’re telling them, I’m
not serious about it. So people are going to become
more cynical, not less. So it’s really urgent that
some positive things start happening around that basis. Facing the college–
the vision mission– all these things–
they’re aspirational. And they’re really good. I’ve seen others not so good. The issue is now making that
a reality for everybody. So there’s closing
that gap between what that says and the reality or
what people are experiencing. That’s what this
whole thing is about. So talking this stuff up
is pretty good in training. And never miss an opportunity. Key challenges facing this
in every other organization– according to McKinsey,
probably the most well-known and the largest consulting
firm in the world– and they’re pretty good– over 70% of all organizational
transformations– and what I’m suggesting is,
this is not tweaking around. This is significant
transformation that has to happen– culture,
leadership, other process issues. Over 70% of all
transformation efforts fail to meet their objectives
or outright totally fail. It’s that difficult
to make it happen. And if not enough
attention is done to who does that, how
that’s done, the planning, the execution, it won’t
be successful here. You’re not going to beat
the odds just by wishing. The next president, the team
around him, all that stuff is critical. Another point–
piecemeal solutions, tinkering around the
edges of the issues really don’t do work. Maybe you get a little
short-term gain. So it’s how to create
lasting change– not easy. Deciding what to change
as a result of the survey, how to organize for success
for a transformation– change is extremely
difficult. Some people embrace and love change. Others– fearful. So it’s sorting out all
that type of thing out. Who really needs to
lead this change? I’ll get to it in the
next slide or two. Identifying and
removing those barriers we identified in the survey– they get in the way of
making meaningful change. Poor performing and
disruptive managers– again, we’ll talk about– they’re going to kill
everything if not careful. Overcoming resistance
to change– that’s a real big issue. Changing behavior of
adults is real tough. So you’ve got to
keep that in mind. My experience– 20 years of
doing this and a lot of other experiences before my career– we find that 80% of
the organizations we’ve been doing the surveys
for for 20 years now, they’ll take significant action
as a result of the surveys and survey findings. It’s like people
going to their doctor. You go for the annual physical. And the doctor says, you
need to change your behavior. You need this medication. You need to get more exercise. Push yourself away
from the table– whatever combination it is. And people say, thanks, doc. And you go about
doing the same stuff. Come back a year later– nothing’s changed. The same thing happens
in organizations. People are so busy– you’ve heard the
story about trying to change a tire on a car
going 60 miles-an-hour. That’s the challenge here. It’s hard, unless you
really plan for it. Business-as-usual
gets in the way. So how do people
react to change? This is a generalization,
but there are typically 1/4 of the people in most
organizations– managers, employees– that really want
and embrace positive change. They’ll lead the way. There’s another 1/4
that really want it as well as the first
group, but they’re not willing to stick
their neck out and be leaders to make it happen. They’re going to wait and
see, which of my peers are on board leading the way? And is this something
where it’s going to work? Because if it isn’t, I’m not
going to put any energy in. I won’t do it. The last 1/3– the third 1/3– is those people who
are quite disengaged. They don’t know about
the new change much. They’re hiding from things. And they hope– well, this
is like most other change that ever happened. It’ll come and go. So why bother? It’s– nothing good’s
going to happen. And then there’s this
final 1/3 or 1/4– the kind that lay down
across the railroad tracks and try to obstruct
everything that ever happens. So it’s taking these people
and pushing them up the scale. How many of these bottles
to move up and so on? And if some people
won’t change– they’re at the bottom– maybe they just don’t
move into that position. Maybe there’s a better job
for them here and elsewhere. So some priorities for
leadership– it really comes down to assessing and
understand the current reality. So we learned some
stuff in the survey. You may have some
other perspectives to bring into it that we
don’t see in the survey. But taking the whole
thing, between leadership and the Board– all the constituent groups– outsiders, students,
unions, faculty, staff– how do you get everybody
to look at this and agree that, maybe,
this is the reality? And how do we work
together to change things? Coming up with a good plan
for success, execution of that plan effectively– and then ongoing
assess in progress. And really, it
requires what I would call holistic transformation,
not just looking at one or two items. But there are a lot
of different issues– strengthening leadership, the
governance types of issues, [INAUDIBLE] things, and
faculty governance– bringing that in– the culture. What’s the direction? I know what I saw in the
comments, valid or not. So some people were quite
concerned about the direction. And some programs
have been cut out. So therefore, certain
groups are not getting the support
they need– on and on. And the fact is, maybe there’s
some very valid reasons for doing those things,
from a budgetary or legal or other perspectives. But I’m wondering if these
people got that message and been communicated
enough and effectively. And the point is, anything
that needs to be communicated, saying it once
doesn’t ever do it. It’s like, for those that
have a spouse or a partner– frequently, you’ve
got to say, hi. I love you. Saying it once a
year doesn’t do it– type of thing. So it’s the same. People need to hear
things quite a bit. So what’s the direction? And from this, the Board
and leadership team may want to chart somewhat
of a different direction. I call it– and I think
it’s a common term in recent years– reimagining
the whole organization. We know where we are,
sort of, from the survey and other data you have. Is that good? But given the
mission, the vision, and all those statements
and the aspirations, what do we want to change? This is an ideal opportunity
now to catch your breath, digest some of this,
and start thinking– where do you want to change? But communicate that. Here’s why we’re going
in a certain direction. Here’s the rationale. And you need to do it. Performance, staff,
faculty– you may want to raise up
the excellence there, build on those strengths already
in place, do more performance management, performance reviews. Focusing a lot on
process issues– some of the processes at
the organization are weak. They need some attention. What are the
students’ real need? Which ones are being met? Which are not? And the outside community– what do they expect and need? Are they being met? Let me summarize,
here, a flow chart that looks at this whole
thing as a process. What I’m suggesting–
it’s a holistic process. There are a lot
of issues we found that I would call systemic. They’re almost across
the board, maybe not in every last department– whether it’s the hiring
practice, something else. It’s a real process issue. It’s a training issue. And there are other
issues like that here. So there’s systemic. So what do you need to do? It’s what are the student– students are the customers, as
well as the outside population. What are their
real requirements? And are we meeting them? Mission, vision–
those are wonderful. I put it in yellow. Check it off. Those are done, unless you want
to change it for some reason. What strategies, as a
result of what we learned, need to be done to change that– to make things happen? What are the tactical plans? So that takes some real
thought and planning. Then some of you may be familiar
with this, but it’s the idea– where are we today? Organizational
effectiveness assessment– that’s largely what we
did here with the survey. So check it off. You pretty much have the data. You may have other
things you want to add to it that we don’t
know from the survey. So you’ve got that. But now, that
reimagining– where do we want to be going forward? Do we need to change the size– the makeup of who we
bring in– the students? Are there programs
we want to add? Are there programs that really
don’t make any sense anymore– for whatever reason. The leadership issues and
so on– so take some time. Catch your breath. Don’t run into it too fast. Being slow is a high risk. For being too fast
without thinking through is just as bad or
worse, because then you might do a lot of things
that don’t make so much sense in hindsight. And then, once you’ve
got that reimagining– how do we get there? And that’s a
transformation command, with all the
strategies and tactics that carry that forward. And then– plans are
wonderful, but how you execute them is just or more important. And that takes some
real project management. All these things take
project management skills that, often, many
organizations don’t have those kinds of skills. Sometimes, you’ve really
got to bring somebody in that has skills like that. So from that, what
are the conditions for achieving the
intended outcomes? Well, through a process
like that, you come– what are the outcomes
we want to achieve? And then we need senior
leadership support and oversight of
that whole thing. I’m suggesting, what you need– any organization needs– if
you’re undertaking a massive transformation, as we saw on
the numbers that McKinsey talks about, is seriously consider,
whether you have such a person in-house or you
need to go outside– senior-level person. Because the new president will
be too busy to also do this. But under that president
and with the Board’s total knowledge of what’s happening
on all-around basis, someone who is a real good
planner and communicator and knows how to make things
happen and hold people accountable and is empowered to
make those things happen to get their hands around
this whole thing– that could be a big piece
of success or failure here. It’s almost like
the missing link. And most organizations don’t
do something like that. But I can’t emphasize enough how
important something like that is. And it’s probably
someone from the outside. And maybe, it’s even
a retired person who had a real key
position elsewhere that wants to pay back
to the organization– whatever, but
something like that. And you take a look at the
survey and other action team involved and stuff like that. Get all this. And you just want, every year,
ongoing continuous improvement. You want to keep getting
better and better. You don’t do it all in one year. It just doesn’t happen. You never get perfection. And what’s today’s perfection
is not tomorrow’s perfection. The world keeps changing. So what what’s good now– so the idea of being open. And that’s what the surveys
and other mechanisms– keeping your eyes
out to not only what’s happening here, but
where’s the world going? How do we need to
adjust or change? Any thoughts on all this? Thank you very much
for your presentation. You’re welcome very much. Thank you. That is so, so much to
digest and to keep in mind and consider going forward. We need at least a couple
minutes for the student equity plan. So we’ve got, maybe, 10
minutes or so, unfortunately for questions. Before we get to the
questions though, I want to report something that
seems like a natural segue. And that is– as you know,
we’re going through a process to hire a new president. Try as we can– try as we must, Dr.
Benjamin will be leaving at the end of December. And I can report, yesterday was
the last day for applicants. We have 42 applicants. Wow! Our consultant
has told me, she’s extremely pleased with
the size of the pool. It’s a national pool– applicants from all
across the country. Overwhelming majority
of the applicants are from outside of California. But we still have very
strong candidates, I’m told, from California. We have gender and ethnic
diversity among the candidates. We have geographic diversity. And in short, our consultant
says that the outlook looks very, very promising. So we have a
screening committee. And that will be narrowing
the candidates down. And we will be interviewing
their recommendations at the end of October. Terrific. And with that, I’ll– Can I respond to that and– Sure. –consider that a
comment or question? I think it’s going to
be critical to make sure that the ones you feel the
strongest that you won’t get– that they understand about
the survey and findings and what the
challenges are ahead, so they know what
they’re getting into. And I don’t mean that as
a nasty negative thing. They need to understand
what their challenges are going to be going forward. And in your selection
process, it’s keeping in mind
what we learned here to help decide which of those
are the best candidate to do this, among many other things. This is too critical to
just say, we did this. Now, let’s just go
find a president. And I think, you all know that. But I just feel
compelled to say that. We may call you back to
give this presentation again to our– Happy to do it. By the way– –next president [INAUDIBLE]. –I can’t do this with
everybody in the college. And it wouldn’t be appropriate. But certainly, for the senior
team and for the Board, my name and phone number
is on the cover page. Email me. Call me. I’m not going to
charge you for it. I want you to succeed. I get cyclic income from that. [LAUGHTER] Don’t hold back, OK? If you want to talk about
some issues, please do. But any comments
or thoughts or– Yes. –anyone have
questions– comments? Just [INAUDIBLE]. Yeah, I know we have
very little time. So I think what I’ll
say is, the things that stood out the most to me– first of all, we’re
hearing this loud and clear from the employees. At least, I am. I want everyone to know
that this is alarming. And I’m hearing it. And we need to be active. So I just wanted to say that. I think it’s important to say. I think what you had in
one of the slides, which is doing well and improving
in all these areas will make us a standout
college and, maybe, will attract more employees and
more students to this place, because we’ve done really
well in these areas. And I think, that was a great
pointed observation to me, that we can be an
example in this area and, instead of a bad example,
a really great and amazing example. I just think that a lot of these
issues are policy-related too. And I think that’s
the Board’s realm. And I think we really
need to strengthen our policies of all kinds–
discrimination, zero tolerance, anti-bullying, our
disability-access policies, our management
training policies. There’s a lot in here
that we need to be doing. And I am looking forward
to getting those done and having them be some of
the strongest we’ve ever had– making them stronger
and then doubling that. Because we cannot be anywhere
near where we are right now. I want to respond to
one thing you said. Not many– but there
were a few comments that someone
recommended a friend to be an employee
here, faculty or not. And the person interviewed,
that type of thing, and said, after they
found out what’s going on, they chose not to come here. So the word is out. And this– before
the survey even knew. When things change and you got
that 30% who feel the way they do, you don’t
contain those things. Word travels throughout
the community and so on. And that’s exactly what
I hear them saying. It’s changing that mindset. We were once– I’d like to consider
myself part of we. But we were saying, we were
once the number one community college in the country. And we’ve got the right
structure and ability to charter the course
to get right back there in a reasonable amount
of time and the support and intention to
make that happen. So yeah, what you’re
saying is wonderful. Thank you. And just one last point
that I didn’t mention– but the hiring, I feel like
that came up almost as much as the no response
and discrimination. That’s very concerning. Because that’s in the
way of our faculty diversity policies and
goals that we have. If we’re not doing
well in hiring, we’re not meeting our goals. Thank you. Trustee Parker– Yes– yeah, I’m sorry that we
have a limited amount of time to talk about it. Tell you what– like I said, if
you want to park me on a bench somewhere and come back after
your meeting just to talk– Yeah. –I’m happy to do that. But just in terms of
the public record, I think that there are so
many topics that are covered here, so many board poli– I feel like we need to do
an analysis, in terms of, where does it
touch board policy? Where does it
touch board vision? And so we need to
get that figured out. But one of the things I
really think is important– I don’t know when the last
time this type of a survey was done for employees, if ever. I would go with if ever. OK– so going with
never, I do think we need to build it into
policy that this is something that we involve our employees
in on a very regular basis. Because if you allow
it to never be surveyed or to be surveyed
so rarely that– just, we can go completely
in the wrong direction without understanding it. I’m really glad that we have
this material to work with now. I’m looking forward
to hearing more about what our employees are
saying over the next few weeks. But I do think that
they need to be involved in this discussion in a very
targeted way, very meaningful way, on a regular basis. And that should be a policy. Let me just add– I think, probably, sometime
in the next month or two– whatever is appropriate– we
need to have this on our agenda and talk about follow-up to
what we’ve learned here today– what the Board can
do to facilitate many of the things that
have been suggested. Yeah– so what we would like
to do after the focus groups and we get that report,
we’d like to come back to have it agenda-ized. We’re getting a lot
of stuff in here. Maybe in November–
I don’t know– but so you can see
the results of that and talk to you about
plans and [INAUDIBLE].. Excellent. And if I can, once you bring
the new president on board, if it’s helpful for me
to talk with that person, spend some time,
that may be useful. I’m sure it will be. It’s whatever you think. Any others– any other
[INAUDIBLE] questions? Trustee Haslund? My question really
takes off from Kate’s. And that has to the
with the suggestions for the proper role of
the Board of Trustees, in particular the
transformational stage. That feels very operational. But it seems to me that there
may be a significant role, perhaps, in the
development of policy that serves the purpose
of encouraging or maybe even
[INAUDIBLE] a little bit. Your thoughts? I would agree. I’ve done this at
other organizations. To the credit here,
most organizations won’t dare show anything
like this to the board. Anyone remember what
happened at Wells Fargo with the loan issues and– Yeah. –the cross-selling
and all that? Either the board knew
and senior leadership and looked the other way. And I got to believe, if they
were doing employee surveys, they knew. And I guarantee, they’re
doing employee surveys. And they just– I know nothing. I hear nothing, OK? That’s intellectually,
in every other way, dishonest and unethical. So a lot of times,
leadership– believe me. I deal with colleges
and other places. Some have been this open. Some– not at all. You want me to show
it to the board? It’s like taking a gun to
my own head type of thing. Boards can’t be
effective if they don’t hear what’s going on. So I think there are a number– the support and
maybe the direction– if there are new programs or
programs to be closed down or whatever, that’s
really a board issue, I would think, to
quite understand. And having this information
could be very valuable to you, help sort out– where do you want to go? What do you want to do? So I think there
are some challenges, but some wonderful
opportunities, once you have this information,
to see what can be done. I don’t know if I’m
answering your question. But I– Yeah. I think, keeping the Board
divorced from all this isn’t good for the Board or
the college or leadership. It’s got to be a
community thing where all the key constituencies– especially in a college where
there’s self-governance, faculty, and all
those other issues– how do you get the
right involvement within each of the groups? It’s not easy, but I think– –it’s a good thought. –a key that I picked
up in your presentation has to do with the value
of ongoing communication. And to me, that would mean
just talking to people and making sure that they
understand that you understand and that we are serious
and committed to making significant changes,
as they roll along. Yep. But again, the role
of the board member is traditionally one of making
policy, not interfering– perhaps encouraging, but not
interfering with the process, as developed by those who are
responsible for the operational needs of the college. Right, but what
ends up happening, more often than not– it’s happened at loads of
kinds of organizations– is the board is brought in after
the fact, when something blows up. Yeah. It’s much better to
be upfront, proactive. You’re not the managers
of the organization. But it’s in selecting
the right key people and keeping an eye on things–
the governance, the oversight. That’s extremely important. And the more you know– Yeah. –and that’s not
filtered too much, and you have to see
things like this– how could you possibly
do your job effectively if this was kept from you. You’d think things
were very different. There were a number of comments
in the survey second guessing Board decisions and actions. And just because of my
experience, I looked at them. I don’t know, because
I’m an outsider. I said, how many of these
are really misperceptions, because people don’t know why
you made a certain decision– that for legal or for budgetary
or for who knows what reasons, you have to do certain things. And people don’t know. And that’s the
communication issue. We’re about out of time,
but Trust Igbechi– [INTERPOSING VOICES] –question. I just want to thank
you for coming. This, of course,
was very insightful. My question is, you talked
about having equity trainings. And we’ve had
[INAUDIBLE] are kind of controversial from
some board members. Would you, in your experience,
say there’s [INAUDIBLE]—- or it helps improve
the campus climate– on your experience? So you’re basically
saying, does training help? Yeah, does the equity
trainings [INAUDIBLE]?? It can help immensely. But it’s not a
cure all by itself. If it’s done real
well– it sounds like the program you’ve got in
place is probably pretty good. But there are ways to make
it even better that we heard from people. So it’s taking a look at it,
getting everybody involved, getting more people into it,
making sure– especially– that anybody who manages
anybody get in sooner rather than later. Let them use the material
from this survey to talk. Get dialogue going
about these issues, so it’s more real-world
with real data. It can help. But don’t expect
every last person to get value from the training. Some will hide
and try not to go. There people who
said, I can’t go. I’m too busy. My boss doesn’t let me go. You’ve got to knock those
barriers out of the way. But it can be
extremely valuable. But again, some people won’t
get value from the training. They are who they are. And you’ve got to be mindful. And sometimes, you’ve just
got to deal with those people individually, go offline and
give them an opportunity– but not forever. Howard, thank you very much. Thank you. Good luck. We’ll be in touch, I’m sure. I’m rooting for you. Take care. Thank you. I see– you have
a quick question? I hope so. I hope it’s quick. [INAUDIBLE] Because we’re
running out of time. I want to thank you for– well– Go ahead. Mm-hm. Throw me that. Thank you very much. You actually gave us of some
starting and ending points and filled in some gaps, like,
how do we do certain things? My takeaway is– and this
is to the Board really. I think, what transpired
over this last– like– year is we had never– in my time on the
Board, we never had any of these
issues come before us. And the Board, as a whole,
was pretty surprised. And we reacted as
fast as we could. And we said to the
president, hey, get on it. Do it– and because
he reports to us. We hired him. And then we found out
that he had some employees at the high level, like
at the VP level, that weren’t getting things done. And we fixed an
awful lot of things and are in the process of fixing
a whole bunch of other things. But what we don’t have is what
our board president referred to, a policy that makes
surveys and feedback like this on key issues to
happen regularly. And we have some. But we sort of missed
the boat on this. We didn’t ever seem to
have problems with it, so nobody really set up
anything to deal with it. The problems we had were normal. These difficulties
happen everywhere. We were just kind of immune
to the major brunt of it at this school. So now, we have to work on it. So I just want to reinforce
what Robert Miller said about setting up a policy. And Jonathan is really good
at helping to create policies. Maybe we can make some
progress in that regard. And I don’t know that we
can achieve all those goals. But I love the example
that you gave us about doing things that show
that management and the Board is interested– That’s right. –and walking around– whatever. So we can do things
that we know will have some kind of positive effect. But I’d hate to see the college
put too much effort into things that are extremely
difficult to do and are the accomplishment–
attainment of those goals is iffy. I totally agree. Because we could end
up doing nothing. That’s right. So it’s– if I can, in
the last 30 seconds– sorting this through. What are the priorities that
you see as a result of this? And I think, our conversation
before the meeting– there are a lot of things here
that don’t have to cost money. There are actions
that can happen in communications and
leadership, changing processes, that don’t cost. And they may save
a lot of money. Thank you very much, Howard. You’re welcome. Thank you. And we now move
to our second item on the agenda, the
Student Equity Plan. Kate– (WHISPERING) Thank you. You’re welcome. Where am I going [INAUDIBLE]? [INAUDIBLE] will let you know. Thank you, everybody. [DISTORTED SPEECH] [DEEP SIGH] (WHISPERING) Just add to that. What [INAUDIBLE]? I don’t know. You need a phone number
or anything to read– [INAUDIBLE] [INAUDIBLE] So that was the key. Mm– [SIDE CONVERSATIONS] OK– everybody just
give us one second. [SIDE CONVERSATION] All right– President
Miller, President Benjamin, Members of the Board,
thank you for having me. I will make this as
quick as possible, because you guys have this
document in front of you and probably had some chance to
review it in your own leisure and on a larger screen with a
little bit higher resolution. So I’ll go through this a
little bit quick and then, hopefully, have some time
for comments, consideration, all that. So in 12/20/18,
the chancellor asks all of the community colleges
to set a equity plan– to go forward with
an equity plan. Now, this isn’t the
first time that we’ve had to set an equity plan. They started back
in around 1991. California started
asking community colleges to set equity plans
to start to remove disproportionate
impact that was being viewed in various metrics. This particular one is unique
in at least one major way, in that the
Chancellor’s Office is using the information that
we upload to their management information system. And then they’re
analyzing that for us. So all of the colleges
are essentially being provided the exact
same sort of analysis for their equity information. So the Chancellor
provided us information about where we had
disproportionate impact on five metrics and among
several different student populations. So over the past semesters,
the Student Equity Committee has been meeting
together to formulate– what are the goals that we
should set for our equity plan? And how should we go forward
about generally moving forward to achieve those goals? So this is pretty much
table contents– real tiny– apologies for that. But it gives you
a gist of what all we’re looking at in this plan. So to go forward with this,
the Equity Committee convened. They also went out and
said, OK, the Chancellor has asked us to reduce our
equity gaps by 40% by ’21, ’22 and then by 100%
within 10 years. So in this equity
plan, we go forward. And we took the
student populations that the Chancellor’s
Office provided for us. And where we had
disproportionate impacts, we set goals to reduce those
disproportionate impacts by 40% in ’21, ’22. So once we moved past
the goal-setting stage, then we moved into– how are we going to go
about achieving these goals? And what you’ll see
in this document is broad directions in
which we want to pursue– to try to remove some
of these equity gaps and reduce
disproportionate impact. So these don’t go
into a lot of detail. And that was somewhat
intentional in that, as we move forward,
we see this plan as really developing a
foundation for our work, moving into this term
and the next terms, for how we want to move
forward with reducing disproportionate impact. So to do that, this first
one really sets the goals. It sets a general
framework of the activities that we’re going to pursue. But it doesn’t get into
the specifics for how we’re going to go pursuing that. And that’s what we’re
intending to start to develop as we move
forward into this semester into next semester– is
really, we’ve set these goals. We have a general
idea of the activities that we are engaged in
currently and how we think that those will have an impact. But we still have some
work to really detail out how we think these activities
are going to carry out, how we’re going to go about
evaluating if they have been successful in removing those
disproportionate impacts and some of that information. So that’s going to be the
work we have going forward. So what you have
in front of you now is really this
foundational document that is going to set the
framework for our next work to then figure out how to
implement, fulfill, and develop this plan into identifying– OK, these are these
specific activities that we are going to
focus on to change this metric for this
particular student population. So that’s the general process
the Student Equity Committee has been following
and proposes to pursue through the rest of this term
and the rest of this equity plan. And that is my very quick
summary of this document. What is our deadline? And this is the first read– I want to emphasize. You’re just getting it tonight. You’ll have two weeks
to look over it. We sent it out today through
the constituency leaders. They’re going to
have it reviewed by everybody at the college
and [INAUDIBLE] they represent. And then they’ll come back to
us on October 1 with feedback. And then we’ll meet
with you again– this will be on your agenda for
the second read and approval in the October 12 meeting. And we got an extension from
the State Chancellor’s Office. It’s due in Sacramento
on the 15th of October. Mm. Yes, Trustee Croninger– Given the short amount of
time that we have left today, I’m wondering if there is
a mechanism where we can submit more detailed comments– Absolutely. –indirectly through you or– Just send them to me. And I’ll make sure the
Committee gets them. That would be good. Mm-hm. And if you have
any questions you want us to answer
in the meeting, if we could get
those in advance, that’d be good as
well, because we have to have it there on the 15th. And we’ll still have three
days after the Board meeting to make some changes. Trustee Nielsen– Yeah– there were– without
going into great detail, because we don’t have
enough time really– the definitions at
the top of the columns of what we’re looking at– if, at least for people
that aren’t involved in the education world– I am now. I wasn’t. If there was alternative
titles for those columns it would help me understand
all of it better. I need more time to read it. I didn’t get to see it
till when it got posted. The definitions of
the metrics, like– Yeah. –access to [INAUDIBLE]– yeah. So what am I actually
looking at here? We’re looking at the target
and maybe where we’re at now. Oh, OK– And what you’re doing– [INTERPOSING VOICES] Let me make a suggestion. Do you want us to just
have some time with you? We can do it over
the phone with you? Yeah, that would be fine. Or me– we could [INAUDIBLE]. I need a little
guidance to make sure– I’m not [INAUDIBLE]. Exactly, I noticed,
under each section, there was repetitive language. Yeah. And that’s to be expected. So going through it
and looking at it, I thought the goals
were pretty high. That’s what the
Chancellor’s asked us to– They’re really high. And then in some cases, we’re
already there, I thought. Or we’re really close. So in all of the groups
that appear in there, we do have
disproportionate impact. Now, some of the goals
show a 500% change. And that’s because
we are dealing with a small population. They’re asking– Oh, OK. We’re getting 500% change. And that’s saying, rather
than one student doing this, we’re hoping to get six
students to do this. And that would be
how many it would take to reduce that
disproportionate impact by 40%. That’s the feeling
I was getting. So I couldn’t really tell– I didn’t get a good
feel for the magnitude of what needed to be done
for each one of the issues– Yeah. –and the different groups. I was really having a hard
time putting that together in my head. Yeah– and this is something
that was really described to us by the Chancellor’s Office. Yeah. It’s been an interesting
roll-out from their side in this process. So we’re expecting,
when they come back around to this in
another time, that we’re going to have a much
smoother rollout and some of these metrics will
be a little bit clearer to work through. So some of that difficulty
was prescribed to us. We’ll set up a meeting,
Trustee Nielsen– OK. –anyway you want–
in-person or over-the-phone, so we can walk
through it with you. A meeting– on the phone,
it’d probably work OK. OK. Whatever is easy. OK, whatever works for you. So Craig, to your point, so
that was my– and maybe you want to come in– You’d want to be on. Anyone else? Else? –[INAUDIBLE] and you may join. So we spent $5.5 million on
equity in the last four years. And so I think, attaching
that dollar to these metrics and what has been done to
assess these programs– have we increased? Or do we just do something
and then scratch it and then spend another
$1.5 million, scratch it? So I think that that money piece
is really tied to that data. So if you guys can put that
data together and really show the correlation between the
money and the outcomes– This year, it’s $4.5
million, right– for us? Alone– in one year? In one year. So we’ve increased it, like,
$10 million in four years. I don’t know what
was before, because– Oh, I’m looking– –out of it. –at Appendix B, in
Student Equity Expenses. So the dollars used to be three
separate pots of resources from the State
and equity dollars from their own standalone pot. In the midst of some
of the changes– and you learn about
this when we talked to you about the [INAUDIBLE]
for human success. Right. Those dollars were
coalesced together. So we took what used to
be matriculation dollars. And then they were called
Student Support and Success Program dollars. And then the Basic Skills
Initiative dollars, the Innovation Grant from
the Chancellor’s Office– 10 years of that funding– and then equity
dollars, which had not been [INAUDIBLE] stand-alone
dollars for a period of time. Then they were. Then– combined all
of those resources. And when we talk
about that larger pot, that larger pot is $4.5 million. But we can talk about what our
past history looks like and be very specific and [INAUDIBLE]. They’re not pulled
apart the same way as moving forward
into the future. Because that’s a little
bit that same concept that the Chancellor’s Office
keeps reiterating to us. Equity is to help all
of the work that we do. It’s [INAUDIBLE] pathways. Everything is together. If we’re going to move
the whole system forward, we have to meet all of
these great big changes. So they collapsed those dollars. And then they created that
Student Center Funding formula that reinforces a lot of those
same outcomes– so pushing all of that through. So when Z says, he
hopes the next set of rollouts from the State look
a little smoother and a little less bumpy– they’re trying to
get to the same set of metrics that we can look across all
of these different resources. Because right now, we
still shift and move slightly across these figures. And so part of what
we’ll be working on in the remainder
of the semester is a much more
integrated approach to increasing the
Student Success portion. So then maybe– I don’t know if
you’ll have time. It seems like it’ll take
Lindsey’s office too. But can we get it in a chart– something so that
dollars are very clear? And you may not have
the data for some of these other
initiatives, because it sounds like you’re going
forward in a more systematic, cohesive– Yes. –coherent way. We can put that in
the next report. But I feel like
that dollar amount is going to be important to
attach to some of these metrics and just get a big picture. Which– I see what
you’re saying. And I think that’s going to
be important for the larger community. It’s a major shift in the
way that we’ve done business. And so we’ll try to put together
what we have to this date and this is part of they way
we’ll be doing it forward. So it’ll be much clearer, as
we go forward in this one. Yeah. Thank you both, [INAUDIBLE]. [INTERPOSING VOICES] Quick suggestion– and that is– and I may have missed
it, but I looked. Define “equity” in the plan. Yeah. Yeah– so most of the
discussion around that is how they calculate
disproportionate impact. No, no, no– I mean,
when you write the plan, have a definite. That way– Include the definition. People like the definition– [INTERPOSING VOICES] –in the plan. Yeah, it’s operationalized us
the disproportionate impact. But yes, that– We just looked at a definition– [INAUDIBLE] –of equity in our
previous report just now. I’m just saying– Yeah. –to have a definition
[INAUDIBLE].. Good point. And what I want us
to do is come up with common, kind of
college definitions, for equity, diversity,
climate– all those things. He gave us some
samples up there today. But we all need to mean the same
thing when we use those words. And I don’t think that’s
the case right now. Amen. In our– [INAUDIBLE] –Crossroads training, there’s
a definition that we have there. But we need a common definition. So we need to figure out how
we’re going to get to that. And then there may be
a different definition that the State Chancellor
has for it, it sounds like. [INAUDIBLE] starting. Any more questions? Trustee Nielsen– Yeah, I read something just
recently– yesterday or today– again, talking about achieving
better outcomes, student throughput, getting
things done– that something like over
40% of things that are done fail or don’t show any results. And so I would hope that
our management or top administration is
really looking at, if we’re going to spend
money on this, let’s put it into programs and
ideas and things that have showed some positive results. It’s OK to experiment, but not
with the bulk of the budget– just an opinion
of a board member. Thank you. [INAUDIBLE] has that in his
research of his meta-analysis for K12– the impact size. Do they have that
for [INAUDIBLE]?? I’m not aware of it. I’m sure it’s– I’ll look. We can– Any other comments or questions? –research that. No? Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Very good– OK. Sorry to– If she lets me join– I’m sorry– Yes. –on the phone, you can– Yeah. –go through– Angie will set it up. Sorry to cut you short, but
you did an outstanding job. [INAUDIBLE] We’ll make sure there’s
more to it next month. Not only that– he
could talk real fast. Do I hear– [LAUGHTER] –a motion to adjourn? We did– We’ve already done it. –already. By virtue of the
original motion? Yes. OK, well, we had
a minute left yet. So you can’t leave for– Oh! [LAUGHTER] Thank you, President Miller. [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER] Thank you. Thank you. Oh, thank you for– [AUDIO OUT]