********************************************* DISCLAIMER: THIS CART FILE WAS PRODUCED FOR COMMUNICATION ACCESS AS AN ADA ACCOMMODATION AND MAY NOT BE 100% VERBATIM. THIS IS A DRAFT FILE AND HAS NOT BEEN PROOFREAD. IT IS SCAN-EDITED ONLY, AS PER CART INDUSTRY STANDARDS, AND MAY CONTAIN SOME PHONETICALLY REPRESENTED WORDS, INCORRECT SPELLINGS, TRANSMISSION ERRORS, AND STENOTYPE SYMBOLS OR NONSENSICAL WORDS. THIS IS NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT AND MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED, PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. THIS FILE SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED IN ANY FORM (WRITTEN OR ELECTRONIC) AS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OR POSTED TO ANY WEBSITE OR PUBLIC FORUM OR SHARED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE HIRING PARTY AND/OR THE CART PROVIDER. THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON FOR PURPOSES OF VERBATIM CITATION. ********************************************* January 29, 2024 Study Session... >> MS. THERESA RIEL: I'm going to call this virtual study session to order. Thank you all for being here. Our first order of business is board policies. There are a few that have minor changes and a few that have substantial changes. Does anybody want to speak on any of these? >> ANDREA: Jeff, I let them know that Dolores was running a little late. >> MR. JEFF SILVYN: Okay, thank you. Well, with respect to the board policies that I think the chair was just speaking about, these have just gone out to the governance groups and will shortly be posted for public comment. We wanted to see if the board had any particular questions or thoughts while we're soliciting additional input from the different employee organizations, and then expect these will come back to the board, depending on the timing of the comments, either at the -- well, probably the March meeting for approval, but in the meantime, in case the board had any significant input on any of them, we just wanted to make sure there was ample opportunity to consider that before we bring it back to the board for further discussion and a vote. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: Well, I didn't see anything that was concerning. I think I'd prefer to let our people have a look at and give the input. >> MR. GREG TAYLOR: Yeah, I agree. When I was scanning through them, there wasn't anything that jumped out at me as particularly alarming, but part of the reason we have that review process is they may see things that we don't, so I'd love to see what all that public feedback is. >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: I'd like to say something. I'm not quite sure how the review process is working, because from what I recall in the past, Jeff, we did not have a 21-day review on any board policy. When Elaine Simmons came in and helped us with the changes, we wrote them up, we said what we wanted, and we voted on them, and that was it. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Hey, Maria, you might be talking about our board bylaws. Am I correct there, Maria? >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Yes. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: So we're not going to talk about those right now. We're not going to talk about the board bylaws right now, Maria. We are going to talk about some board policies that are up for change like board policy 1.25 and some others. That's not on the list that they're asking us to look at today. But how we did board policy 1.25, we presented it, it went to AERC, and then it went to Faculty Senate, Staff Council, all of the different groups. Then after all of those groups talk about those board policies and make suggestions and tweak it, then they put a policy that's been in draft form and they put it up for all college employees to do a 21-day comment. That's online. That's a little bit different. But what you're talking about, I think that's right, when you guys made the changes last year or two years ago, whenever that was to the board bylaws, there was no 21-day comment, because the only people that get to vote on that is the board. >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Okay. So you're saying that the policies that we're looking at now are policies that affect the employees, so they are the ones that get to review them and have a say in them, right? >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Right. So there is one on grading and students' attendance. There is one on admissions and registration. So there are three that have no changes, maybe ten that have minor changes, and then the financial aid has substantive changes. Maybe, Jeff, maybe somebody would want to talk to us, I notice that in one place FAFSA was removed from the beginning of that board policy, and then there is a slight mention to it later on. I'm sure that the people at the college who know about all of these things, they have the experience and the expertise to make sure that we're writing these where it's going to be beneficial for the college to run smoothly and efficiently, but if they want us to understand why were those substantive changes made, maybe they could just do a quick, you know, if there are federal laws that are requiring it or -- it would just be good to know why those big changes were made. >> MR. JEFF SILVYN: Sure. And just to, I guess, cover something that was mentioned before, one way to think -- so you're right. I think everyone is right. There is a difference in the way the bylaw changes were handled versus these. One way to think about it that helps explain that is the bylaws are the rules the board sets for itself, right, so they really apply entirely or almost entirely to the board. So we don't have the same kind of input process as we do for these kind of policies, as other board members were mentioning, because they affect how different areas of the college actually conduct their business. So we want to make sure that the people that are affected by them have an opportunity to share their perspective and make sure that we're thinking through all the implications, so as you were saying before. So the short answer to this is I do believe the changes were made to more closely align this with some of the changing federal requirements, but we could certainly have maybe David Donderewicz or someone like that who is the head of the financial aid office come in and kind of walk through them so that it's very clear why they were making these particular recommended changes. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Thank you. I did have one other question on board policy 3.32, student attendance and participation. My concern is, and I might not have read it completely -- I mean, I read the whole thing, but I might not have understood it completely. But toward the end it says that after the drop add period, student doesn't attend for 14 calendar days, they will be dropped. I'm just thinking back to my days as faculty. I taught some five-week classes, so if the drop add period is the first three or four days of the class, and somebody doesn't show up for the next two weeks, that is, you know, what is that, 40% of the class. So, you know, a regular 16-, 17-week class, if they don't show up the first two weeks, it's still serious, don't get me wrong, but it's different when they miss an 12.5% compared to 40% of the class for those courses that aren't offered full term if it's a shortened class. So I had some concerns about that. I mean, that's the only one that I have any experience or expertise. I just maybe hope somebody would think about that, because it does matter how long the class is, what the term is. Do we still teach five-week classes at the college? >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: No, not very many, if at all. It's eight weeks. We have the FastTrack, which that depends on what it is, but we've got the 8 weeks and we have the 14 weeks and 16. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Even for the eight-week classes, right, if someone misses two of eight, it's way different than if they miss two of 16. >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: Yes, definitely. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Maybe that may need to be reworded if it's not good enough for those faster-paced classes. Do any other board members have any comments or questions on these board policy updates and proposed revisions? >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: No. The only thing is you will be posting all the comments, correct? >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Yeah, they always do that, yeah. >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Okay. Good. >> MR. JEFF SILVYN: We will assemble all of the comments into one document that will be posted, and certainly be glad to separate e-mail that to the board just to make it easy for everyone to be able to see the comments. >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Okay, thank you. >> MR. LUIS GONZALES: Sounds good. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Great. Thank you. Moving on to item 2.2, board policy 1.25. I think Dolores wanted to comment on some of that. >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: Certainly. Yeah, thank you, Chair Riel. It's good to see all of you. Greetings from Phoenix. I'm here with AC4 with the different Arizona community college presidents and chancellors. I wanted to talk a bit about 1.25 and my perspective, and I just appreciate all the work that's been done from the employee groups and management in collaboration. We have two very similar versions, version A, which is more the employee group, and version B, which is management. They're practically identical except at the very, very end, and I just wanted to comment on my perspective as the leader of management. One other thing, before I start, we did, in January, beginning of this month, we had a retreat with the board and with leadership and faculty, staff, and administration, to talk about shared governance, and it was a retreat, a half-day retreat facilitated by David Borofsky and Eddie Genna, and it was excellent. I think we can all say, the board members were there too, it was a very fruitful discussion on shared governance and collaboration. I just wanted to start off by thanking everybody for that. So as the Interim Chancellor and leader of management, I have some comments. I continue to support our shared governance model that assigns the decision-making authority to the appropriate body or person for different areas of responsibility, and that takes and values the input from all stakeholders, whether it be students, faculty, staff, administrators, or community members, as well. We use that information to make informed decisions, and that is shared governance, taking everybody's input into consideration when making decisions with policies, et cetera. I feel that in our current system, the board has the critical responsibility to make decisions about the strategic direction, the overall framework of the college, and to make sure that the goals of the college are accomplished. The board also has a critical oversight role to hold the college accountable, and that includes the chancellor, hold that person, whoever it is, to hold that person accountable, making sure that the policies are applied and that the respective team members are accomplishing the goals that have been set and achieving those. So the chancellor and the administration are responsible and accountable for determining how the college will achieve those goals. I see more the board as seeing the big picture, the what, and the why. While administration or management does the how. That's the operations. Not the board. The board, as I said, is the what and the why, and then we, in turn, follow the strategic direction of the board and make those things happen. So I see ourselves as subject matter experts who have been hired for specific areas to oversee and to make sure we collaborate with our teams and get things done as they need to be. Then the board holds the chancellor accountable through the chancellor's goals, through key metrics, updating the board members, whoever's in the seat of the chancellor. So the version of BP 1.25 recommended by management aligns with the values of our shared governance model. Once all of the input from the stakeholders has been considered and reflected in our version of 1.25, then the chancellor and/or their designee is responsible to make the best decisions of the institution. This puts the final decisions and day-to-day responsibilities on those at the college, the individuals who have been hired and charged with the management and oversight of college operations, as I mentioned, the subject matter experts. I think we have that currently. We have an excellent employee group with AERC, with All College Council. All College Council has included students, faculty, staff, administrators. AERC as the leaders in faculty, staff, and administration, as well. There are a couple of things I wanted to share, and I don't know if it's Andrea, if you're going to help me share, could you please show the spreadsheet, the AERC spreadsheet that's tracked? >> ANDREA: Yes, I will. >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: So this is an excellent way of tracking the different resolutions or the work that AERC has been doing. AERC is all the employee groups, that they meet regularly. Once that opens up, we can take a look at it. >> ANDREA: Can you see it? >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: No. We see your file. >> MR. LUIS GONZALES: Yes. >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: At least I can only see the file. >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: I see the file. >> ANDREA: Okay. Give me a second. >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: So you'll see all the wonderful work that they have been doing in collaboration, and you'll see that the majority, seems like everything is going well, so once we get that image, we can see that. >> ANDREA: It's showing I'm sharing. Glenn, can you help me with this one? Do you have a backup copy that maybe you can share? >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: You're sharing, but we can only see your file. >> You have to open up that specific tab again. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Andrea, I had the same problem yesterday when I was presenting to the League of Women Voters of Arizona, and in Zoom, when you click to share screen, they give you options what you want to share. So you have to click on the document that you want to share, not -- there you go. >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: There you go. There you go. So there's a drop-down menu, if you can move that. You can see all the different resolutions that the team has talked about. Thank you. Then slide it down, you can see what's gone through 21 comment -- I mean, it's a fabulous way of tracking it. I want to get to the part where we can see how things were done well, what kind of like a ranking there is. Keep sliding over, please. There we go. Okay. So see the little, in green, and then there is a red one? Those are tracking about how successful the work was in AERC. You see there was one that was difficult. But the rest were either well, or if you scroll down, you will see some that are okay. But that's part of the process, right? The employee groups get together. They discuss the issues, the policies in depth with the co-chairs of the group. Then, as a result, that's the result of their work. So we can stop sharing there. Thank you, Andrea. That's just an example of how I think the group is working. Also, I guess I'm wondering what it is the issue that we're trying to solve. Maybe it's something from the past but not necessarily for the future. So I think things are going well right now. The other thing I wanted to share with you too is that I did talk to our HLC liaison, Dr. Linnea Stenson, and also to our HLC consultant, Sandy Veltri. They both feel this is good work we have done with the two versions, but that the authority should be given to the chancellor or president, depends on the institution, that the board gives that authority. The board has the overarching strategic direction, as I mentioned, and then give that authority to the chancellor, whoever that is, to make the final decision because of their collaboration and work with the stakeholders. If we also take a look at the other Arizona college presidents and chancellors, I think we have a chart there that we can share, Andrea, if you can put that up, because I wanted to know, what are the other colleges doing in the state of Arizona? What is their stance on this? Is it the board that decides, makes the final decision, or is it their president or chancellor? >> ANDREA: Glenn, can you help again with that, please? Thank you so much. >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: Thank you. I know it's tricky. I'm in a different environment here too. I'm unable to share my screen. >> Andrea, what's the file name for that? >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: It's a chart. I can't remember the name. >> ANDREA: Yeah, it's called -- oh. Hold on one second. One second. >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: While you're looking for that, I can chat a little bit more. So as I was saying, what's important to remember is that the board not get into the operations of things, and that's a standard practice from HLC. So what I wanted to share is that, for example, I think it was the last meeting, board meeting or couple board meetings ago, there was discussion about the HR committee, advisory committee, and the external relations and enrollment committee. It seemed like it was too operational for the board members to be a part of it, so it was decided amongst the board members that they would no longer be a part of it but that the college would take care of those issues and update the board, of course, periodically. So that's an example of, because if you do go with version A, there is going to be a lot that's operational that will be going to you a lot. But that's why we have the people working at the college who are the subject matter experts that can take care of that and then share and update you as needed. I saw something in the chat. Let's see. Oh, okay. Great. So anyway, well, I can tell you verbally while they're looking for it. Verbally, so we looked at the various Arizona community colleges, and it's only one that has the board making the final decision. All the others are either the president or the chancellor that makes the final decision. So that's what that chart was showing. That's okay if we don't show it. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Which college is it that allows the board to decide? >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: It's Maricopa Community College, and it's different in the sense that the Maricopa board approves faculty hiring and the board approves staff and adjunct faculty hiring. So it's kind of split. But all the other ones are that the board has it, Arizona... >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Can I say something? >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: Yes. >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Okay. Well, as we all know, we would not have gotten into this problem had our leadership in the past not been so dictatorial and so controlling. It's not that we want to have a final decision on things, you know, that are disciplinary or raises or just looking into things, but we need to be aware of them, because we want people to be treated fairly. You know, I'm saying that, you know, have demoting somebody for whatever reason and having to take a $26,000 cut in pay, there is nowhere in this country that that's acceptable, nowhere. And nobody stood up for that. And is that the right thing to do? So in my view, you know, I think the new people are doing a great job in evaluating things and trying to be fair, but we're not trying to run and, you know, be involved in all this, because it comes down to the chancellor making the decision and only if and when they don't agree can it go to the next level, because if it's agreed upon within all its members, then hopefully it won't come to us. Isn't that the way you read it, Theresa? >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Yes. I have some comments, too, but I'm going to wait until Dolores is done. >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Okay. >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: I'm almost done. The other piece, and thank you, Board Member Garcia, for mentioning that, but that's why it's crucial for the board in identifying when you hire the new chancellor, the long-term chancellor, that it's someone that you trust and someone that you feel can do the job and hold that person accountable. So because I know we are talking about past things, but we are now looking at the future. So I think it's important, as you look for a chancellor, what it is that, the characteristics that you're looking for. Then just the last thing I wanted to mention about the Higher Learning Commission, and we won't show it on the screen, because I think it's too difficult, so Andrea, you can stop sharing that, I wanted to mention core components 2A, 2C, and 25C. I do have a printed version maybe I can read quickly to you. So 2C is the Governing Board of institution is autonomous to make decisions in the best interest of the institution's compliance with board policies and to ensure the institution's integrity. 2C5 says the Governing Board delegates day-to-day management of the institution to the institution's administration and expects the institution's faculty to oversee academic matters. Then the last thing I'll quote is from assumed practices. I wanted to mention the relevant one here. That's under assumed practice A9. The Governing Board has the authority to approve the annual budget and to engage and dismiss the chief executive officer. So again, it's the budget and the person that reports to them directly who is the chancellor, interim or long-term, permanent chancellor. So with that, I just wanted to share my thoughts with you. I know we'll have a robust discussion, and it's important because this is an important topic to discuss, and I know that we'll have the vote in February. So I wanted to ask you if there is anything that I can do or that my team can do to help answer questions or any additional information that you need prior to the vote in February. Okay. I'll stop there. Thank you. >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Well, you know, I'm going to say that, you know, the ODR is still not fixed. You know, people are still -- we have a history of not giving people due process. I, for one, cannot accept that continued pattern. And I think it's going to take a while for you, or whoever comes in, to fix that. You know, there is still retaliation going on. I mean, we heard it in our meetings. So I want to do what's right for the college, and that's the only reason I'm in here. Autonomous to do my job. I'm not influenced by anybody except myself to ensure that, in my mind, I'm doing the just thing for all. It's like I used to tell the chancellor, if you can't do it for all, you don't do it for one, and vice versa. Very simple. So I think, you know, I've got to say that I really felt comfortable with the meeting that we had with Eddie Genna and Dave Borofsky, because they're a great source in helping us. And I also believe that our new board, that they're doing what they need to do. I sincerely appreciate them. It's a lot more open. It's not retaliatory, because nobody wants that. You know, and we should be professionals, bottom line. So I still feel that there is still other things that need to be taken care of, so I would have to accept version A. That's my feeling. And I'll stop. >> MR. GREG TAYLOR: I have a question for my clarification. I don't know if Board Member Garcia or maybe Jeff or Dolores, maybe I'm misunderstanding what BP 1.25 does, but it seems to me this only brings, in the scenario the things we brought to the board, the only thing it really covers is policies and procedures. So the kind of things that Maria was raising around like disagreements and disciplinary action or whatever, that wouldn't be applicable in here, right? Maybe I'm misunderstanding or maybe it's broader than I thought it was, but I just want to make sure I'm understanding it right. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Well, I think you can look at it a couple of ways. When people have been dismissed, and I think that's what Maria was talking about, that is a procedure, right? There is a specific procedure that that whole thing has to go through. You know, just the fact that we're still hearing from these same people concerned that their Civil Rights haven't been, you know, honored and respected, but you're right, firing a person isn't what this board policy 1.25 talks about at all, right? It's just the procedures and the policies for the working situation of our employees. Yeah. >> MR. GREG TAYLOR: So in that scenario, if there were a disagreement, hypothetically, what would be brought to us in that scenario would just be the disagreement about the language and the procedure. It wouldn't actually be a disagreement about whether the procedure had been applied to a particular situation? Because those are different. I just want to make sure that I'm differentiating that correctly, because I think the only thing that would be brought to us would be, like, the written procedure. We would not be seeing anything having to do with employee discipline or whatever in terms of how the procedure is actually applied? >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Yeah. And so I'm not 100% sure that this is an example of what you're talking about, but when I was an employee, we had, like, 197 days of accountability, and it was contiguous, day one all the way through the day of graduation. And now I heard last year that they had days of accountability and they stopped, and then there was maybe one day that you weren't being paid because it wasn't a day of accountability, but the next day was graduation, which was a day of accountability. And so some people might say that, you know, when you're paying somebody for a job, and to say we need you to work all of these days but we're not going to pay you for this middle day in between, if I'm accurate on that, that might be a contentious thing that they would want to discuss and, you know, compromise and get it worked out well. The thing is that if this doesn't come -- I mean, the reason we were elected to be on this position is because we have five voices, five opinions, five people that are willing to listen to the situation and the outcome, the possible outcome, compared to one person making the decision. You know, I mean, I think that that's got to be worth something that, you know, we are elected to do this job. We're elected to follow state laws. And that's why Maricopa Community College does the contracts. I think Chancellor Duran-Cerda mentioned that they, you know, do each of those. The reasons they see those contracts and they approve the individual contracts is because it's a state -- you know, it's a state mandate that the board shall do this, right? Now, when we give authority to the chancellor to do something, we are giving away what we are required by law to do, and we're saying, okay, chancellor, you or your designee, take it over, right? >> ANDREA: Theresa, I'm sorry. I don't mean to cut you off, but we lost Ms. Garcia a couple of minutes ago, so she's missing a lot of this and I think she needs to hear it. Can you give her just a minute to get her back on? >> MS. THERESA RIEL: You bet. >> ANDREA: Thank you. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Hasn't the weather in Tucson been lovely the last four days? Oh, my goodness. >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: Gorgeous. >> MR. GREG TAYLOR: Although my phone tells me the rain and the 50 degrees are coming back towards the end of the week. >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: Oh, no. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: I have been using all my powers of positive energy, you know, wishing and hoping for good weather. My niece is getting married on Sunday, the 4th, and so it's an outdoor wedding. You know, a week ago, it did not look good, but the last couple of times I have been checking, it says it's going to be sunny that day. Cold but sunny. So that's a good tradeoff. >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: Congratulations to your niece. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Thank you, yeah, we're excited for her. >> ANDREA: Ms. Garcia is here. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Okay, great. So anyway, do any other board members want to comment before I say my piece? >> DR. WADE McLEAN: I do. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Okay. Go ahead, Wade. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: I thought I understood this before we all started talking. Now I'm not so sure. I think Greg brings up some legitimate points. If somebody were to ask me to explain the parameters of what falls within this policy and what the policy governs, I don't think I could answer that question. Maybe it would help me more if we could talk about the operational decisions that are within the policy and those that are outside the policy, similar to the question that Greg answered. I kind of would like to talk about specifics if we have the time. In other words, a disagreement and employee discipline, in or out. A person thinking that they had their rights violated, is that in or out? An interpretation of a policy by a department head through the chancellor's office, is that in or out? And if it's in, does that mean we're making the final decision, and if it's out, does that mean the chancellor makes the final decision? So I'm really kind of confused about what the parameters that this policy addresses. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: So I know Jeff Silvyn and Aubrey Conover are on the line, and both of them are very well-schooled in this topic so they could answer those four questions that you just asked. >> AUBREY CONOVER: Yeah, I can give it a shot. So I think the way to think about it is, you know, in the context especially of AERC, we are looking at a policy. We are not looking at what happened to individual X other than if a concern is brought forward about how something is applied, we take a look at the policy and say, is there something in the policy that we need to change to make sure it's being interpreted correctly by all those involved? So we would work through that policy and make sure that's very clear the steps that should be taken so that both employees and the people interpreting the policy see it in the same vein. What would happen in this case, if it came to you all, it would be the policy that would be coming to you. So, for example, one that we have had lots of conversations that I like to bring up, is whether or not employees should wear name badges. There are different thoughts on that subject, whether or not that should be required by employees to do so. Currently the policy is that they are required to wear the name badges when they are on campus. If someone did not follow that policy and was held accountable by their supervisor, that would not come to you. But if the employee groups wanted to come forward and say we don't agree with this policy, we want it changed so wearing the name badges is an optional thing, that would then come to the board if they took on that oversight role of policy. In the case of the application of our discipline process, our code of conduct, an individual who is unhappy with how they were treated within that process would not come through this procedure. They would work through our appeals process within the college to have that addressed. However, if someone said I think the way that we do discipline needs an additional step within policy that allows things to be dealt with at a different level, that would be brought to AERC. We would work through it and determine whether or not another level should be added, and if there was disagreement between the management and the employee groups, that policy as a whole with options of whether or not to add another step would be brought forward, if that makes sense. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: A follow-up question to that, do I hear you correctly, Aubrey, the board would not be hearing individual cases? >> AUBREY CONOVER: Correct. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: What happens when the employee feels that the AERC is not representing them and they have a disagreement with that representative group? >> AUBREY CONOVER: Oh, that's interesting. So I'm not aware of any -- so we have never had an opportunity that I'm aware of where we have had a complete disagreement with an employee. Now, we have had some issues come to us where part of our role is to say thank you for bringing this to us, but this really doesn't fall under policies and procedures, and we give them resources and direct them to the right outlet where they can immediately appeal an individual decision or something along those lines. Now, we sometimes have disagreements within the employee groups and we try and talk through them and come to consensus. Usually there is consensus amongst things, but at some point, if we got to a point where we couldn't agree, not specifically between the employee group and management, but let's say full-time faculty don't agree with staff or even amongst them and we couldn't come to an agreement or consensus, that also, if things were to change, would come to the board. Right now, the different information, as with a policy where it's a disagreement between management and employees, all would go to the decision-maker, the administrator, that too would all go to the decision-maker, administrator, or in this case, if we were to shift, to the board. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: So, for example, if that name-badge example you used were to go like this, the employee goes to the employee representative group, says I want to wear mine upside down, and I think I should be allowed to do that, and the employee group says no, really, that's a good policy, you need to comply, and then the employee says, now, wait a minute, I think I should be able to go talk to the board -- >> AUBREY CONOVER: That would probably not follow under this procedure. Now, they might come to public comment -- >> DR. WADE McLEAN: Wait, wait, wait. You don't have the rest of question. >> AUBREY CONOVER: Oh, sorry. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: Who makes the decision who the employee goes to, next step? >> MS. THERESA RIEL: That's already a policy. I mean, there is a policy. If you have a disagreement about how you were treated, and it's not always, you know, in the -- it's not always that you got in trouble, right? It could be that your class was canceled and you were, you know, made to take this class, right? And if there is a disagreement, or whatever it is, there is a procedure of who you talk to first and it goes up. You know, it's usually, as a faculty member, it was our department chair or our dean. If they couldn't solve it for us, then it was escalated. And it could go to, you know, the AERC, I think is where it would go now. No? Jeff is shaking his head. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. >> MR. JEFF SILVYN: If I might, I think we're mixing together again -- >> DR. WADE McLEAN: No, you might not. I want the floor. I don't think you came close to answering my question, because you've gone back talking to a department head. I'm talking about what happens when the employee has a disagreement with the employee representative group and decides that they need to be heard by the board. Who makes the decision on whether or not they will be heard by the board? Not the department head. That's something that doesn't even come into this. That's not the question I'm asking. Does this policy address that? >> MR. JEFF SILVYN: Yeah, sort of. So let's say an employee says here's the current policy, I don't think that's the right policy, we should change the language, like in your example. Right? The employee could propose that idea to the chancellor's office or the unit responsible for that area and say, I think you should make this change in policy. Regardless of whether AERC agrees with me, the administrator would consider that. If the administrator and AERC both agree that's not an idea we're going to advance, then the employee's ability to get the policy changed would be every employee can write to the board members, can show up at public comment, and they would pitch their proposal to the board directly. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: So whose job would it be to interpret this policy to an employee in that situation? >> MR. JEFF SILVYN: So that's why I think we're mixing things up. What AERC works on and what BP 1.25 is about is about the development of policy and procedure language. The application of that language, the implementation, how it applies in a specific situation, is up to the relevant supervisor or decision-maker, with one caveat: The employee handbook says that the interpretation of the provisions in the employee handbook is ultimately up to the chief human resources officer. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: Okay. So what I hear you saying is that if an employee believes that their rights have been violated or they have been treated in an inhumane manner, or something like that, this policy doesn't handle that, and therefore, the employee cannot go to the board? The board does not get involved in that conversation? I want to make sure everybody hears this interpretation. If somebody comes to a board member or writes us a letter saying, I was mistreated, and I didn't get my day in court, that doesn't come to us under this provision in the policy? Am I hearing that? >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Well, yes, I mean, that's how it's been for the last year. They don't come to us, right? It's not our place to talk to employees about, you know, specific things. That's the administration's job to take care of it. But board policy 1.25 is not that. Board policy 1.25 is talking about a structure where employees have this shared governance activity through AERC, and that's that organization that, that committee that has a bunch of different people from all different levels in the college. All of the different work groups are involved in there. And they work and they collaborate and they make these decisions. It used to be called Meet and Confer, and that was back in the days prior to 2013 when the unions at the college, PCCEA, AFSCME, and ACES, where they were given the right to negotiate on all employees' part. So I heard -- well, anyway, I won't say that. So it was a negotiation between those groups and an administrative team designated by the chancellor, and they worked and they came together and they did their best-bet thing, and when they finalized it, or even if they didn't finalize it, that product came to the board just for final approval. It was a board decision. Back, I think it was in 2015, that stopped, and when that stopped, unions have not been the negotiating power. Now, mind you, there are a lot of amazing people in these unions. That spreadsheet that Dolores showed you, that was designed by Makyla Hays, one of my fellow math faculty members. She did it, she designed that, because there were all sorts of things that were not getting done that were not coming to completion, that were not being successful. They would spin their wheels in these meetings, and so much was talked about and worked on. Anyway, that was purely Makyla Hays working hours and hours and hours to figure out how to do that spreadsheet. By the way, just as an aside, she wanted to present it as one of the things for one of these Bellwether awards or one of these awards, and the college turned her down, which I thought was amazing considering so many different groups are using this spreadsheet now. But... >> DR. WADE McLEAN: Theresa, what you just said had nothing to do with my question. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: But what you said, Wade, about if somebody is disagreeing with the union and the employee group, can they come to the board? There is no disagreeing with the union, because the union doesn't get to say what happens in any way, shape, or form, except for different union members' participation in AERC. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: So I will ask this question again. So the board is not going to hold -- it sounds like the AERC is somewhat of a hearing officer group, and their decision is somewhat final as far as the employee is concerned. But I will ask this question again, because I'm having trouble understanding it, so please bear with me. The board will not be hearing a concern from any employee on any topic unless they agree at some point in time that the board policy's incorrect? The board policy is incorrect? >> AUBREY CONOVER: So remember, employees can always come to you, whether it be public comment or not, but in terms of the structure of how this is done, the policy would be the piece that would come to the board for action. If an employee comes to the public comment and complains about a policy or how it's interpreted, the board can always direct the chancellor to please take a look at this, follow up on this concern, but this BP 1.25 is looking at the policy itself, how it's structured, how it's worded, does it need to change on the policy level, not how it's been interpreted in one individual's case. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: I heard that. I don't read that into it, but we have had three or four people give me an interpretation, and I hope this stays so that it's consistent, because the policy, the way I read it, doesn't say that. So then when that gets to the board, is there a requirement for the board to hear that? >> AUBREY CONOVER: To hear a policy change? >> DR. WADE McLEAN: From an employee. What I hear -- >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: If they don't agree. >> AUBREY CONOVER: Correct. If an employee has a concern about how they were treated within a policy, that is not designed to come to the board. We have an appeals process and other techniques within the institution. That does not preclude them from coming to public comment or writing a letter to you all, but the structure is structured in a way that it should not come to the board. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: I'm talking about ultimate decision-making authority. I'm not talking about public comment or anything along those lines. So then one step further, if the employee were to come to the board outside of this process, according to our own policy, the board would not hear that person other than their official statement -- >> AUBREY CONOVER: Correct. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: -- correct? Anybody? >> AUBREY CONOVER: Yes, that is correct. You are correct. >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: That is correct. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: So then what, the board would say to the employee, thank you very much, have a nice day? >> AUBREY CONOVER: Well, and they could say, they could -- you know, if an employee came with a concern, whether it be in public comment or a letter, and the board received that, it would probably -- and Jeff can correct me if I'm wrong -- would be appropriate for that concern to be shared with the chancellor so she could, she or he, could direct it to the appropriate investigatory administrator to make sure that all policies and procedures were followed. The board would not make a decision and say, you are correct, I'm going to reinstate you at this level or whatever the case may be. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: Okay. >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Well -- >> MR. JEFF SILVYN: The distinction that Board Member McLean I think is trying to make is it is accurate. So if BP 1.25 is changed the way that the employee representatives to AERC are requesting, then does final decisions about what language goes in a policy or procedure would come to the board. Disagreements about how that policy was applied to a specific employee would not come to the board. BP 1.25 is about the development of policy language or procedure language, not about the application to a specific employee. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: But Jeff, it's not coming to the board. The policy language, the procedure language, is not coming to the board if there has been a consensus, if AERC has decided on it. >> MR. JEFF SILVYN: Right. But to Board Member McLean's point, the final decision-maker, if the change is adopted, is the board, because if there is not disagreement, it will change who makes the final decision. If the employee group version is adopted by the board, then the board will be the final decision-maker when there is a disagreement about what language should go into a policy or a procedure. >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Let me state something. And I could be wrong. Listen to this. Okay. So an employee has a problem. It goes to the right channels. People see it, AERC and so forth, all the members get together. And yet that resolution is considered unfair, but that was the decision that was made. And it's being promoted by the leadership and the directors, and the employee isn't happy, because policy really wasn't followed for everybody fairly. I mean, there are instances at this college right now where some people are treated better than others. I guess, you know, we're not supposed to know about all that stuff, but I think what we're trying to get to at the very end of this, policies that we have need to be applied to everybody, and everybody needs to abide by them, and they need to be fair and all employees need to be treated fairly. I think that's what we want. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: I think we're sort of getting away from what board policy 1.25 is. Board policy 1.25 is the document that has the policies and procedures that show working conditions and roles and responsibilities for different employee groups, right? That's what the document that we are going to be talking about is. So what happens is the difference between the two versions, they are both the same. AERC, all of the different employee groups, talk about problems, talk about policies, change things, make them better, do all that sort of stuff. They try to negotiate this policies and procedures, the faculty handbook, I'm sure there is a staff handbook, there is all sorts of things like that. What's going to happen, the only difference, there is a disagreement, either the chancellor makes the decision or the board makes the decision. There is no disagreement, either the chancellor is going to approve it or the board's going to approve it. The difference between these two options, in my mind, is when it comes before the board it is not our part to nitpick and do all the little things. So we are going to take the advice of the AERC group, and if they agree, we are just going to say, yay, we agree too. If there are disagreements, we are going to listen to the two different groups, say, sort of what we are doing right here with the A version and the B version, right, and then we are going to come to, after hearing comments and hearing ideas, we are going to come to our decision as a board of what we're going to do, as will the chancellor. So it's the same thing. The difference is we were elected to do this job. If we give authority, if we delegate our authority to the chancellor, we're giving away what we were elected to do to the chancellor. So let me just mention a few things real quick. Dolores talked about there is a procedure for making sure that the chancellor does what it is the board wants to have happen, right? I'm going to say that that does not work very well at the college. We're going to talk a little bit more about it when we get to our midterm board assessment. But just a couple of quick things. This board policy 1.25 has taken way too long. It should have been done within six months, and the fact that it's almost going to be an entire year before we vote this thing one way or the other shows that when the board says something, it doesn't happen quickly. We had the same problem with the search committee for the search firm to find a chancellor. It was supposed to be three to five weeks, and it didn't even start until seven or eight weeks out. Anyway, I'm tired of people weaponizing HLC. We had that really nasty letter from former board members where they weaponized HLC, and I sort of feel that the administrators who are supporting the administrator version are also weaponizing HLC. When we had the Governing Board be the final signoff authority on this for decades, it was never a problem with HLC. It wasn't a problem for HLC where Maricopa, the only community college that we are very similar to -- we're not similar to a small rural college. We are a big community college. So I don't think that even though it's been mentioned by many people that HLC is against us, they can't be against it. There are colleges and universities across the nation where the board does this final approval. Lastly, we always, the college always -- well, there are other educational institutions. Many of the elementary -- I mean, K-12 school districts do it this way. Maricopa does it this way. JTED, Pima County JTED does it this way. The reason that it goes to the board and not to the CEO is because we're not a business. We are an educational institution, and we know that oftentimes having, just like AERC, when they work through and figure out these problems, they come to a better agreement instead of just one person making the decision. And it's the same thing for these two different versions. Would you rather a board that's elected to do this job negotiate and figure it out and do what they feel is best, or do you want one person doing what they feel is best? Okay. I'm done talking. Any other board comments? >> DR. WADE McLEAN: I have some more. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Okay. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: I disagree with a considerable amount of the things you just said. But I guess right now, I want to reiterate, and specifically, Maria, I want you to hear me say, this policy does not have the board ensuring that every employee is treated the same. This policy does not have disgruntled employees coming before the board for relief. It doesn't have the ability of an employee to complain about the supervisor or department in the college and have the board have a hearing and make a determination on whether or not there is value to the concern. So you need to understand that, Maria. Because a lot of the things you said tonight, this policy is not necessarily designed to address that. >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: So in other words, unfair termination should not be part of it, correct? >> DR. WADE McLEAN: That's what I hear. >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Or demotions? >> AUBREY CONOVER: Theresa, you're muted. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Board policy 1.25 does not talk about unfair terminations. So it's not in that manual or that idea, right? What goes in here is the basic procedures and policies of how we expect our employees to work, the roles and responsibilities we expect them to undertake and to do with due diligence, and that sort of thing. What we are talking about here in board policy 1.25, it's not about hiring and firing people. Those are other board policies. Those are other APs. So what we are talking about is just AERC is figuring out this package of policies and procedures that affect employees and employee groups. Version A says if there is any disagreements, it will go before the board for the board to hear the different sides and the different angles, for the board to make a decision. Version B says the chancellor can do whatever she or he wants. They may listen to AERC, but they don't have to because it doesn't say that in there, right? It's the board -- what was it? >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: Decides -- they make it due to a well-informed process, and that's the AERC 's input, right? So whether it's the chancellor or the board, it's with the input of AERC. So it's not just, for example, the chancellor or interim chancellor, it's not just that one person making a decision. It's a well-informed decision by the input of AERC. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: I think that goes without saying, right? That's why we have AERC. They're the experts. They may know -- I hate to say it, but they may know better than the board and they may know better than the chancellor what's happening in those kind of areas, right? That's why we have shared governance, right? When you have shared governance, instead of having one person be the authority -- it's like a patriarchal father, right? Instead of having that one guy that says this is how we're going to do it because I'm the dad -- my dad was like that, by the way. Instead, when you have a shared-governance model or more fair-to-employee groups, right, it's that the work, energy, and the discussions that they put in matter, and they matter the final outcome. When it's coming to the board, that will be the case, AERC's decisions, whether they always agree or whether they don't. Let's say they all agree, right? It can go to the chancellor in version B. If something isn't what that person wants, that chancellor could change that. As a board, we can't do that, right? We are taking the recommendations of AERC and we're going with, if there is a disagreement, we are going to be listening to their presentations to us. Anyway... we'll have to figure this all out before three weeks from now when we have our board meeting and where this will be live. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: So I have one more comment, I think, and then a question. So in that scenario, one thing that differentiates the AERC with the management side is that AERC technically, legally, fiduciarily does not have any accountability, and the chancellor and management do. So this shared decision-making is not necessarily a level playing field. My question is let me give a scenario that may or may not occur. So everybody gets together, they go through the process, and it comes down to a disagreement in Meet and Confer on salary and fringe benefits. The AERC's position is we want a 3% raise. The management position is we're prepared to give you a 2% raise. AERC's position is we want spousal partner insurance. Management says we can't afford it. Then that would come and sit on the board table. We would make the decision on those two issues. Is that correct? Is that a correct scenario? >> AUBREY CONOVER: No, because I think what you're referring to are more budgetary, so you're making those decisions separately from this through the budget recommends that David Bea puts forth and the decisions that you all make on that. So the only one that potentially could come to you, but it still would be a budgetary, the spousal -- let's say when we -- yeah, here's a great example. When we expanded the tuition... >> DR. WADE McLEAN: Aubrey, how about you use my example? >> AUBREY CONOVER: Well, so the spousal -- the wage example, whether or not there is a disagreement in percentages, would not come through AERC, because that's not a policy or procedure. That is a compensation benefit that's tied up in the budgetary process that you all decide on at that high level. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: So salary negotiations is not in Meet and Confer? >> AUBREY CONOVER: No, since we -- >> MR. JEFF SILVYN: Well -- >> AUBREY CONOVER: Sorry. Go ahead, Jeff. >> MR. JEFF SILVYN: -- but it is, Aubrey. So AERC does provide input into the budget process related to compensation, but regardless of which version of BP 1.25 you pick, the final decision about what the college is going to spend on payroll and benefits will go to the board. That's how we do it now. It will continue regardless of the changes. So they are not treated exactly the same in AERC, in fairness to Aubrey, but AERC, that's one of the changes we made last year actually to make sure, because AERC didn't feel comfortable they were having enough opportunity to input into the compensation part of the budget, so we actually changed that to increase that. But they do provide input into compensation, but because it ultimately affects the budget of the college, those decisions do go to the board now and they would continue to do so regardless of which version the board approves. >> AUBREY CONOVER: Because even if AERC agreed to, like, a 20% raise, because we're all feeling generous with each other, that's not going to stick unless the Board of Governors says, yes, we've found that money and we are onboard. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Real quick question. When Dr. McLean was talking about this, he said AERC versus administration, AERC versus administration a couple of times. That's not the case at all. AERC is a committee of employees from all of the different -- Aubrey, you're a co-chair with, is it Makyla Hays is the faculty co-chair? >> AUBREY CONOVER: Uh-huh. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: So that committee is made up of people from all of the different work strata, classes, I don't know what we call, work groups, right? So AERC is not against the administration ever. My assumption is that, Aubrey, you get your marching orders from the chancellor. The chancellor would say, hey, Aubrey, I want you to focus on this, I want you to try to make sure everybody understands this from the administration, I would assume that Dave Bea tells you his own things from, you know, the business side. Jeff tells you things from the legal side, right? So you are being informed from the administration. So it's not an us versus them. The AERC is the group that works collaboratively, cooperatively, to find the best decisions for the college. >> AUBREY CONOVER: Yeah. And that's why really, honestly, it works so well. Because really, everyone's interests are the same direction. We may slightly disagree about how to get there sometimes, but that is the focus. There could be and has been, not very often, once in a blue moon, disagreements between employee groups. We try to work through those, and again, almost always comes to consensus. But there may be a time if this were to shift that differing views brought before you all, management may have a version, full-time faculty may have a version, staff may have a version, there may be different interests that are presented to you with pluses and minuses. But yes, you are absolutely right. We are all in it together trying to make the best possible outcome. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: A comment to my fellow board members. Just so we understand, it's fine and dandy that David Bea tells -- I wouldn't want to be you, Aubrey. Sounds like you're in the court with lots of responsibility. (Laughter.) So we all understand each other, that budget process either in the beginning, the middle, or the end, revolves around taxation and student tuition. This vote on this board member is going to be to not make any monetary decisions until there is a consensus with the board on those two issues: student tuition and taxation. So the process can move down the road, but last year, I acquiesced and voted for a budget that required a taxation increase and a student tuition increase, and that will not happen again with me. Because I think the revenue determinations have to be made before the expenditure determinations. Those are going to be tough decisions. >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: I agree with you. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: And the Meet and Confer process may or may not involve those conversations, but the only ones that can truly make decisions on that is the five board members. >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Yes. >> AUBREY CONOVER: And just to stress Jeff's point, one of the things that we really focused on this year, because there was concern last year, is to make sure that all the employee groups have multiple opportunities to meet with David Bea to understand where we are financially currently, what options might be out there for them to express their priorities relative to their different employee groups, what they would like to see if funds are available, and understanding the bigger picture of what we're facing with the big decisions that you all have in these areas. So those conversations have been going on, they will continue to go on, and we will try and get you all -- well, we will get you all a summary of their thoughts and inputs so that you understand where they're coming from as part of your conversations. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Any other board members want to comment? >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Right-size the organization. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: (Laughter.) >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Okay. Hearing no others, we will move on to section 2.3, the board's midyear assessment. >> MR. LUIS GONZALES: One last comment. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> MR. LUIS GONZALES: Couple of words that came out and stood out, it comes back to us in reference to having a full consensus but more important being informed. I know that both the AERC reference to the issues and concerns that we have, they're done before it reaches to us, and I think the policies you mentioned, Mrs. Riel, the policies are there, or the checks and balances that they need to meet for any employee that's disgruntled or having any issues or concerns. I think one of the things that we need to look at, it was mentioned a while ago, is the big picture. The big picture mentioned a while ago we need to look at, and the two main big pictures are the taxes but also the budget in reference to what's going to be the impacts in reference to moving forward, but more important, what have we done for our employees. We have done quite a bit this last time around, but what can we do more for our students, as well, too. I think that's one of the areas that I feel that we need to look at, as well, too, regarding the services and programs, as well. What are the big things, and we'll come back to it and I will be very verbal about it in reference to the biggest items that we have that we need to look at in order to really pass a budget that's going to be fair for everybody. Not only promoting the whole community college but also promoting our students, as well, too. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Thank you. Okay. Andrea, can you guys post that midyear assessment document? >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA: Andrea, what's showing is the chart of the Arizona community colleges. >> ANDREA: Yeah, I sent them the one we're supposed to pull up. I'm waiting for them to do that. >> Give me one second. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: I mean, the board, I e-mailed it to you last week. Basically it was just to talk about, you know, how effective we have been as a board, areas that were good and areas where we need improvement. So what I thought was we could all write a comment, one positive and one comment that needs work, for each of those areas that the AACCT -- there we go. Thank you. So the board functions are listed there. Say one positive comment and one area where you think we need to show more growth or more work. That's for that first section, for the board functions. If you could scroll down to the second part of the assessment, these were our goals for this '23/'24 and also say one positive thing that we're doing right in the correct direction and one that we can work harder on or do, we need to do more. Sadly, I was talking to one other board member, and I said, you know, I sort of feel that not a lot has been accomplished on the board goals. So, you know, maybe one thing that we need to do is we might want to let how we hear about the chancellor's goals each board meeting, something is talked about, maybe we need to go through these and do the same thing for us where we talk about what has happened in these goals and what hasn't happened yet and where we need to go and where we need to start. How does that sound to all the board members, doing one positive comment, like a strength, and then a weakness? Or I can't remember what those other words for SWOT were. Strength, an opportunity, and a weakness and a threat. Those sort of things. What do you think? Any comments on that? >> DR. WADE McLEAN: Theresa? I would be willing to do that. And then in regards to the reporting on the Governing Board goals, I don't think we're capable of doing that. We don't have the resources, and we don't speak in a common voice, that's for sure. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Yeah. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: I'm wondering if maybe we couldn't ask the chancellor to have someone, not necessarily her, but someone, say, do a little bit of homework for us, and I will pick on No. 4, capital plan, and say the board hasn't done anything. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Right. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: Not met -- pardon me? >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: We can't do anything on that. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: Well, that's my point, Maria. So to have somebody else, you know, say to us -- I think we have to operationalize each of these goals in some way, shape, or form. A report on capital assets or the three- to five-year capital asset plan for review or recommendation that needs guidance from the board on future strategic plan, how it interacts with capital plan. I mean, something like that which, unless one of us wants to step up and do a lot of work and may or may not have any expertise in this area, maybe a staff member could help us do this. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Yeah, and I guess that's my point. None of these were, you know, a job description for a volunteer employee, right? These are all job descriptions of things that administration and faculty and staff have to do at the college, 100% of these, in my opinion, right? None of these were, you know, things that we were going to do. So I think either we need to revisit these, because, you know, accreditation, for example, the college is doing a lot of things on accreditation, right? We're having mock trials. They have been having their HLC round tables. That's not the name that they are calling it. I think we did one in August, September, October, November, December, January, yeah, the next one is February 15, I believe. So, you know, the college has been doing a lot of things to make sure we get top-notch marks on the HLC visit. So I think No. 2 is fine. But I don't think any of the other board goals, you know, I don't think much has been done on any of these. That was just my thought. >> MR. GREG TAYLOR: I mean, I think there is more to be done, but I don't know that I would agree we haven't done -- like that first one, we did A, Interim Chancellor, didn't always happen on the timeline that we wanted, but we do have those things. There is a plan. It's in motion. We are in the process of reviewing and revising board policies. We just did that today. Seems like we are making progress on 1. 2, I think the way it's written is referencing what we, as individuals on the board, are going to do, as opposed to what the college is going to do, and we started that. We had at least one or two presentations at the board meetings around HLC. We have been scheduling meetings coming up through the year. We have that HLC conference trip where some of us are participating. I think all of that falls under No. 2. I mean, for enrollment goals, I don't know that we have necessarily established a goal, but I could certainly say we are monitoring enrollment. I mean, that's how the dashboard works, that's how the reports we get on a regular basis work. Yeah, so maybe we need to talk about what the goal actually is for where we want to see it as opposed to just increasing. But anyway, I think there has been work done on a number of these. I agree with what was said about No. 4. I don't know that we've really done a lot about capital assets, but my hope is that's part of this budgetary process we are launching into now where we'll talk about capital plan, capital assets. And then, you know, No. 5, the progress towards the -- I mean, I think part of that is the chancellor's goals but also kind of the long-term strategic planning that we are going to have to launch into. So I don't know. I guess I feel like we are making progress on a number of these. They're not done, but I'm not as pessimistic about it, I guess. >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Well, I have been, because I think that the timelines that we would have liked to have happened didn't happen, and I'm really concerned that we're not going to get this job done before my term ends. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: So as far as doing the comments, what do you think, like, maybe two or three weeks, think about them and get them to Andrea by the end of February? >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: All right. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Andrea, would that be all right if we just send our comments to you? >> ANDREA: Yeah, that's fine. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Thank you. Is that okay with the board members? (Agreement.) >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Moving on to section 3.1, a motion to elect two board members to serve on the chancellor search advisory committee. Do I have a motion? >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: So moved. (Seconded off microphone.) >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Which two people do you want to nominate, Maria? >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Well, I would be like to be on the committee, but I think, and I'll leave it up to the other board members, but I think that you should be on it, and I think Wade has a lot of experience. If he can put the time into it, or if he wants to share it with me, it's up to him. Luis, are you interested at all? >> MR. LUIS GONZALES: I wish I could say yes, but no, I can't. I'm unable right now. >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: You know, I would support Wade, because I think that he has a lot of experience and he knows what to look for. He kind of keeps us straight. I do like you, Wade. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: Thank you, Maria. (Laughter.) >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Greg, do you have any desire to be on that committee? >> MR. GREG TAYLOR: No, although I have some thoughts in general about us having people on that committee. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Okay. So I think the motion that we heard was for me and Wade to be on the committee. Is there a second? >> MR. GREG TAYLOR: I heard Maria and Wade. >> MR. LUIS GONZALES: Maria. >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Second. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Maria, did you want me and Wade to be on the committee? >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Yes. I prefer you both. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Okay. So now, to discuss that, Greg, I think we'd like to hear what you have to say. Wade mentioned to me that this isn't going to be -- we're not going to be the chair of this committee. We're not going to be telling everybody what to do. We are there to listen and to observe and to make sure that, you know, that it's happening in a timely manner, right, unlike the prior one. Just to be able to come back to the board, to tell all of you what we heard and, you know, who they are talking to, that sort of thing. >> MR. GREG TAYLOR: And that's fair. I just -- I don't think we should be on that committee at all. I think that we are the final decision-making committee, all five of us. It's not like that search committee is going to make a decision that we are not approving or that we are not narrowing down. I genuinely see it more harm than good for us to participate in that committee. I think we should stay sort of an objective second step, and if we want to record the sessions like we did with the search committee and have the option for board members to listen to the presentations and do all of that, but I think the risk, whether intentional or inadvertent of us putting our thumb on the scales for that committee one way or the other to operate, I think that is worse than the other things that are describing. So I do not think that any of us should participate in the actual committee itself. I think we should wait for the committee to make its representation, and then we are involved as the final decision-makers on ultimately making the hire. >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: I'm going to add a little bit too about what Greg said. In the past, the board was involved in the selection of the chancellor. I know that this last time when this happened, a lot of people that were on the committee left because they were upset about what was happening. I'm specifically talking about the Native Americans, because they did not appreciate what was going on. In the end, there was one board member that moved to bring Lee in and advocated and did everything they could. So by me telling you that, what he's saying is that these kind of things could happen again and we'll have to decide what the best way is. That's all. That's all I can bring up. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Luis? >> MR. LUIS GONZALES: I agree that we need to really be very careful in reference to our positions like they mentioned a while ago. We are the ultimate decision-makers in reference to hiring the next chancellor, whether it be him or her. But I think it's going to be a little bit -- it's not going to be looking too good for any of us if we're involved in the process. That's what I'm trying to say. I think it's going to be kind of a risk. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Wade? >> DR. WADE McLEAN: I think Greg brings up some good concerns. I'm wondering if maybe we shouldn't ask our search consultant for advice on this. >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: That's a good idea. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: What they have seen in the past as far as what's been positive and perhaps a negative in regards to the perceptions of the outside community, looking in. >> MR. LUIS GONZALES: And what has been the practice, as well, too. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: Yeah. I mean, we're paying them good money. Maybe they should advise us on this. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: So I spoke with the board chair for Foothill-De Anza Community College. We all know that college, right? They took Lee Lambert. Anyway, their board members, all of them, were on the committee. At that point, when he was talking to me, he said, you know, I just want to remind you that this is solely the board's responsibility to choose the best possible candidate. So from my perspective, especially having experienced what we experienced since the end of October, I do think it's necessary that we are on that committee. We don't have to talk, and I know that you think, oh, Theresa's not going to be able to do that, but I do think that if we are not on that committee, the timeline's out of our hands, the number of people that they interview are out of our hands, where they advertise, out of our hands, whereas if we're on that committee and we hear something come up, you know, we don't have to make our opinion known in that committee, but we can talk to the people that we're hiring, right? They're working for us. They're working for the board. They're not working for that committee. I just think the fiasco that we had with this last, I think that we are -- you guys always say I'm being naive about money. I think we're being very naive that it will go without a hitch if we're not aware of what's going on. >> MR. GREG TAYLOR: I think, though -- and I appreciate that concern, Theresa, and I share it. I don't think we have to be on the committee to do that. I mean, I think that we can make a motion and pass it that says the committee has to have its three final recommendations or whatever by X date, and then so it comes to us. And once we have those recommendations, we can call those colleges and do all those things. It doesn't require us to be on the committee that's making those recommendations to do all of that vetting. I mean, we should. I think that's a step in the process. I just worry that even well-intentioned, that our participation in the committee itself will somehow bias or influence the folks who are there to try to make otherwise objective recommendations to us. Like I said, we can have an honest disagreement on where we think the risks lie, and I think your heart is in the right place. I just think we can do that without having also have those risks. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: I just want to point out that we did give the college a three- to five-week timeline, and Wade did say we wanted between three and six firms that we were going to look at. None of us would have known at all that nothing had happened if I hadn't called my friend for another reason -- I needed to decline a dinner invitation, and I said, oh, by the way, how's it going? She said nothing had happened. And that was December 1st. So we said in October, had I not made that phone call, we wouldn't have found out for the next maybe month or so. All I'm saying is Maria and Luis and I want this to be done with this five board members. We want to find this person before the November election. And there is a chance that it won't happen if the same kind of shenanigans happen. I think we're being derelict in our duties if we don't participate. Anyway, anybody else want to say anything? >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Should we make a motion? >> MS. THERESA RIEL: You already did, so I will call for the vote. All in favor to have Theresa and Wade be nonvoting members on this committee, be there just to observe and to hear and to bring back to the board what's happening, say aye? (Ayes.) >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Any opposed? >> DR. WADE McLEAN: Nay. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: So three, four, and two against. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: Four and two against? >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Three ayes and two nays. Wade, I appreciate your -- you were the one that suggested this the last board meeting that we needed people on the committee. So since you are saying nay, would you rather not be on the committee? Should we put Maria on instead of you? >> DR. WADE McLEAN: Well, first, I'd like to say I do keep an open mind most of the time. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Oh, yeah. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: Greg brought up some good concerns I honestly hadn't thought about. Over the years, I have learned that if you're going to delegate, you have to delegate. That's what we have done with these committees, this committee. It's a real cross-representation of our community. I'm thinking no matter who represents us, that there has to be a comment made to the committee that we're in an oversight role so we can report back versus a participatory role that we're going to be included in the conversations. So maybe we need to define those positions as observers or ex officio or something like that, if that's what the board has decided to do. >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: That's fair. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: But, Wade, do you want to be that one person in the ex officio, nonvoting member, or would you rather -- >> DR. WADE McLEAN: If that's what the board wants, I will do it. >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: All right. You're in. >> DR. WADE McLEAN: Thank you, Maria. >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: You're welcome. >> MS. THERESA RIEL: Anything else for the good of the cause? Then we'll adjourn this meeting. Thank you. (Adjournment.) ********************************************* DISCLAIMER: THIS CART FILE WAS PRODUCED FOR COMMUNICATION ACCESS AS AN ADA ACCOMMODATION AND MAY NOT BE 100% VERBATIM. THIS IS A DRAFT FILE AND HAS NOT BEEN PROOFREAD. IT IS SCAN-EDITED ONLY, AS PER CART INDUSTRY STANDARDS, AND MAY CONTAIN SOME PHONETICALLY REPRESENTED WORDS, INCORRECT SPELLINGS, TRANSMISSION ERRORS, AND STENOTYPE SYMBOLS OR NONSENSICAL WORDS. THIS IS NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT AND MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED, PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. THIS FILE SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED IN ANY FORM (WRITTEN OR ELECTRONIC) AS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OR POSTED TO ANY WEBSITE OR PUBLIC FORUM OR SHARED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE HIRING PARTY AND/OR THE CART PROVIDER. THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON FOR PURPOSES OF VERBATIM CITATION. *********************************************