Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
(Gavel.) >> Chair Rayl: The March 14th, 2013, meeting
of the Johnson County Community College Board of Trustees is hereby called
to order and we'll begin the meeting with the Pledge
of Allegiance. 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. >> Chair Rayl: So I wanted to start by briefly
mentioning that this is the first meeting we've had with the trustees equipped with
their electronic Board packets, so I will ask for
patience from everyone in the audience and at home as we kind of try to sift through
and make this thing work. So hopefully we won't hold
things up too much. But with that, it's time for our roll call
and recognition of visitors, and Terri Schlicht. >> Terri Schlict: This evening's visitors
include Sam Horan and Jason Zack. >> Chair Rayl: Thank you.
>> Dr. Calaway: Madam Chairman, if I might? >> Chair Rayl: Yes.
>> Dr. Calaway: First, if I could introduce Sam Horan, if he would just stand and be
recognized, please. Sam is an Eagle Scout here in Johnson County and is here as he's
doing some work on a merit badge. And, Sam, maybe
if you could just take a second to describe what your badge is about. He's an eagle scout
candidate. >> Sam Horan: Yes. My merit badge is the ‑‑ (Inaudible).
One of the requirements was to attend a local board meeting. So that is
what I'm working on here tonight. >> Dr. Calaway: Well, congratulations. We're
really honored that you'd come and do that here with us at the college and, also, Sam's
dad is with him, who happens to be one of our very
distinguished members of our staff, Terry, who just does a great job. And could we give
Sam a round of applause.
(Applause.) We also have a faculty member with us, Corbin
Crable, this evening, who is an instructor in our journalism program, and
he has his class with him as well and, Professor, if
there would be anything you'd like to share about your class or what's going on?
>> Professor Crable: No. (Inaudible) ‑‑ thank you for allowing us to be present and to be
involved in this process. We're excited to see how everything works.
>> Dr. Calaway: Great. Welcome. Thank you, Madam Chair.
>> Chair Rayl: Thank you. And welcome to everyone who is here visiting us this
evening, and certainly as we go along, if there's anything that you'd like to ask us
about later, we'd be happy to visit with you a little bit,
so welcome. This is the time on our agenda for the Open
Forum section of our meeting. The Open Forum section of the Board agenda is a time
for members of the community to provide comments to the Board. There will be one Open
Forum period during each regularly scheduled Board meeting and comments are limited to
five minutes unless a significant number of people
plan to speak, in which instance the Chair may limit a person's comments to less than
five minutes. In order to be recognized during
our Open Forum, individuals must register at the
door at each Board meeting prior to the Open Forum agenda item.
When addressing the Board, registered speakers should be respectful and civil and should
not address matters of a personal nature or related to individual personnel matters with
the college. There is one registered speaker at
tonight's meeting, and I would like to call her to the
podium now. Prior to beginning your comments, we ask you to state your name, address, city
and state, and Molly Baumgardner, if you would please approach the podium.
>> Molly Baumgardner: (Inaudible). Good evening. My name is Molly Baumgardner, I
live at 29467 (inaudible) in Louisburg, Kansas. I'm here this evening because ‑‑ oh, my
goodness. What a special week is it. This week is Sunshine Week, and the faculty advisors
and the students that are participants at the
Student News Center had just a slate of activities, we've
done something every single day and I would just be remiss if I did not comment about
what really for us is very significant this evening.
We had thought back in the fall that perhaps the student involvement as far as videotaping
might be discontinued, but we did talk to the powers that be, and we overcame what seemed
to be a problem, and so this evening, while you
sit before your electronics, you also are sitting
before state of the art pan tilt zoom cameras, and what really makes us special as far
as Sunshine Week is that this Board is committed to keeping its meetings open, and by being
able to be a part of the process of this Board room remodel, what you've allowed for our
students is for them to truly expand their technical expertise.
Now, that hasn't been easy, and Rex Hays and the different members of our staff have had
to put in some extra hours to make all of this happen. But what's been wonderful is
the six students that work each month to make sure
that there is an accurate broadcast of your board
meetings have spent a cumulative of more than 100 hours since the cameras were installed
in February just to be ready for tonight's meeting,
and so I just have to ‑‑ here's where it gets to the
personal side, so I'm kind of violating the policy, but from a personal standpoint, what
the college has done by installing these cameras
has really enhanced what Joe Petrie, who is my
colleague, Corbin Crable, and what I are collectively are trying to do so that our students really
have better technical skills so that they're more prepared to be out in the workplace.
So I extend a personal thank you to the Board of Trustees. I certainly want to
acknowledge Dr. Calaway. Dr. Sopcich, Dean Anderson, who's not here tonight, but they
were all a part of helping make this happen, and
so I think that I could collectively say that's why we
love working at this college. So thank you very much for making this possible and having
(Laughter.) >> Chair Rayl: Thank you. That takes us to
awards and recognitions, and I'll defer to Dr. Korb.
>> Dr. Korb: Okay, our first award is to honor Bruce Hartman. At the ninth annual
Martin Luther King, Jr. Legacy Scholarship Awards dinner on January 21st, Bruce was
honored. He was selected by the Martin Luther King, Jr. Legacy and Scholarship Awards
Committee, along with the Olathe Kansas branch of the NAACP to receive their Diversity
Advocate in Education Award. And what this means is, the committee selected him because
he is a person that they believe has shown leadership
and distinction in promoting respect for diversity, and so Bruce is representing us
in education and certainly they chose him and we're
very proud to have you as well. (Applause.)
>> Chair Rayl: I hesitate to give Bruce ‑‑ (Inaudible). (Laughter.)
>> Chair Rayl: But please, do. >> Bruce Hartman: I jokingly told Dr. Calaway
that I'd prepared a 45‑minute presentation and he believed me. I just want
to thank everyone involved with this, most significantly the NAACP. I shared with a friend
of mine shortly after I learned of the award that it was a real surprise, and he said,
well, those are the best kind, Bruce, the ones that you're
unaware of and they just sort of come out of the blue. It was great fun the evening
of the dinner. Dr. Sopcich had a chance to attend
that dinner as well. But I had an opportunity to
speak to the NAACP, and it was great fun to mention the fact that our two upcoming
exhibitions, which are actually at the museum currently, the first four galleries are committed
to an American‑Indian artist, a clay artist,
on the first floors. Second floor we open an exhibition
for an Iranian‑American artist. So that was wonderful.
And then I'll share with you that this past week, we were able to acquire two major
paintings by two African‑American artists, one of whom is very established, Iona Rozeal
Brown. And the second artist African‑American is Paul Smith, who actually resides here in
the Kansas City area and was just named by the
"Huffington Post" as one of the top 30 young African‑American artists to watch in the
art world, and that was thanks to the generosity of
Marti and Tony Oppenheimer. So thanks to all of you for allowing us to do what we do. I
greatly appreciate it. Thank you. (Applause.)
>> Dr. Korb: Okay. Our second award is an award where the Johnson County
Community College continuing education branch was recognized, specifically for the efforts
of Kathy Wing, who is here with us tonight, and
Melissa Reiss, who is not here tonight because after she did what I'm going to tell you she
did with the award, she went off and had a baby and
so she is on maternity leave. So Melissa could not be here tonight, but they were honored,
selected by the Kansas City chapter of the American Society for Training & Development,
and this was the best practice award for workplace
learning and performance culture. And what Kathy and Melissa did is they went through
and refined the process that we have in continuing education for really hiring and on‑boarding
all of our instructors and while that may sound like
something routine that we do, we were routinely doing it in our own way in each of our
different branches and areas, departments within the branch. And so they took all of
those things and pulled all of that together and
consolidated that process and turned it into something
that is extremely efficient, uses a lot less resources, and radically cut down on the amount
of time that it takes for us to get our instructors
hired and on‑boarded. So Melissa and Kathy would probably tell you that it took everybody
to get that done, and that's probably true, but
they were key players in making that happen. So thank you very much.
(Applause.) >> Dr. Korb: And that concludes the awards
that we have. >> Chair Rayl: Okay. That brings us to our
college lobbyist report, and Mr. Carter is over
there busily adding some final notes to his report.
>> Mr. Carter: Thank you, Madam Chair. I love what you've done with the place since I
was here last. >> Chair Rayl: I'm glad you like it.
>> Mr. Carter: I was going to give Bruce a little credit for his special touch that you
can see in the room, specifically I was going
to register a complaint with him on his selection of the
chairs. They're form over function in the audience area. There's no more rocking and
turning and raising up and down like we had in the
past, but, hey, it's a great look and anything is ‑‑ that
is a fresh look or a fresh approach is good when you're coming from Topeka. So...
(Laughter.) We just completed the turn‑around about
a week ago in the Kansas legislature, and so
we've just passed the halfway point where bills come out of the House and go over to
the Senate and vice versa. And there have not
been a lot of movement with respect to a lot of the
legislation thus far in the process this year, and so we've got considerable lifting to do
before we meet the deadlines as we race towards the
end of the first adjournment deadline, which is
around the first of April or so. I think we have another week or so of committee hearings,
maybe a little bit more beyond that, and then we move to the process where we're on the
House or Senate floor sort of in an all day long
fashion, either working to get bills through the process
or hold conference committees before legislators go home on April 5th. That is at least the
first targeted deadline. And a lot of that was complicated
by something that doesn't happen very often in the legislature, and that is weather
delays or cancellations because of the threats of
weather. Typically the Kansas legislature is a little bit like the post office and they
meet regardless of the conditions outside, but
we did have some significant storms that somewhat limited their ability to conduct business
as they were working to meet the first deadline. There are some other items that have also
been happening that are in the news that have contributed to what I consider part of the
process in being stalled. And the administration has
experienced some bad PR lately as a result of an announcement of a $2 billion error from
the budget director. Even today, he was in the
news again as a result of fixing a fiscal note on a
fairly major piece of legislation, and that's the Machinery and Equipment Bill and I'll
talk about that a little bit later. He didn't change
the number, but he changed a little bit of the content of
what some of the contributing partners put into the fiscal note without contacting them,
and so it's things like that that just add to the
complexity of the process, and there are some things that
have happened that really we don't have any control over that just add to the conversations
that we're having in Topeka.
We really were ‑‑ I wouldn't say that we're not getting along. And when I say "we're,"
I'm talking about the House and the Senate and
the Republicans and the Democrats and the conservative Republicans and the moderate
Republicans and everything in between. We really
haven't had much ill‑dialogue, for lack of a better term, but things have happened
rather rapidly over the past week or so that have started
to break down that process, and so let's kind of move
into those. And the first one probably would be the budget. The ‑‑ there are two parts
to the budget, the revenue stream that comes from
the tax side, and the budget that we establish for
state agencies and groups that receive their dollars from the State. And the House
Appropriations Committee just completed their work earlier this week and kicked their bill
out. I think the parts that we need to focus on
are the parts that relate to the community college
block grant and some of the major pieces that are part of that, and I would just add that
the six‑tenths sales tax extension is fairly
key to this entire process. It's about $260 million, is what
it's worth. The House right now has cut across the board
for the Board of Regents 4%. Now, our direct portion of that is around $886,000.
That's a far cry different from what had happened 12
hours prior to that cut where we were at an approximate $13 million cut for community
colleges only. And our portion of that would be closer to $2.2 million. So I suppose it's
rejoicing in a little bit of good news that the cut was only 4% and, again, that is out
of the block grant. There could be some other components
that touch, whether it's pass‑through money through Department of Commerce or some of
the other areas that we'll see a little bit later, but
because it's so fresh and so hot off the press, that's where we are currently..
Now, the morning the Senate was working and they worked through the noon hour into
the afternoon, probably up until just about 2:30 when they went into session, and they
performed an across the board cut for higher education as well at 2%. I would say that
some of the other education partners, higher education
partners received much more significant cuts in
some of their programmatic activity, but ‑‑ so you can cut in half that $886,000 cut that
was in the House and that's what you get in the Senate,
and so it's about 443 presently. They have not kicked their bill out of committee
yet, but we expect them to do so before the end of the week so that we can begin to
move on to that, that process both in the House and
the Senate, for floor debate. Right now I'm not sure that the House budget
passes the House. There are some other things that have contributed to that just
very recently, one of which is a cap on employee salaries at the state level, specifically
at state universities. That's going to tie things up as it
relates to research that is going on and being able to attract those top, top‑notch researchers
at the state university level. I believe it's
a two‑year cap on salary expenditures at the state
university level. That, in and of itself, is likely to keep the budget from passing.
There are some other contributing factors as well, but
I try and keep that focus specifically to higher
education if I can. Moving on to the machinery and equipment issue
that has been before the legislature, the House on Monday kicked out House Bill 2285,
the House committee I should say, that is the
machinery and equipment exemption bill that has been brought to the committee by a particular
side of the industry. It's not particularly favorable by the way of its $583 million fiscal
note towards local units of government. We don't
truly know what the impact may be even at the
Johnson County level right now. I think that we could see some numbers from the Johnson
County appraiser specifically to the bill, but, again, I'm not sure that this is the
final bill that we'll be dealing with as it relates to machinery
and equipment and that whole issue surrounding property appraisal, property valuation. What
the legislative post audit pointed out were very
complex institutions, if you will, and there's only about 32, 34 of them across the state
that were dealing with a bill that sort of is a blanket
approach for an issue that only occurs in about 32 to
34 instances. So, again, I think that's another issue that will be a contributing factor to
that bill. I think it will be on general orders next
week. We'll see exactly what happens, but right now
I'm not convinced that that's the actual piece of legislation that moves forward.
We've heard a lot about guns in the past 24‑48 hours. Those bills have started to move.
The House approved 83 ‑‑ 84, rather, to 38, sort of its mega bill, if we can call
it that. We usually reserve that term when we're talking
about budgets, but it's sort of a mega gun bill, if
you will. About four or five different bills were dumped into one, and just for our awareness
and for our information, the bill would allow for concealed carry in public buildings. It
still does contain the four‑year exemption if
the board or governing body of a local unit of
government or Board of Trustees chooses to exempt the campus for four years. It's beyond
state educational institutions. It's also public hospitals, some public mental health
clinics, and then an amendment on the floor yesterday added
the School for Deaf and Blind over in Olathe to also be a part of the exemption should
their governing body or group that oversees them
choose to do the exemption. There is also a component that was added in
that allows the president, chancellor, or managing director of an institution to decide
whether or not through employee policies that employees could also conceal carry if they
are so permitted. The ‑‑ and then I think sort of an interesting
one in this amendment was brought by someone who does not support the overall bill.
I don't know if it was his intent to crater the bill
or not. It didn't necessarily work. But I think that several groups that have opposed
the gun ‑‑ the concealed carry in public buildings legislation
have indicated that if it's good for everyone else, why not open the Capitol, and his amendment
did that. It went on and so the ‑‑ the open ‑‑
or, rather, the concealed carry now applies to the ‑‑ in public buildings now applies
to the state Capitol as well. There does seem to be some
concern as to whether or not it touches on open
carry. That's a separate issue. Some people would like to see the issues married so that
concealed carry regulations and open carry regulations are the same. The issue is that
the conceal ‑‑ the open carry regulations
have been on the books for the most part since the 1800s,
and there are some issues dealing with the age of someone who open carries versus the
age of someone who concealed carries. So there's
some issues that folks that are in the gun world
don't necessarily want to marry them up. I think that you would ‑‑ like some of the
locally governing bodies would like to see the issues
be addressed in a consistent manner, if you will.
That bill so has passed the House, now is on its way to the Senate. The Senate is holding
hearings ‑‑ held hearings this morning, in fact, on their version of concealed carry
in public buildings. Their single bill is very similar
to the sort of bill that came out of the House, which
has several bills put into it. No action has been taken. I think the hearings will likely
be continued at another date. There just simply
wasn't time this morning for all of the conferees to
get their points of view across. So we'll likely see additional hearings on that bill
in the Senate. Local elections are another important issue
to this board. There is a strong move to move local ‑‑ local units of government, to
move those elections to the fall. They range in everything
from partisan, fall even numbered to non‑partisan, odd‑numbered years. There's really no cost
savings in moving an election to the fall. Even the folks in the Secretary of State's
office who are in some ways proponents ‑‑ proponents
of this measure have indicated that there are also
some challenges of moving local unit of government elections to the fall. The machines just
aren't set up to take the ballots. They're electronic in the way that they, like a Scantron,
like the way that they read the ballots, and there
are some real issues when you start dealing with
multiple‑page ballots and how much information you can fit on a ballot, and all of that is
controlled by statute. The size of the font, the space of the dots that you fill in, that
you darken with an ink pen or whatever, that's all, all
addressed in the statutes that deal with election laws,
and so there are real ‑‑ there's some real challenges to moving those elections
to the fall. I did speak with the House committee chairman
at noon just prior to coming over here because I had an issue that came up with one
of the bills that were in his committees. The good
news is we got the issue fixed. The bad news is he told me that ‑‑ or it's not necessarily
bad news ‑‑ the other news that he told me
was that they are now learning that we are not in
compliance with federal law as it relates to elections, which I would assume means any
state that holds spring elections, because of a
45‑day window for getting ballots, getting information,
getting registration information to folks serving in the military. I asked him about
just moving back the filing date, and he said that wasn't
possible because in the spring you're dealing with a
February primary that would put your 45‑day window into the year prior. So I'm not sure
‑‑ I'm just going based off of what he was telling
me. There may be other issues, and I know that the
Secretary of State's office was going to be talking about it in committee today. I'll
find out additional information about that.
But there is ‑‑ there is some concern about the complexity, the obfuscation, if
you will, of moving local elections to the fall time period.
It would just ‑‑ it would make things much more
complex. The other issue that we've been watching is
the public‑funded advocacy issues related to
any unit of government or folks that receive public funds being able to have an advocate
over in Topeka to carry their message to bring
back the communications from the legislature, and
Senate Bill 45 was one of those bills that was first out earlier this spring, or this
winter. That bill speaks only to lobbying with state‑appropriated
dollars and has been narrowed down to gun issues only. It was brought forward by the
folks, the pro‑gun proponents. They are the ones
that introduced the bill, asked for it and have testified on it, and have indicated that
the reason they want the bill is because they don't like
it when cities or counties come to the legislature to
oppose their bills, and those are coming from the testimony provided by the folks that have
put the bills out there.
Senate Bill 109 is much more onerous in its nature and has not moved forward. It still
sits in the Senate Ethics, Elections, and Local Government Committees. Is it an exempt
bill, meaning it can be worked at any time. That
bill would prohibit any public‑funded lobbying or
any organization that has public funds from lobbying or receives dues paid for with public
dollars, so example, if we were a member of the Overland Park Chamber of Commerce, the
Overland Park Chamber of Commerce would not be allowed to retain a lobbyist in Topeka
under the construct of that bill. There's some other issues in that bill as well. It
would allow for contact with the legislature only if a
legislator contacts you as a trustee or Dr. Calaway or it
may even be limited to Dr. Calaway only as being contacted first by a legislator before
that communication can occur. Lots of issues there.
Lots of ‑‑ I'm sure that the attorneys sitting
around the table are thinking of great ways to generate a case and some fees on that,
and that is how that bill is being discussed in the other
circles as the Attorney Protection Act because it
certainly will generate some lawsuits if it's moved forward.
The other one is 2366. And I won't even talk about that very long. That's a bill that has
to do with no public funds can be used for educating, advocating, or producing materials
about sustainability or renewable resources. That's
a bill that comes out of an agenda 21 list of things
that those folks are working to prohibit. We've talked a little bit about the property
tax transparency bill. It's just sort of out there
right now. That's the bill that would require us to do what we're already doing. I think
the issue ‑‑ and that is to certify the budget
in August. And if the property valuations go up or
down, you adjust your mill rate accordingly so that you're still operating at the same
budget level that you were the prior year. I think
the issue that we want to continue to watch for on
that bill is to make sure that it's not a cap, that it is what it is, that it says that
it is, and that is just to take the affirmative action one way
or the other on your budget, but that it doesn't cap.
And that bill has been offered as a cap in the past. So we continue to watch that closely.
Finally, tax policy. This is all brand‑new. It's all just started coming out this week.
I say it's brand‑new because the House moved a
bill earlier this week that I still not ‑‑ I have still not
seen in print, and it's a concept that came out of House leadership and out of the House
and on your report I've listed some of the bullets
that we understand are part of that component. It
would not renew the six‑tenths sales tax. It would freeze the T‑works program and
transition the dollars that are being collected, the
four‑tenths of a cent for that program over to the state
general fund. It establishes a 2% growth cap in revenues, and any growth beyond 2%, and
it gets real complex. There's a whole schedule
of the way it works, but it buys down the personal
income tax rates to 0. Once you hit 0 on personal income tax rates, it transitions over to
corporate income tax rates and buying those down to zero.
A lot of the things that we do at state government level assume a 4% growth. We've not
been hitting those marks recently. I'm not sure about a 2% growth and where we're at
on that. But it definitely is a TABOR‑like application
for the bill. The Senate has been working on what mainly
consists of the governor's tax package, and a lot of that are items that would true up
inconsistencies or problems that occurred from the bill
that was signed into law last year, but it also takes into account some of the deductions,
some of the other items, and again, that bill also
seeks to reduce the personal income tax rates. I'm not
sure that either bill makes it through the process right now in either of their current
forms. Again, that's something that we'll be watching
as the House works the House tax bill, and the
Senate was working on the governor's tax package yesterday late into the evening and will be
forwarding at least part of that package in final action today.
Finally, then, just one brief report on the undocumented in‑state tuition or undocumented
students. That bill has been out there floating around since the first part of the session
but will receive a hearing on Wednesday of this next
week. I report this to you for several reasons. One, it's important to higher education. But,
two, we are one of the institutions that has the
highest number of students participating in that program in the state of Kansas. I believe
we're around 164, 170 students, and that number
fluctuates depending on enrollment each semester, but that's roughly the number of students
that we have that participate in the program out of
about the 400 or ‑‑ 425 or so in the state of Kansas. So that is a bill that we'll be
watching and I believe Dr. Calaway may even come over to
Topeka to just offer information if asked next
week during that hearing. So I'll stop there and see if there's any
questions. I know that there are other legislative issues out there. I tried to focus on sort
of the hot button issues that the legislature is dealing
with right now, and things that are sort of driving or guiding the process over in Topeka.
Sorry, it was a little long, but I took my February
time, too. (Laughter.)
>> Chair Rayl: And we appreciate you taking all that time, too, ***. Questions from the
board? Trustee Cook? >> Trustee Cook: Thank you, Madam Chair. ***,
are you sensing, in light of the legislation on the lobbying, specifically
against gun, the gun issue, are you sensing an attitude
that with a young legislature there will be more special carve‑out pieces of legislation
for specialty areas?
>> Mr. Carter: I don't know that it has to do specifically with that. It's a little bit
‑‑ I would just say that this new group of legislators,
which spans an age range, but there are a number of young folks that are in this new
group, are much more ‑‑ >> Trustee Cook: And by young, I meant first
year. >> Mr. Carter: Okay. Thank you for clearing
that up. I think that the group, the new group of folks that have come to Topeka are
much more willing to sit down at the table and
carve out a solution. I think that some of the issues specifically related to gun issues
that you're seeing are coming from folks from the 2010
class. You can't really split it up that way, but I
think when those folks are now in leadership positions in some of the committees, and so
that is part of the way the process works over in
Topeka. >> Trustee Cook: Thank you.
>> Chair Rayl: Yes, Trustee Lindstrom? >> Trustee Lindstrom: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Carter on Senate bill 45 ‑‑ (Inaudible) ‑‑ do they prohibit administration
or staff from lobbying as well? >> Mr. Carter: I certainly think that Senate
Bill 45 could, depending on ‑‑ I know that
KDHE had some concerns about that as it related to some of the things that they do. The bill
has been ratcheted down, as we understand it, specifically to gun issues only. That
wasn't the construct of the bill prior to an amendment.
I'm not sure that the bill still reads that way yet.
I'm not convinced that it only applies to guns. But that was the intent of the amendment
makers. But I think it could be everything from the legislative liaisons in the state
agencies to folks in the governor's office to university
legislative liaisons. It sort of runs the gap. If you're
state‑appropriated, if your support comes from state appropriations, that would prohibit
you from lobbying on things that the bill says.
>> Trustee Lindstrom: And it would only allow for contact between those type of
institutions that are initiated by state representatives or ‑‑
>> Mr. Carter: That's in 109. So in 109 there is a provision that legislators can contact
folks at the local government level or a ‑‑ it would be a president or the director of an
organization. There are provisions, as I understand it, that you may be able to designate
someone as that is their role or their responsibility if you're publicly‑funded. It's a little
bit unclear in the bill.
>> Trustee Lindstrom: Thank you. >> Chair Rayl: I have a follow‑up question
regarding those two bills. Maybe I'm just being naive, but what are they touting as
the benefit of this legislation? I mean what are they
trying to ‑‑ other than they don't want cities to come talk to the legislature. I
understand that. But what are they saying the reasoning for
that is? >> Mr. Carter: That they don't think the public
funds should be expended on someone to come to Topeka to help influence government
decisions. In some cases, they would couch their
arguments as ‑‑ and I've seen bills written to where you could not lobby or advocate for
any type of increase in a budget or revenue stream.
In other cases, they're just flat‑out prohibitions. And it's something that comes from a larger
national approach. There are organizations that
have that as their agenda items across the nation. One of which is the American Legislative
Exchange Council, of which our speaker and Senate president are both officers in that
organization, and it's one of their top priorities. Not locally necessarily, but at the national
level, that is one of their legislative priorities for states to implement.
>> Chair Rayl: I mean it just seems to me particularly with Senate Bill 45 where they're
focusing down specifically on the issue of guns, it's pretty transparent to me that they
just don't want to hear our concerns because they don't
want to have to address them. But I guess if
there's some alternative reasoning that they're coming up with, then... no comment.
Any other questions from the Board? Yes, Trustee Stewart?
>> Trustee Stewart: I think the most significant issue that we have is the property
valuation. That will impact us immediately. And I know we build our budget based upon
projections on assessed value, and this year I think we're using a 2% increase. What this
I think the last version that's kind of moving forward
would do is it takes property that was before considered real property, if it's a piece
of equipment or a piece ‑‑ something that's on real
property that can be removed without being damaged, then it moves it off the real estate
rolls and becomes personal property, which then
reduces and, you know, here you have the numbering there, it's $583 million statewide.
Well, Johnson County is a big portion of that. So
that's a real threat to us we would have to make up that by increasing the mill levy significantly
to make that up. But an example that Paul Welcome, our county appraiser gave me today
was all the railroad ties and all the rail throughout
the state of Kansas is now ‑‑ would now under
this bill be considered personal property, and that would be equivalent of about $80
million off the tax rolls.
>> Mr. Carter: There continues to be different points of view on that issue specifically,
and I happen to office with the railroad lobbyist in Kansas who's been around here forever.
He says that's not true because their tax rates
and their taxation is guided in the Constitution and in
a separate statute. But that continues to be part of the dialogue that we're having
in Topeka, and until we get that hammered out and figured
out, you're exactly right. >> Trustee Stewart: What Paul Welcome said,
what he's been up there testifying is that this will be hung up in litigation for a long
time. This is retroactive to January 1st of 2013.
>> Mr. Carter: Also true. >> Trustee Stewart: So I think we would have
to do some sort of compensation for that in our budget that that money may not be there,
whether then waiting five years and suddenly you
go retroactive five years and you have to refund all this money to the taxpayers. So
I guess my point here is to Mr. Perkins and administration
is I think we need to re‑think our budget of the
2% increase in assessed valuation and back that off and until this is resolved.
So Paul is hard to nail down as far as what he thinks this amounts to, but he suggested
maybe 1% ‑‑ this could be as much as 1% depending on how it comes out. So maybe instead
of our 2% increase in assessed value we ought
to back that down to 1%. But this is something we
need to follow very closely, that and the cap. But also is there still part of one of
those bills a ‑‑ for us to actually get more dollars under
the same mill levy if assessed valuing goes up, we
would have to make that a public vote? Is that part of it? Or is that gone now?
>> Mr. Carter: As I understand it, we're already doing that. If the valuation goes up,
which means your ‑‑ the money that you get would go up, that we have to ‑‑ that
we publish the budget and have to take a vote that would
say that we are ‑‑ we would keep the ‑‑ >> Trustee Stewart: The Board would vote.
>> Mr. Carter: Yes. >> Trustee Stewart: Which we do today.
>> Mr. Carter: Right. >> Trustee Stewart: Not ‑‑ at one point
it was ‑‑ I heard it was actually go to have a public
vote. >> Mr. Carter: Oh, like a referendum? I don't
believe that that component is still in the ‑‑
that's not in the bill. Yeah. >> Trustee Stewart: Those are things we need
to watch closely and report back to us. >> Mr. Carter: Absolutely.
>> Dr. Calaway: Madam Chair, if I might. >> Chair Rayl: Yes.
>> Dr. Calaway: To that question. That impact, the way Trustee Stewart's describing it,
was the original way that that legislation was written and it's now back to the Board
would basically have to publish and describe the
budget the way in essence we describe it and do it
now. But you never know what happens once you get to the floor, and that could change
very quickly on the floor, and so ‑‑
>> Mr. Carter: At 2:00 a.m. in the morning. >> Dr. Calaway: At 2:00 a.m. in the morning,
right, which is when those things tend to change right at the very end. I think that
we probably should be ultra conservative on our
approach to assessed value, and I would just remind all of us from our board workshop last
‑‑ I guess it was two months ago, back in January,
we're pulling almost $5 million out of this budget this year. Now, that was based on a
1% growth. We've since had received information from Paul Welcome that it would be 2%. But
we've still built the budget around 1% growth. But look at reducing our personnel cost by
about $5 million this year, or a total overarching general fund dollars. So we'll get into that
a little bit later in the management report I know, but
we do think that it would make sense to be conservative.
The other thing that has us very concerned is this Taber‑like piece of legislation,
and I do think that we have to take a really hard look
at our budget plans and what that means for us.
We've exhausted about as many options as we have, and but this kind of legislation's really
challenging to the institution's financial plan. So we just ‑‑ we just need to be
as conservative, I think, as we can. At this stage, not doing
that would put us in a really bad place. >> Trustee Stewart: That's always been my
nature. And I know Don gets tired of me hammering on him, but I'd rather come in with
a lower number and exceed ‑‑ have to figure out
how to trim a substantial amount out of the budget after we've already established it.
>> Dr. Calaway: Based on what we're just hearing the last, you know, 24 hours even, I
think that that's probably the right way to go, and which would put us back to where we
were in January when we had our workshop, and that
really does mean taking out about 5.2 million personnel costs predominantly because at this
stage we've cut everything else. Now, before people get really nervous and
anxious, part of the benefit we have is with a
lot of the retirements we've had, you know, we're able to deal with some of that. Some
positions we'll fill. Others we're, mostly in the administrative area, we're going to
not fill, at least hold back and put ‑‑ continue to
put as much as we can into the classroom, which is the
heart and soul of the institution. But the reality is, we're really facing some tough
challenges because of the, you know, some of the ‑‑ what's
going on in Topeka. This is a real challenge for
the institution. So, I mean, we get to the place where you
can only do ‑‑ you can't do any more with less.
We're now going to do less with less, and we just need to be very conservative because
there would be nothing worse than having to pay
back $5 million that ‑‑ in the future. We're going to
continue on with the budget cuts, predominantly looking at either savings through any hires
we do, or people coming in at lower levels than
where the retirees are going out, or reduction of
administrative overhead. It's going to be a challenge.
>> Trustee Stewart: Yeah. That's my concern is to make sure this budget is built
conservatively, so. On the good news side, The assessed valuation in the county is looking
like it should, you know, it's increasing. We're
seeing more activity and on the real estate side we're
seeing a lot more movement, so I think that's building up. But if we take away a lot of
property off the tax rolls, it's going to shift the
burden, which we will pay for in Johnson County a lot
more. So... >> Dr. Calaway: If it happens it's going to
be ‑‑ this is going to be cutting off an arm, not
just cutting ‑‑ >> Trustee Stewart: Yeah.
>> Chair Rayl: Any other questions from the Board? Trustee Musil?
>> Trustee Musil: I don't have any questions from ***. I appreciate his report,
as always. But I just think the audience here and the audience at home needs to understand
that this legislature is no different in that there
are bills introduced that in the cumulative effect are
crazy. The difference is this year they're getting hearings and being strongly considered.
And I hope the citizens of Johnson County will hold
their ‑‑ their legislators to their promises that I'm
going to have an open government, I'm going to have a transparent government, and I'm
going to respect local control, because what they're
telling us now, this board, city councils, school
boards, and water boards is I'm going to move your election and I'm going to take away your
non‑partisan right to run even though the voters have adopted that. Local control, no.
Topeka control.
I'm going to cut your budget by $13 million or maybe $2 million or maybe $6 million,
but you can't come up here and talk to me about it unless I summon you to come to Topeka.
An elected board member would not be allowed
under some of those bills to go talk to legislators in Topeka. Local control, openness, or closed
Topeka. I mean, the guns on campus, I can't even go
talk to somebody, a legislator, whether it's in
Topeka or I run into them in the grocery store and talk to them under some of those bills.
Initially I was going to be committing a crime! It was going to be criminal for me to talk
to a legislator. So if you see your legislators,
tell them that openness and transparency and local
controls are theoretically conservative concepts of a free society, and what's happening in
Topeka today is challenging every one of those. And when we end up having to raise the mill
levy by multiple mills because Topeka has cut our budget, and then Topeka says you cannot
raise that much revenue because we're going to cap you under something called a taxpayer
Bill of Rights, then we're going to be asking the
students to fund 48% of their education instead of
26%, and we're going to be turning students away and we're going to be turning off lights
in buildings.
And I don't want to be the sky is falling, but if you ‑‑ if you look at the cumulative
potential of what could be passed in Topeka this year, it could devastate every unit of
local government, not just Johnson County Community
College. So it's important that we have *** up there, and it's important and I think this
board has always believed that having eyes and ears
and somebody with accurate information to give to the legislature is important and beneficial
to our taxpayers.
But this year it's more important than ever, and I hope people will, when they see their
local legislator, ask them if they're being true to their principles. Thanks for allowing
me to vent.
>> Chair Rayl: Yes. And I think I just want to add, you made a comment that you don't
want to be one of those sky is falling people, and I hope that everyone realizes that this
is not the sky is falling chicken little stuff, this
is very real stuff that's being proposed and considered
by our legislators in Topeka, and if it happens, it has a very real and profound impact. It's
not just us saying, oh my gosh, oh, Woe is me!
This is very real, significant dollars, significant quality that will be taken out of our institution
if we don't keep an eye on what's going on. So I'll get on my soap box for a minute, too.
Any other comments from the Board? I noticed Mr. Carter has taken his seat. Any other
comments? Trustee Sharp? >> Trustee Sharp: I guess I would add one
last thing, and this all comes down to turn‑out, to voter turn‑out. And the reality is that
the people ‑‑ that are making these decisions, we had
about 20% turn‑out in the August primary last year, and the people that won in that
20% turn‑out were elected by 10, maybe 11, sometimes
12% of the total voting population. So the rule of if ‑‑ or the world is run by those
who show up. If you're not showing up, then you don't
have a lot to complain about. And I know that all of us in here are probably good voters,
but turn‑out is so important, and when you really
look at those numbers, you know, we have a spring election coming up and that has even
lower turn‑out. So I would just encourage all of
you to register and get out and vote and find out how to learn about the candidates, so.
I'm done with my soap box. Thank you.
>> Chair Rayl: Any other soap box speeches? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Carter, for keeping
us apprised, as always, of all the wonderful things going on in Topeka.
That takes us to our committee reports and recommendations and we'll begin with the
management report. Trustee Stewart. >> Trustee Stewart: All right. Between the
iPad and the paperwork. >> He's gone paperless.
>> Chair Rayl: You look organized. >> Trustee Stewart: All right. The Management
Committee, we have a lot to report because we actually, because of the last month
meeting being canceled, we have the February 6
Management Committee meeting and the March 6 Management Committee meeting actions to
report and take action on. So there are 13 recommendations to be presented
this evening, and there's about eight of them that are for on‑call services that
I'm going to combine here in a little bit. So it won't be
as bad as it sounds, so here we go. Kings Cove lease renewal. The first recommendation
is found on Page 1 and pertains to the existing
lease agreement for Kings Cove located at 7350
Kings Cove drive in Merriam just off 75th and I‑35. The lease will terminate March
31st this year and through amendment to the agreement,
the lease will be renewed for one year effective April 1st through March 31st, 2014.
It's a full service lease, no escalations or increases for maintenance, housekeeping,
utilities or common area charges, taxes or insurance. It's on a monthly basis, current
rate is $13.25 per square foot. We occupy about 9400
square feet and we pay for rentable square footage of about 9,000. So it is the recommendation
of the Management Committee that the Board of Trustees accept the recommendation
of the college administration to renew the Kings
Cove lease agreement at 13.25 per square foot based on 9,037 billable square feet for a
total of $119,740.25 per year for the duration of the
lease, and I will make that motion. >> Second.
>> Chair Rayl: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in
favor say aye. (Ayes.)
>> Chair Rayl: Motion carries. >> Trustee Stewart: Second recommendation
is the renewal of annual Microsoft enrollment for education solution and this
is a ‑‑ this is the second renewal of this contract and
its license allows the most current versions of Microsoft applications for all college
computers and servers. So this renewal is for the period
of April 1st, 2013, through March 31st, 2014. And it is the recommendation of the Management
Committee that the Board of Trustees accept the recommendation of the College Administration
to approve the low proposal of $230,460.36 from En Pointe Technologies for the renewal
of the annual agreement for Microsoft enrollment for education solution, and I'll make that
motion. >> Second.
>> Chair Rayl: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in
favor say aye. (Ayes.)
>> Chair Rayl: Motion carries. >> Trustee Stewart: The next recommendation
is the audio visual equipment. It's on Page 4 through 7 of your packet. And the purpose
of this bid is to purchase document cameras, projectors and related equipment to be used
in various classrooms throughout the campus, and
the bid spreadsheet is on Page 6 and 7 in your packet. So is it the recommendation of
the Management Committee that the Board of Trustees
accept the recommendation of the College Administration to approve the lowest acceptable
bids of $4,745 from B&H Photo Video‑Pro Audio, $87,296 from SENNA, $79,028 from Technomedia
Solutions, and $7,345.23 from Troxell Communications, Inc., for a total
expenditure of $178,414.23 for audio visual equipment. I'll make that motion..
>> Second. >> Chair Rayl: I have a motion and a second.
Any discussion? Trustee Musil? >> I just want to point out that the page
numbers that John is using do not match up to the
ones on the PDF electronic packet. So ‑‑ >> Thank you.
>> If anybody is trying to follow along, they're as confused as I am. But I seconded it
anyway. >> Chair Rayl: I'm not sure I'd go that far,
Trustee Musil, but thanks for the clarification. Yes, Trustee Lindstrom?
>> They match up to the board packet. >> Trustee Lindstrom: Madam Chair, just for
clarification, when Trustee Stewart mentions lowest acceptable bid, there's a
difference between lowest bid and lowest acceptable bid, which could someone explain that?
>> Trustee Stewart: Well, Mitch Borchers. >> (Speaker off mic, inaudible).
>> Trustee Lindstrom: Thank you. I just thought it was appropriate that the public would
hear that. Thank you. >> Chair Rayl: Thanks for bringing that up,
Trustee Lindstrom. And I would also just observe in this particular case, even though
it was not the lowest overall bid, it was instead the
lowest acceptable bid. It was still considerably lower than the estimated amount, which, you
know, attests to the work that our folks did in getting us a good competitive bid. So any
further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say
aye. (Ayes.)
>> Chair Rayl: Opposed? Motion carries. >> Trustee Stewart: Next action item is fiscal
year 2013‑2014 credit hour fee, and the recommendation on Page 11, or whatever page
in the PDF file. >> 14.
>> Trustee Stewart: 14, thank you. It pertains to the Student Activities Fund, and through
the fiscal year 2013‑'14 budget process, a need was identified for additional funding
for the Student Activities Fund. A primary purpose
of the fund is to provide scholarships and we all
know that there's a need for that out there. So as tuition has increased in the past few
years, the credit hour fee for scholarships has not increased.
College Administration recommends a dollar increase to the student activities fee to
provide the resources necessary to help meet this need.
So it is the recommendation of the Management Committee that the Board of Trustees accept
the recommendation of the College Administration to increase fiscal year 2013‑2014 credit
hour fees by $1 per credit hour for the Student Activities Fund, and I'll make that motion.
>> Second. >> Chair Rayl: I have a motion and a second.
Any discussion? >> I'll just say, the same thing on this Student
Activity Fund that we've talked about on tuition is that we're careful, we study that,
it has an impact on students. This one has a direct
benefit back to students. But I think students and the taxpayers understand, we're balancing
different revenue sources to try to find ways through this continuing for us. So I'll support
this. But it's something we talked about in detail
at our retreat and it's worthy of that kind of
discussion. >> Chair Rayl: Yes, Trustee Lindstrom?
>> Trustee Lindstrom: Madam Chair, was there anyone at the Management Committee
from the student that spoke in opposition? >> Trustee Stewart: I think I missed the March
meeting. Did that come ‑‑ >> No, Dave. There wasn't.
>> Chair Rayl: Any other discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye.
(Ayes.) Opposed? Motion carries.
>> Trustee Stewart: The next, or the I believe it's eight on‑call service recommendations,
and these recommendations are featured on Pages 12 and 13 of the Board packet. These
service providers would be considered the go‑to contractors for smaller jobs on campus.
It expedites the process for us to get things
done when we need to without waiting until the next
board meeting or through a cycle. So a lot of times Rex and others have to get stuff
done in a hurry and this gives them that capability
to do that. So those are listed on Page 14 of the
committee minutes in your board packet, and I'm going to group those all together. I'm
not going to read all eight of those. If you'll
allow me to do that. But I'm going to make this
recommendation that it is the recommendation of the Management Committee that the Board
of Trustees accept the recommendation of the
College Administration to approve the renewal of
the annual contracts listed on Page 14 of the committee minutes, and I will make that
motion. >> Second.
>> Chair Rayl: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in
favor say aye. (Ayes.)
>> Chair Rayl: Opposed? Motion carries. >> Trustee Stewart: And the final recommendation
I have here is on the Olathe center lease renewal and that's the location out
off of 151st Street, across the street pretty much from
Olathe South High School. And the existing lease agreement for this location terminates
April 30th of this year. 4800 square feet is currently used for continuing education
classes, community service activities, and GED programs.
A lease has been negotiated for a three‑year extension beginning May 1st, 2013, through
April 30th, 2016, with no rate increase. The specifics of this lease are on Page 15, but
overall the total monthly cost is $12.65 per square
foot for an annual cost of $60,720, and the lease rate will remain for the life of the
lease term with the exception of tax adjustments. And
so is it the recommendation of the Management Committee that the Board of Trustees accept
the recommendation of College Administration to
renew the lease agreement with McGregor Interests Indian Trails Center, LLC, for a three‑year
term beginning May 1st, 2013, through April 30th, 2016, payable at the rate of $60,720
per year, plus any pro rata tax adjustment assessed
during the term of the agreement, subject to review
by college counsel. I'll make that motion. >> I'll second.
>> Chair Rayl: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in
favor say aye. (Ayes.)
>> Chair Rayl: Opposed? Motion carries. >> Trustee Stewart: There's no more action
items, but I'll make a couple additional comments. Finally, noted that the summary
award bids between $25,000 and $100,000 found on Page 8 featured our bids for the Hospitality
and Culinary Academy kitchen, a web consulant, carpet for the bookstore and ad
hoc fiber cable pulls. It's listed for your review. And
then we did hear from Denise Moore on review of the 2013 projects and expenditures report,
and we're spending ‑‑ we're allocating about a million to a million‑one per year
for the infrastructure improvement and I can tell
you that reports are very professional and I think that
Denise and her staff are doing an outstanding job of keeping technology up‑to‑date and
keeping us safe as possible from all the threats that
are out there, which are many. So personally I'm
very impressed with the work they do. Capital acquisitions improvements progress
report, good news. Rex Hays reported that all projects are on schedule and on budget.
Baseball field, if you haven't driven by there, it
looks fantastic and they've already played one night game, and the Hospitality and Culinary
Academy, you can see it coming out of the ground going up fast, and classes are scheduled
to begin in that new facility in August. So that's
good news. If there are no questions, that completes
the Management Committee report. >> Chair Rayl: Thank you, Trustee Stewart.
Any questions for Trustee Stewart related to
the Management Committee report? Hearing none, that takes us to the Learning Quality
Committee report. And Trustee Lindstrom, will you be presenting that this evening or is
Trustee Musil going to do that? >> Trustee Musil: I'm going to try, Madam
Chair. The Learning Quality Committee met on March 4th, and I'm going to go through
the action items first because that's what I have up on
my screen and then I'll go back and report on what else we talked about.
But there are several action items that get to our effort to ensure that what is listed
as a policy at the college is actually a policy,
procedures are kept in procedures so that they can be
changed more readily by staff as opposed to having to come back to the Board.
The first academic standing policy that we recommend on is 314.06 and it's on Page 35
of my PDF version of the Board packet.
>> 32 on mine. >> 32.
>> Trustee Musil: Are you going to tell me Trustee Stewart was right and I owe him an
apology? >> Absolutely.
(Laughter.) >> Trustee Musil: Okay. I'm three pages ahead
of everybody. (Laughter.)
All right. I'll subtract. On Page 32, the Learning Quality Committee reviewed proposed
revisions to the academic progress for continued enrollment. This policy was renamed the
Academic Standing Policy and the language was updated to reflect current practices and
remove references to continued enrollment, and essentially this is what you have to maintain
in order to maintain good standing or to remain
in the college. It's the recommendation of the
Learning Quality Committee that the Board of Trustees accept the recommendation of the
College Administration to approve the revisions to the academic progress for continued
enrollment 314.06 as shown subsequently in the Board package and I would make that motion.
>> Second. >> Chair Rayl: I have a motion and a second.
Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye.
(Ayes.) >> Chair Rayl: Opposed? Motion carries. Trustee
Musil. >> Trustee Musil: Also on Page 32, the audit
policy 311.05, which establishes standards by which someone can audit a class, were revised
again to reflect current practices. No substantive changes were made and it's the
recommendation of the Learning Quality Committee that the Board of Trustees accept
the recommendation of the College Administration to approve the revisions made
to the audit policy 311.05 as shown subsequently in the Board packet, and I would so move.
>> Second. >> Chair Rayl: We have a motion and a second.
Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye.
(Ayes.) >> Chair Rayl: Opposed? Motion carries. Back
to you. >> Trustee Musil: Okay. I have a problem because
it keeps skipping between pages. The degree certificate retire ‑‑ requirement
policy 315.00, there are proposed revisions in that
as well as to the process for the official student catalog of record of the degree requirements
a student has met, and it's the recommendation
of the Learning Quality Committee that the Board
accept the recommendations of College Administration to approve the revisions made to the
Degree Certificate Requirements Policy 315.00 and approve the deletion of policies 315.01
with respect to Degree Graduation Requirements and delete 315.02, Certificate of Completion
Requirements, as is shown in the Board packets on subsequent pages to be named later and
I would so move.
>> Second. >> Chair Rayl: We have a motion and a second.
Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye.
(Ayes.) >> Chair Rayl: Opposed? Motion carries. Trustee
Musil. >> Trustee Musil: The next item on your bookmarks
is a PowerPoint presentation I would encourage everyone to look at about the accreditation
process of the college and what we do ongoing all the time to maintain our accreditation
and to be prepared for the next accreditation cycle. And it was a great explanation of the
method that we have chosen to utilize within the
accreditation agency which is called Academic Quality Improvement Program, or AQUIP, and
it explains in very simple terms in a PowerPoint presentation how the college goes about that,
the programs that we have to look at, the projects we look at on a short‑term basis
to make sure we're making progress in quality learning,
and it was a good presentation. The next item on your bookmark is from the
minutes of the February 4th, 2013, meeting, and the first item on that is to ‑‑ is
the recommendation that the Board of Trustees accept the
administration's recommendation to allow contract negotiations for groups to perform in the
Carlsen Center during the 2013‑2014 academic year shown in the packet and that is a listing
of the various groups that we hope to sign for
2013‑2014 that Emily Behrmann and her staff would negotiate with and I would move that
recommendation. >> Second.
>> Chair Rayl: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in
favor say aye. (Ayes.)
>> Chair Rayl: Opposed? Motion carries. >> Trustee Musil: The last item I believe
and recommended action is with respect to animals on campus, and updating and clarifying
our processes to ensure that certain qualified service animals as required by Kansas and
federal laws are allowed, but generally other animals
are not, and it is the recommendation of the Learning Quality Committee that the Board
of Trustees accept the recommendation of the
College Administration to approve policy 630.00, animals on campus policy, as shown in the
Board packet, and I would so move. >> Second.
>> Chair Rayl: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Trustee Lindstrom?
>> Trustee Lindstrom: I would just like to add that that was my ‑‑ I had a little
bit of an issue, that being my first committee meeting
and that topic coming up. I didn't know it had
something to do with my being there. (Laughter.)
>> Trustee Musil: We clarified that. We consider Trustee Lindstrom a service animal.
(Laughter.) >> Chair Rayl: Oh. Feel the love?
(Laughter.) >> Trustee Musil: The committee also talked
about some curriculum issues as the curriculum committee continues to look at
curriculum that is relevant and useful and accepted
and popular with students and with the stake holders that we serve and trying to match
our curriculum to that, and so that discussion
is reflected in the minutes. And beyond that, I have
no further report. >> Chair Rayl: Okay. Well, let's go back to
our animals recommendation, and now that we've clarified what kind of animals we're
not speaking about, we should probably take a vote.
So do we have any further discussion? >> Sorry.
>> Chair Rayl: Hearing none, all in favor say aye.
(Ayes.) >> Chair Rayl: Opposed? Motion carries. And
do we have any questions from the Board for Trustee Musil? Thank you for your report.
Next we have the Human Resources Committee report and Trustee Dr. Cook.
>> Trustee Cook: Thank you, Madam Chair. We also have a number of
recommendations. You see about two months of work in front of you. February‑March
meetings. I would say that of all of the items that we're bringing before you for
recommendations for vote, they're really all in the benefits section of our agreements
with our faculty and staff, we did spend much of February
with representatives from Holmes Murphy going through each of these in detail. We
then brought them back in March for discussion out
of the committee and recommendation to you. We can deal with them individually if you
like, or we can do them as a block. You'll see
that we're dealing with group dental with Cigna. We have also a group dental plan with
delta. Our group vision, our group life insurance,
short‑term disability, employee benefits consulting
services, with Holmes Murphy, flexible spending account, employee assistance plan,
administration, flex benefit funding, the 403(b) contribution and the group medical
insurance. You'll see that the increases range from 0%
to 3%. We have a 17% deduction, reduction with
short‑term disability. All of these contracts expire either May 31 or begin June 1, depending
upon the language of the contract or the agreement. And so I would ‑‑ I'm prepared to deal
with them either individually or if you want to
take them as a group or you want to pull any one of
them out for discussion. >> Chair Rayl: And I think I would query the
Board if there are any particular recommendations that anyone would like to
pull. Otherwise, it seems efficient and appropriate to entertain them as a single motion.
>> That's fine with me. >> Chair Rayl: Nothing we'd like to pull?
>> I want to comment on Blue Cross Blue Shield, but I don't know that we have to pull it.
>> Chair Rayl: Okay. So, Trustee Dr. Cook, you may proceed to make your motion ‑‑
your recommendation. >> Trustee Cook: Let's just to make sure we're
clear on that, let's pull item 10, the Blue Cross Blue Shield, and we'll discuss that.
But then with the other nine items, I would ‑‑ it's the
recommendation that we adopt each of the policies as presented, and I would make that motion
accordingly for each of the first nine. >> Second.
>> Chair Rayl: We have a motion and a second as to recommendations 1 through 9. Any
discussion? >> Trustee Cook: I would like to add, Madam
Chair, that the agreement with Holmes Murphy is ‑‑ the fee is what we've had
in the past. It's a part of our Blue Cross Blue Shield
payment, and I would ask Dr. Korb to make a comment about it if she'd like, but I've
been very impressed with the services we're getting
from them. They're always on point, very specific, have good information for us, and I really
am pleased with them and really highly recommend them. But, Judy, if you have anything you'd
want to say about them. >> Dr. Korb: I would echo that. They have
been excellent. They are responsive. They research things. They get back to us. They
give us presentations and explain things in ways
that we can understand it, and they have just been very, very good. So we're extremely pleased
with them and we continue, too, to look at that relationship and we know that we're paying
a lot of fun for it, but they are at least ‑‑ their
fee is based on a per participant amount, so it's not a
percentage of our ‑‑ of our healthcare cost. So it's at least a flat fee based on
per participant cost, so. We rely on them heavily.
>> Chair Rayl: It occurs to me that whenever we're looking at a number of insurance
recommendations and they're ‑‑ we're looking at consistently 0% or, you know, single digit
increases, that someone's doing something right in today's market to be sure, and I'm
not at all certain that we'd be able to do that without
the assistance of Holmes Murphy, so. Any other discussion? Hearing none, we have
a motion and a second as to recommendations 1 through 9. All in favor
say aye. (Ayes.)
>> Chair Rayl: Opposed? Motion carries. >> Trustee Cook: Item 10, the employee group
medical insurance. You can see a detailed recommendation there that deals with monthly
subscriber rates for a different components, there are different breakouts. The overall
rate represents a 1% increase from the 2012‑2013 premium and, Madam Chair, I can either make
the motion, the recommendation or we can have discussion first, whatever you see fit.
>> Chair Rayl: I'm sorry, go ahead and make the recommendation.
>> Trustee Cook: Is it the recommendation to accept the College Administration's
recommendations to authorize the president to negotiate a contract subject to review
by legal college counsel for the provision of the employee
group medical insurance with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City for a period beginning
June 1, 2013, through May 31st, 2014, and you have several sentences there describing
the monthly subscriber rates. The monthly subscriber rates are not to exceed 519.54
for employee, 952.60 for employee, 1305.98 for
family. These rates represent a 1% increase from the 2012‑2013 premium, and I'd make
that motion.
>> Second. >> Chair Rayl: I have a motion and a second.
And we have some discussion. Trustee Stewart?
>> Trustee Stewart: Yeah. First off, I'd just commend Dr. Korb and the 1% increases
really shocked me. I'm amazed that it's 1%. And Trustee Musil was saying is 1% too low.
No, we'll take that. But I guess my point is,
as you read what's going to happen, we all need to be
prepared for that, that we're talking about a doubling of premiums from the health insurance
company over the next couple years. So we could have a individual employee paying $1,200
a month, that portion, and if we're paying 75%
of that. But to go up from basically 600 a month
to 1200 a month, that is a real threat to our ability to run the college, and then you
compound that by throwing in the part‑time employees
that would be covered. Obviously, we'll have some decisions to make as we come forward
as to whether we opt out of that and pay the penalty versus insuring. But this is a really
significant ‑‑ we've already talked about the
assessed value and the property tax coming ‑‑ potentially coming off, and then you
combine these kind of things. We've got a lot of threats
out there to, as I think Dr. Drummond has said a
long time ago, the sustainability of the college's finances, and I guess we'll enjoy this this
year, but I think we need to be all on high alert
that this number is going to be drastically different
over the next few years, and I just want to make that comment.
>> Trustee Cook: I might add, Chairwoman Rayl, before Judy comments, we did spend
considerable time in February talking about your points, and you make excellent points,
and Jerry I thought did a really nice job of cautioning
us in terms of the uncertainty of the federal health plan that we really aren't really certain
about yet and that we shouldn't celebrate a 1%
increase thinking that, you know, we've reached a pinnacle here. So I thought Jerry did a
really nice job, too, Judy, in terms of highlighting
those details to us. But, please, respond to Trustee
Stewart's comments. >> Dr. Korb: Well, thank you for commending
me for the 1% increase, but I didn't have anything to do with it.
(Laughs.) >> The only thing I criticize, I wanted a
chart. >> Dr. Korb: I know. But I didn't do that.
(Laughter.) >> That's an old inside joke.
>> Dr. Korb: But that is representation of how our plan has performed, and so the
employees actually have done a very good job in maintaining those costs this year because
that's why we ended up with a 1% increase. I would agree that we're going to see an increase
more than 1% next year for sure. One of the things, though, is that with everything that
we're seeing, we're still going to be considered
a plan, healthcare costs are probably going to go up,
so probably just market, the trend will probably go up. But our utilization is still going
to impact our costs, and the other thing that
I would just say is, so far we're still on the plan that
Blue Cross introduced last year which really gives us all of the benefit of being self‑insured
with none of the risk, and so it was a new plan that they instituted just for educational
institutions, and that plan is performing very well for us, too, and we ‑‑ we don't
know because we're not at the end of the plan year, but
right now we're looking at if we trend, if we continue
to trend the way we are right now, we're looking at almost a $200 return on our plan from this
year. But I think your caution is right on target.
Everything that I'm hearing and listening to
about the Affordable Care Act when it really goes into effect and we really start seeing
the impacts, we'll see increases.
>> This 1%, what is the lowest we've had in the last five years? I don't think we've ‑‑
>> Dr. Korb: Well, we had ‑‑ >> (Inaudible).
>> Dr. Korb: Right. We had about ‑‑ >> Maybe 3?
>> Dr. Calaway: 3 or 4%. >> Dr. Korb: Yeah. We did have a 3 or 4, and
that was the year we went out for bid. But this is unheard of.
>> Yeah. Enjoy it while it's ‑‑ >> Dr. Korb: Absolutely. Because our total
cost, our total increase for the entire college is $82,000.
>> That's amazing. Well, we'll give Mr. Perkins more uncertainty to plan for in the
budget. >> Dr. Korb: Exactly. Yeah.
(Laughter.) >> Dr. Calaway, did you have some comments?
>> Dr. Calaway: If I might just very briefly, one of the things we know about health care
benefits is that your plan is affected by your pool, and we right now have a fairly
aged pool, if you will. So we have ‑‑ because of the
retiree benefit program that we had and now we've
ended that, no one else will be entering it anymore, so we'll start to see the age of
our pool come down, the average age, which should help
provide some benefit to us. The other thing we've done is we've created some skin in the
game for all our employees. You know, some of
the cost sharing, while painful for everyone, also means that our employees have some benefit
by becoming more involved in wellness activities and wellness programs, and the more benefit
we get from that, our employees maintaining their health by participating in a lot of
wellness activities, one of the things that comes from
that, then, is lesser usage of our plan, which drives
down our costs, which also helps us in savings, and eventually they would pay less for that.
So just encouragement on everyone's part to continue
to do that. The more healthy we are, the better off we will be. All that to be said,
Trustee Stewart is right on the numbers. We don't
know where this is going to go. One of the things we know is it may be more costly for
us to opt out than initially projected as we're
getting more information, you know. >> (Inaudible).
>> Dr. Calaway: As we're hearing what opt out means, opt out doesn't mean a good
option for us. So the costs are going to be pretty exceptional. So I don't think that
that will become a great option for us to explore into
the future. But 1%, you know, basking in the glow of 1%
this year is a good thing, but we can't let that help us project what is going to happen
next year. I think we're going to see some ‑‑ at
least we need to be prepared for some pretty significant changes in that. But across the
board, you know, from the dental program to all the
other programs, to have 0, 1% increase is pretty
significant, and I think the 200,000 return that we're maybe expecting ‑‑
>> Dr. Korb: Hopeful. >> Dr. Calaway: ‑‑ we're hopeful of, will
be a help as well. So we could end up with the
reality of it costing us less than it did the previous year, which would really be unheard
of. So that doesn't mean that's what next year will
look like, and I think we have to plan for the, you
know, plan for the worst and hope for the best kind of thing when it comes to the health
care. This is kind of the perfect storm in a very
bad way, and I just think we have to be ready for
what happens next year. >> Chair Rayl: Thank you, Dr. Calaway. Trustee
Stewart? >> Trustee Stewart: So if I'm hearing Dr.
Calaway right, the focus on the health and well‑being of the employees, are you suggesting
that we ban large sugary drinks from campus? (Laughter.)
>> Yes. (Laughter.)
>> Whatever it takes. >> Trustee Stewart: Thank you, Madam Chair.
>> Chair Rayl: We're just all in a great mood. It must be the electronics sitting in front
of us, bringing brevity (levity)? to the board
meeting tonight. Any other discussion on recommendation number 10 as it relates to
Blue Cross Blue Shield? Hearing none, all in favor
say aye. (Ayes.)
>> Chair Rayl: Opposed? Motion carries. >> Trustee Cook: That completes the human
resources report. I would defer to Trustee Sharp, who is also on the committee.
>> Chair Rayl: Any questions for Trustee Cook before we move on? Thank you, Trustee
Cook. That takes us to the Audit Committee report, and the Audit Committee met on
February 12th, 2013. There are no recommendations to bring forward, but I would just make a
few comments from the meeting. Grant Thornton appeared and made a presentation
to the committee regarding a desktop assessment that was performed by them, a desktop
assessment was a review of the security of exactly really what it says, the computer
desktops around campus. They reported their findings. There were some risks that were
identified, but they were all relatively minimal, and
made some recommendations for improvements, so we felt that was a very positive assessment
report. There was also a report on an internal review
of our travel‑related reimbursements here at
the institution, travel‑related reimbursements are always an area of concern and one that
we keep a close eye on. It was ‑‑ it was
a pleasure to hear that in the review that was conducted,
there were absolutely no instances of non‑compliance regarding either the accuracy or the
appropriateness of reimbursement requests that were submitted related to travel. So
that was good news as well.
There was some information provided about the Enterprise Risk Management Program
that's been launched. It's a philosophy, if you will, that provides some ownership of
risk institution‑wide related to proposed programs
and things that are being initiated and it was
really informative to hear about the table top exercise that was conducted as part of
that. The benefits I think will be institution‑wide
as we begin to evaluate across the campus risks inherent
in any initiative that's being proposed or moved forward just as a matter of the way
we do business.
The only other thing I would mention is, as always, we had an update on our Ethics
Report Line, and it's always important for us to consider what's being reported on the
Ethics Report Line and how those matters are being
dealt with. We believe it's very important to
address concerns that are made by members of our campus community. In all, seven reports
were received during the quarter that we were considering, so that would have been from
November, December, January, and of those seven, six were being addressed at that time
and one was ‑‑ six had been addressed at that
time and one was still under review. But we certainly
take those very seriously and we always take an opportunity to discuss them at the Audit
Committee report. That concludes my report. There are some other
items mentioned in your board packet. That being said, I'll stand for any questions.
Hearing none, that will conclude the Audit Committee report. That takes us to the
President's Recommendations for Action and Trustee Dr. Cook.
>> Trustee Cook: Treasurer's Report is contained in your packet for both the months of
December and January. All expenditures made in both months were according to budget and
I really want to compliment, Don, the entire
staff as we go through the financial process of
paying strict attention to the budget. A few highlights. We received state aid payments
of $10.8 million and ad valorem tax distribution
of 38.3 million. Total general fund revenues as of
January 31 are $92,379,982, which is about 800,000 ahead of where we were a year ago
at this time. Under Page 79, cash balance report,
we have a book balance of $109.8 million with 27.2 million in outstanding encumbrances,
leaving us with an unencumbered balance of $82.6 million. It is the recommendation of
the College Administration that the Board of
Trustees approve the Treasurer's Report for the months of December 2012 and January 2013
subject to audit, and I'll make that motion. >> Second.
>> Chair Rayl: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in
favor say aye. (Ayes.)
>> Chair Rayl: Opposed? Motion carries. >> Trustee Cook: That completes my report,
Madam Chair. >> Chair Rayl: Thank you, Trustee Dr. Cook.
That takes us to the President's monthly report to the Board and Dr. Calaway.
>> Dr. Calaway: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple of items to point out this
month. One, first, congratulations to our Institutional Research Office and our Grants
Office, we are the recipients of a half million dollar
grant from the Gates Foundation to provide or
develop a national benchmark study that's being used and has been used for a number
of years in assessing and developing some accountability
standards nationally for community colleges, and congratulations to the team and institutional
research for that really excellent work. We're very, very proud of the things that they're
doing. Also in February, we were pleased to host
on one of our snow days the Naturalization Ceremony for about 400 individuals who were
becoming United States citizens. I was honored to be asked to be the guest speaker for that
event, but maybe most particularly I'd like to thank
Rex Hays and folks in Yardley Hall and our performing arts area, also food service for
all the work that they did in coming in on a really
bad, snowy day. I think that was the day we had
about 14 or so inches of snow on the campus. Rex and his team were able to get that piece
of the campus open, and while everybody else
around town was closed, we were open for that Naturalization Ceremony, and I know Anita
Tebbe sent out a number of thank you notes and
included some of the board members, but we were really thankful to Rex to Jay Glass and
the team in food service, Emily Behrmann and Anthony
Perry and everybody who did way beyond the call of duty efforts to allow that event
to happen. It's pretty special when people do those
extra things, and in some ways, how they dug themselves out of their driveways, we don't
really know yet. But they were all here and made it happen and you would never known that
the weather was as bad as it was that day. Also, congratulations to Lori Slavin and Brenda
Edmonds, two faculty members. Lori is a faculty member, professor in the chemistry
area and Brenda Edmonds is a professor in mathematics who received the League for Innovation
Excellence Awards at this last Innovations Conference that occurred this
week in Dallas. We congratulate them and celebrate their really outstanding work. Lori and Brenda,
as you know, were very, very involved in the college developing its learning outcomes approach
to the things that we do and the assessment learning outcomes and just want to celebrate
their really outstanding work. And also congratulations to Trustee Musil
who on March 6th received the 2013 Justinian Award for Professional Excellence. That was
awarded ‑‑ that is, by the way, the highest award
bestowed on an attorney ‑‑ by the Johnson County Bar Association, and as it read in
the information they put out, it's for attorneys
who exemplify integrity, service to the community, service to the profession, warmth, friendliness
and camaraderie, and we congratulate Trustee Musil for that ‑‑
(Laughter.) >> Dr. Calaway: ‑‑ that wonderful award.
(Applause.) >> Dr. Calaway: And, Madam Chair, that would
conclude my comments, although you all are very welcome to make any comments
you'd like to make. (Laughter.)
>> No. >> Dr. Calaway: But congratulations.
>> Chair Rayl: I have to say something. Now, I, you know, I would just observe that we
enjoy giving you a hard time primarily because you're so good at giving it yourself. But
certainly we congratulate you on your award, and it is ‑‑ as a member of the legal
community, I'm well aware of your reputation and it is
very well deserved, so congratulations. >> Trustee Musil: Thank you. I appreciate
your self‑discipline when you answered that, not having your jaw drop open. I do have a
couple comments on the president's remarks. I
think having the Immigration Naturalization Ceremony on campus is a great thing, and
what's ‑‑ as impressive as it is and Dr. Sopcich reported on this at the Foundation
Executive Committee, as impressive as it is that Rex
and his crew and the Yardley Hall folks cleared out
snow and opened up for that, 400‑plus people who wanted to become U.S. citizens fought
their way through that snow to do it, and probably
in worse circumstances with respect to transportation or otherwise than most of us
suffer. So I congratulate you and Anita Tebbe for
doing that. If you haven't been to a Naturalization Ceremony, you want to feel like an
American, that's the best way to do it. The second thing is, I should have asked Dr.
Cook during the treasurer's report, because I
have to comment on the "Campus Ledger" editorial that criticized the fact that we were open
on one day and suggested that profits from the
student ‑‑ the commons restaurant and the library
were the profit motive for keeping open, and I just want to say, I appreciate the fact
that that is such a difficult decision on behalf of the
administration here, just like it is for K‑12 or anyplace
else, and I thought based on the way the streets were cleared the second day, it was ‑‑ it
was the right thing to do and we obviously had faculty
and students here that we're trying to serve. And
I'm not trying to pick on the "Ledger," but that is such a difficult determination to
make and you're never going to get it right, but I
appreciate the fact that I think you got it right this time
and that you and your staff worry about that trying to figure out what is the balance between
safety and our learning environment, which is what we're here for. So thank you for doing
a good job on that.
>> Dr. Calaway: I can honestly say, in the entire time I've been here, I've never ‑‑ we're
never made a decision one way or the other where someone wasn't unhappy with us, and
every time someone raises that question, I always
encourage them to volunteer to be part of the phone
conference that happens at 4:00 a.m. when we make those decisions. But I would say that
day was ‑‑ that certainly was the right call.
I'd love to say that I made it, but Dr. Sopcich, as you
might know, was administrator in charge that day and absolutely made the right call.
By the way, I had a faculty member stop me today who said he was really pleased that
we were open that day because he had lost a couple
of other days obviously, and he actually encouraged me to switch out and have us hold
classes ‑‑ and he's serious about this ‑‑ hold
classes over Spring Break to make up for the time they missed, and I said unless he would
allow me to use his name we weren't going to make that decision.
(Laughter.) >> Dr. Calaway: He chose not to allow me to
use his name. But it absolutely was the right call, and while not easy, it took a
lot of courage to do the right thing, and I just provide
commendation to Dr. Sopcich. It really was the right thing to do and it's good to have
class held whenever we can. And just for the record,
we probably lost money that day in both the cafeteria and the bookstore, so, because we
have to bring the whole group in if we're going to
be open, so. >> Chair Rayl: Any other questions or comments
for Dr. Calaway? That takes us to our Clinical Affiliate Agreements
and Dr. Calaway. >> Dr. Calaway: Thank you, Madam Chair. We
have two recommendations today for our Clinical Affiliate Agreements. The first Clinical
Affiliate Agreement I would ask your consideration around would be in support of
our Health and Human Services program, pharmacy tech, and specifically and it's for
two agency agreements, one with the Balls Price
Chopper Pharmacy in Olathe, and also Shawnee Mission Medical Center in Shawnee Mission
area. It's for our pharmacy tech program, and is it the recommendation of the College
Administration that the Board of Trustees authorize the college to enter into an agreement
with those two agencies for the clinical appearances
in pharmacy technician training and this would be for the period of May 1, 2013, through
June 30, 2013. >> I'll make that motion.
>> Chair Rayl: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
>> Second. >> Chair Rayl: I have a motion and a second.
Any discussion? We always value these clinical agreements to provide our students
with the opportunity to perform in the field, so with
that, no further discussion, all in favor say aye.
(Ayes.) >> Chair Rayl: Opposed? Motion carries.
>> Dr. Calaway: Thank you. The second Clinical Affiliate Agreement for your
consideration this evening is in support of our Hospitality Management Program for dietary
managers, and this would be an internship experience for those students. The clinical
affiliate partnership is with the VA Eastern Kansas
Healthcare System, both their Topeka and Leavenworth sites. Again, this would be for
our Dietary Manager internship experience, and it
is the recommendation of the College Administration that the Board of Trustees authorize the
college to enter into an agreement with the VA Eastern Kansas Healthcare System for clinical
appearances for the period of February 22nd, 2013, through June 30, 2013.
>> I'll move the motion. >> Chair Rayl: I have a motion. Do I have
a second? >> Second.
>> Chair Rayl: Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye.
(Ayes.) >> Chair Rayl: Opposed? Motion carries.
>> Dr. Calaway: That would conclude my report. >> Chair Rayl: Thank you, Dr. Calaway. That
takes us to the old business portion of our agenda. I don't believe we have any old business,
nor do we have any new business, and so we're ready for reports from board liaisons
and we'll begin with Student Senate report from
Ms. Iacuzzi. >> Ms. Iacuzzi: Good evening. Since last time
we met, we elected a new Parliamentarian. We're also staying really
busy participating in campus activities (indiscernible) on March 13th and by organizing
fundraisers and service projects. The council led by the Student Senate Vice President Laura
Blomberg raised $730.45 through the Penny Challenge. The winner of the composition was
the Veterans Club with a total of $167.78. The
club would be rewarded with food delivered to one of their meetings. The funds raised
from the Penny Challenge were used to purchase
(indiscernible) ‑‑ to raise money for the American
Cancer Society. On March 27, at noon we will be hosting a
town hall meeting to talk about the new learning management system that will substitute
Angel in 2014. We will ask students for input about what characteristics they would like
to see in the new learning management system. Our service project for this semester is a
clothing drive. This will start after Spring Break
and it will go on until the last week of April. We are hoping to collect a big amount of clothes
to donate to the Kansas City Rescue Mission. Also, on March 1st was the deadline to apply
to the International Out of State Campus Involvement
Award. On March 13, three senators ‑‑ (Indiscernible) ‑‑ and myself met and
awarded scholarships to three international students.
Finally, we are in the process of looking for candidates for next year's executive board.
Thank you for your time.
>> Chair Rayl: Thank you, Ms. Iacuzzi. Any questions from the Board? Thank you. It's
always refreshing and exciting to hear what the students are doing. So thank you for your
report. Next we have the KACCT report. Trustee Dr.
Cook. >> Trustee Cook: Thank you, Madam Chair. On
Thursday, February 14th, the KACCT had a joint meeting with the college presidents
and it was also the day of the luncheon for the
Phi Theta Kappa winners. Students were recognized academic scholars, we had ‑‑ and by the
way, Dr. Calaway, Dr. Sopcich, Trustee Lindstrom, and I made the trip to Topeka for the day.
We had two students who were recognized, Laura Blomberg from Lawrence. She's going to
continue her education at Kansas State University in liberal arts. She's currently the vice
president of the Student Senate and holding other positions as well. Jeshuna Shrusta (phonetic)
of Overland Park, I think I got that right, Joe, she's going to also continue her education
at Kansas State University in engineering. So
we were well represented with two fine students at
the luncheon. In the breakout meeting, at least for KACCT,
we had some presentations from Commerce, Department of Commerce, Director
of Training Services on Workforce Development. We also had discussion on affordable
care. We talked a little bit about the articulation agreements, and they are in committee
working well. I think a couple of you had questions about where that was. Dr. Calaway,
you might want to speak a little bit to that in
more detail. Our next meeting of the KACCT will be June,
June 7th and 8th in Dodge City. It will be our summer retreat. We'll have election of
officers for the state association, and so if any of
you are interested in running for office for that board, let us know and we'll get your
name nominated.
Trustee Lindstrom, you were at the session. Do you have any comments you want to
make about the luncheon? And Derek Schmidt, the Attorney General, was the main speaker.
But, again, the students were each individually recognized by their respective colleges and
this really is a nice event.
>> Trustee Lindstrom: I was impressed with the proceedings and was pleased to be able
to participate and wanted to make a comment that also was impressed with your participation
at the committee level and as was some of the
other leadership people involved in the committee, and who ‑‑ who solicited your participation
and leadership there, so. >> Trustee Cook: Well, pending the April election,
we'll determine whether we pursue that or not. Dr. Calaway, do you have any
‑‑ >> Dr. Calaway: Yeah. To Trustee Cook's question
related to articulation, the articulation process continues to move ahead at the Regents
level with some significant effort on the part of
our faculty. This past fall we had major discipline and division meetings with our university
partners and community college partners around core outcomes, statewide core outcomes
discipline by discipline level. We all describe those meetings now as high stakes meetings
and they went very, very well. We were, again,
very appreciative to our faculty. We had a significant group that participated in all
of those conversations and influencing a lot of the
decisions. We do have four courses that are on the docket
for this month's Regent meeting for approval into the core outcomes and articulation
process, which would bring about 15 additional hours of credit that our students
will be able to have guaranteed as far as transfer.
The goal for this year is a full 60 credit hours added in to the articulation mechanism.
So that will give us ‑‑ get us to the place where
we would pretty much have a core outcomes approach
to our curriculum. So very, very pleased with the way the process is going. I think this
is one where we have to continue to keep our finger
on the pulse of what's happening and encourage a
lot of strong faculty engagement, involvement. But I would say cautiously optimistic on how
we continue to work, and I think that we will see that, those courses be approved throughout
the course of the process. Regent Logan continues to be very active in his involvement with
the process, and so any encouragement that you can provide him to continue to push the
envelope for all of us is much appreciated, so. That would conclude my comments unless
there's other specifics. >> Chair Rayl: Thank you, Dr. Calaway. Trustee
Cook? >> Trustee Cook: That concludes my report.
>> Chair Rayl: Any questions from the board? That takes us to the Johnson County
Research Triangle report and Trustee Musil. >> Trustee Musil: No meeting since our last
meeting. >> Chair Rayl: That was succinct. You are
up next for the Foundation report. >> Trustee Musil: Meeting.
(Laughter.) The Foundation help its annual block party
on March 6th for members of the Open Petal Employee Contribution Program. This group
of faculty and staff financially support student assistance and programming by contributing
either through payroll deductions or a one‑time gift, and there are currently 225 members
of the Open Petal Employee Contribution Program, and that's obviously a place where employees
and staff ‑‑ faculty and staff give back to the
Foundation to help the very students that they're serving, which is awesome.
The annual international dinner was held last Friday night, March 8th. It was again sold
out and the event raises between two and three thousand dollars for international student
scholarships each year. I'm sorry I wasn't able to go, but I understand it was sold‑out,
but a very good event. So Foundation continues to
move forward in its role of supporting the college
and supporting students. >> Chair Rayl: Thank you for your report.
Any questions? >> Dr. Calaway: Madam Chair.
>> Chair Rayl: Yes. >> Dr. Calaway: If I might, just one additional
comment, or maybe announcement as a part of the Foundation and really just going
public I know this week with the press release, but
very proud to announce that former Trustee Lynn Mitchelson was selected as the Johnson
Countian of the Year. We congratulate him on that announcement, and I know the press
release is out, you know. Those of you who know Lynn
know his exceptional work in the community in fundraising with community foundation,
certainly with our Foundation board, he served exceptionally well and as in his role as trustee
here at college, and we all look forward to a
great celebration of Lynn at Some Enchanted Evening in November. We congratulate him and
ask you to congratulate him and recognize him when you see him in the community. But
really well‑deserved and maybe long overdue recognition
of Lynn. >> Chair Rayl: Yeah, that's wonderful news.
Anything else? Any other comments? Trustee Musil?
That takes us to our Faculty Association report, and I see Dr. Williams approaching the
podium. >> Dr. Williams: Good evening. I have to be
honest, I thought we'd never get to my report.
(Laughter.) A long meeting this evening. I have to be
honest, my report is probably going to be regarded as part report, part testimonial,
and maybe partially a call to action. When I first walked in the room, I was ‑‑ you
know, I sat down and I was listening to the comments about *** Carter's report and I
was doing a lot of head nodding, agreeing, and right
on, and a lot of Trustee Musil's comments I'll refer back to in the call to action part.
But I was reminded, when I was driving up here, I thought
how am I going to introduce my comments tonight about all that's happening, you know,
at the capitol, and so I thought, well, you know,
recently I was going to talk about climate change. I'm serious.
(Laughs.) I recently attended a lecture at KU on climate
change and it was an environmental philosopher and, you know, he was presenting,
you know, what we need to do. Essentially what he concluded after identifying all of
the various concerns that we know are out there about
that topic, as an environmental philosopher he basically concluded that it was time for
what he called an actionable ethic. It was time for
us to do something because we all know, you know,
what the consequences of doing nothing might be. We can predict with a reasonable degree
of certainty, you know, what might happen or
what might continue to be the case. So this was a mixed audience of faculty members
and students, and there was a very insightful student in the audience who ‑‑ who
made the statement, well, there's just a lot of
rhetoric, and this rhetoric, you know, guides our ‑‑ our action or our inaction, and
so we buy into the sound bites and believe, you know,
convince ourselves that we're actually doing something and we're really doing nothing and
that, therefore, the problem persists and that we
kind of recycle these issues over and over. So then another insightful student asked the
question, well, why do we tolerate this? You know, why do we settle for something less
than the positive solution? So I was thinking about
that and I thought, you know, sounds familiar. Sounds like what we're watching at the capitol,
you know, there's a lot of rhetoric. There's a war on education. We've all heard that.
Tonight we heard there's real challenges to this institution.
You know, we've heard ‑‑ and there's a crisis
at the capitol. In fact, the correspondence between the Faculty Association and the KNEA,
we talk about the crisis.
And so there's the rhetoric. And so it begs the question, you know, what can we do?
What's our actionable ethic? What's our call to action that might help bring us to a better
place? And so I was listening to the comments tonight
particularly over, you know, things like openness and transparency, you know, the things
that we all value in this audience and in the
community as well. What if? What if the Johnson County Community College Faculty
Association and the Board of Trustees took a position on these issues that we find are
mutually agreeable? Take a stance like we don't want
guns on our campus, or maybe we don't like the
form that these collective bargaining bills have taken. We don't like blind‑side legislation.
We don't like sucker punch legislation that changes
at 2:00 in the morning. And so just a thought and an invitation, perhaps
in Executive Session you can decide whether you want to take me up on that. I
know there are people in the audience that would be
ready to help draft a position on those topics, and I think that would bring us to an actionable
ethic. It would bring us to an action, something we can do instead of just passively listening
and hoping for the best. But to get back to Trustee Musil's comment,
you said, you know, with the form of some of these bills, you know, he would have to
be summoned to the capitol before he could make
statements. Well, that's not the state of things now. Let's ‑‑ let's make our positions
known. And so I think a joint effort ‑‑ remember
when I first came before the Board as Faculty Association president, I said one of my goals
was to unify. I said that I was going to take and
make opportunities for the Board and for faculty to work together. I think this is an
opportunity. Well, there's the call to action part, maybe
part of the testimonial part. So I'll move right
into the Board report part. So there is other news. There's a lot of other things happening,
we just launched our Faculty Senate. We had our
first meeting last week. We're going to have four
before the end of this semester, and the goal is to draft by‑laws and get some leadership
in place. I remain very hopeful that we can define
that body to work cooperatively with the existing groups, including the Faculty Association
and the Educational Affairs Committee. There's a lot of really important work to
be done and there's a lot of really good incentivized people to step up and be vocal about, you
know, some of the great items that can change or
improve and at least be more representative. And, again, keep in mind that the Faculty
Senate includes adjunct faculty. So that's a piece
that is very important for us to hear what those
concerns are, because as everyone knows, full‑time faculty share a lot of the same interests
are our part‑time faculty group.
The presidential hiring search is underway, although I ‑‑ parenthetically I should
say it's not too late to call it all off. No. We are
going to meet next week and look at applicants ‑‑
applications and we're moving forward with that process. And so the last time I checked,
we had well over 20 applications and we're hopeful
that we get some good candidates that we can ‑‑ we can invite to our campus and
move forward with that process. The other thing I have to mention is our political
action committee met and we reviewed some information that was available to us.
We invited all of the candidates to submit questionnaires, answers to questionnaires,
and we received those back and ultimately it resulted
in a decision to endorse the following candidates: Lee Cross, Bob Drummond, Melody Rayl,
and Stephanie Sharp. And so as was stated earlier, the faculty, you know, urge the community
and the community of JCCC, but the community at‑large to get out and vote and also take
advantage of another opportunity to get informed about these candidates. It's March 22nd.
There's a joint effort between the Johnson County Community College and the League of
Women Voters. At 7:00 p.m. in this room, March 22nd, there's a candidate forum. So all of
the trustee candidates will be here to answer
questions and we hope for a good turn‑out. I always feature, you know, faculty who are
doing great things and I think some faculty have already been featured tonight. We've
had on your first page of our agenda Bruce Hartman
of course with the NAACP Diversity Advocate Award..
We also have Brenda Edmonds and Lori Slavin that just won the innovation ‑‑ League
of Innovation award. Because this is sort of
a February‑March kind of report, since we didn't
meet last month, I had notes to mention some real key events that occurred in February
that brought a lot of attention to this campus
and impact in the community. And one was, I
mentioned I think it was in the January meeting that we would be hosting this One Billion
Rising dance‑off, a protest and it was a very successful event. It drew some media
attention locally and it was essentially a dance protest
against domestic violence. And so a faculty member in my own department, in the science
division, Gina Egan spearheaded that effort and
there's actually some continuing events associated with that this month that you'll see more
about in the info lists and other places on our website.
Also we hosted the third annual Horticultural Science Field Day, and I heard estimates
that we had in excess of 400 people across the day, and it drew people from other states,
it drew people from other campuses, and students,
faculty, experts in the field, and so it's something
that certainly reached a lot of people, a lot of faculty, a lot of students and community
members featured our Horticultural Science Program.
We ‑‑ I guess another thought I'd have is to kind of go back to, again, the first
page of the minutes. We have Kathy Wing, Melissa Reiss,
American Society for Training & Development. I had a note, you know, JCCC is a great place
to work because we have great people working here, and while I always feature faculty,
I think it's important to feature everyone who's doing
great things. And so we have some people on the front page there I would also call your
attention to. We have adjunct instructors who just recently announced in info list won
our Lieberman Award, which is a recognition for
excellence in teaching among our adjunct faculty, and we also today have featured the Excel
Award, which is ‑‑ there was a list of about half a
dozen people who won awards for excellence in staff on our campus, various activities
across, administrative assistant and other staff kind
of functions on our campus. So JCCC is a great place to work. We have
a lot of important work to do, a lot of challenges that's coming up for us to face.
Hopefully we can work together to confront those
and move forward in a very positive way. That's all I have.
>> Chair Rayl: Thank you, Dr. Williams, for your report. I enjoyed tremendously hearing
your comments, and I want to thank you for ‑‑ sometimes you really put yourself out
there, and I appreciate that you're willing to do that.
I wanted to make a couple of comments and then I'll
open it up to the Board for questions. I couldn't agree with you more about your ‑‑ what
you characterize as your call to action and, you
know, it kind of reminds me of a tenet that I've
heard throughout my life, and that is you can either sit back and let things happen
to you or you can go out and try to make things happen on
your own, and I think that it's a time for us to
come together collaboratively and really try to address what's going on as opposed to just
sitting back and letting it happen to us, which certainly is not going to be beneficial
for the institution in any way.
You mentioned the president's search committee. I thought I would provide just a little
more information in that regard. I'm sure everybody is curious as to where we stand.
We have at last count, and I'll defer to Dr. Korb,
but at last count I believe we have well over 30
applications for the position, and our next meeting for the search committee will be Wednesday
morning, the 20th. It was delayed slightly with weather and everything, kind of got us
behind a little bit. But we're meeting when morning,
the 20th. That is when, right? Wednesday morning, the 20th, and at that time, we hope
to sift through those 30‑some odd applicants and
select our semi‑finalists. So that's our goal and we hope to be able to accomplish
that. Finally, you also mentioned the upcoming election,
April 2nd. Please vote. Trustee Sharp mentioned earlier that the turn‑out for
spring elections is often ‑‑ well, almost always extremely
low. I would ‑‑ I would offer that spring elections involve elections to positions that
have perhaps the most profound impact on each of
us in our day‑to‑day living because they're all
local elections, and so please do take the time to get out and vote on April 2nd and
let your voice be heard at the ballot.
So with that I'll open it up to the Board for comments. Trustee Musil.
>> Trustee Musil: I'm interested, you said the Faculty Senate had met, and I gather it's
still in the planning group to figure out how a Faculty Senate might be organized? Or
where are we in that process?
>> Dr. Williams: We actually took a vote and we have a Faculty Senate has been
approved to be established on our campus, and they're in the early phases of drafting
by‑laws and looking at leadership. We have some interim
leadership positions right now as we go through the phases of essentially determining
by‑laws for functionality, for lack of a better ‑‑ a
better way of phrasing it. >> Trustee Musil: I'm interested ‑‑ it
may not be tonight ‑‑ but in understanding the
process you go through to figure out how representation will be determined ‑‑
>> Dr. Williams: Uh‑huh. >> Trustee Musil: ‑‑ among the entire
faculty, both full‑time and adjunct and that kind of
process, and it would be interesting to know. >> Dr. Williams: We had ‑‑ I can just
say briefly, the process actually has been about a
year‑long process in terms of researching options, and at one point we had three different
‑‑ I wouldn't say separate proposals, but three
different renditions of one ‑‑ one larger proposal that
looked at those kinds of models, whether we wanted, you know, one adjunct and one full‑time
faculty member for every division, sort of more of an equity model and there's a proportionate
model based on size of the division. So to make a long story short, we opted for what
was ultimately regarded as a hybrid model and
it has essentially left to the discretion of the division
how they wanted to ‑‑ two senators for every division and then there was also, you
know, some agreed upon membership that were part of the
executive council, which included the Faculty Association president, chair of Ed Affairs,
the Faculty Senate president, I think an at‑large position, an adjunct faculty member. So we
have, you know, some scaffolding of what we wanted in the executive piece and then this
so‑called hybrid model that essentially would allow
two representatives from every division, but discretion in the division as to how they
populated that. And so, then basically took a vote.
But ‑‑ oh, by the way, but during that time, we're also drafting and redrafting and
having lots of good conversations about what we now
call our ‑‑ the constitution of the Faculty Senate
that spells out some of that, but part of the actual structure and implementation part
is going to be reflected in by‑laws, which is what this
first elected group will be working on over the rest
of this semester. So I know that may not have answered everything, but if you'd like to
see, you know, the final product in terms of the actual
constitution or drafts up that point, we can make
that information available. >> Trustee Musil: I just think the point is
that the most effective system would be one that is broadly represented and diversely
represented of all faculty members and positions, and
that the process is as important sometimes as the people, although both are important.
So it's a worthy task and a big task to try to organize
that. >> Dr. Williams: Absolutely. And I know on
behalf of the task force members, there's every opportunity to make it transparent and
make it representative and I think what we have
as a, you know, first stab is a very good product and time will tell as we, again, morph
it into something that's more functional, we'll have
the opportunity to see. I'm looking in the audience, I see we have one senator present.
Ron, if you'd like to add anything, I'd let you
comment. >> Yes. The election process, we have representives
from each ‑‑ (Inaudible). We elect two full‑time faculty. (Inaudible.) And
also the head of Ed Affairs is on the Executive Board.
(Inaudible.) >> Trustee Musil: If I'd known you were a
senator, I never would have said procedure was more important than people, or even close.
>> Thank you. >> Trustee Lindstrom: I have a question for
the Chair. >> Chair Rayl: Yes, Trustee Lindstrom?
>> Trustee Lindstrom: Dr. Williams mentioned a call to action for the Board of Trustees
and the Chair echoed those comments. Has this ‑‑ and again, I'm learning here as I go
and I'm new. But has the Board ever considered asking
the Chair to send a letter on a concise and prioritized positions that the legislature
is taking up that we could send them a letter so that
there is no doubt about the position of this Board to where we stand on those issues?
>> Chair Rayl: You know, I certainly think that there has historically been a practice
of providing input on certain issues where that
input is warranted. You know, by way of example, I appeared before the legislature last year
to talk about guns on campus and provide that input
as a member of the Board. And I personally think that that is an absolutely essential
practice for us to make our views known to the state
legislature, but I wouldn't want to speak for the
entire Board. >> Trustee Lindstrom: And I'm suggesting that
we have a discussion on some of those issues that are concerning to the Board and
why can't we come up with a position? I mean with ‑‑ with some notice, I'm not suggesting
we do that tonight, but with some notice, and then
authorizing the Chair on behalf of the Board to send a letter saying this is how we feel
on that issue, because the issues come up from time
to time that the Board may not be ‑‑ and staff may
not be quite aware of. >> Chair Rayl: Trustee Sharp.
>> Trustee Sharp: Thank you, Madam Chair. To address both your question and some of
your concerns, we sort of do that already by Mr. Carter provides testimony on a regular
basis, whether it's in person, spoken testimony or
written testimony that represents the interest of the
college, which is sort of the same as the Board making that point. What I would say
is that ‑‑ and I'm in Topeka once a week mostly for my
work, and what I would encourage each of us to
do, we've probably all touched base with our representative and our state senator, but
the bottom line is they're not listening to large
institutions, especially those that are taxpayer‑funded schools, cities, chambers
to some extent, and to be really honest, all of us at
this table can only vote for one representative and one senator, and we need those people
who are involved in the community college, the
faculty and their spouses, their children, their
parents, all of you sitting here, staff, students, to make those contacts so that there's a critical
mass of opposition or support, depending on, you know, where we are on some of these issues.
And if you don't know who your representative or senator is, go to openkansas.org. It's
very easy. Enter in your address and it will pop
up contact information, both at home and in the
capitol. Very easy. Photos of your folks so that if you are in the grocery store you can
stop them. But I would say that we are actively
supporting and opposing legislation on a daily basis. There are always 911 issues in Topeka.
I see people all the time running to the library to
write new testimony because a bill has just been announced that it's coming up for hearing
tomorrow. So we're very active I would say. But it is really incumbent on individual voters
to make those contact, because they're not listening
to us. >> Trustee Lindstrom: I think they might listen
to us if we had a unified voice in the form of some kind of a letter or action.
>> Chair Rayl: And I wonder, and maybe Mr. Carter can speak to this, I ‑‑ and certainly,
you know, *** carries our water to Topeka as an institution, but I find myself wondering,
we're elected by the taxpayers, we're not representing the institution solely. We represent
our constituents. And so it's a different voice,
and so to your comments, I think that perhaps there
is merit in expressing that voice. But, Mr. Carter, I would certainly welcome your comments
in that regard.
>> Mr. Carter: I should have acted on my earlier instinct to leave and go back to Topeka
so I could write more testimony. (Laughter.)
>> Mr. Carter: The only thing I would offer is it's sometimes not as simple as we maybe
like to talk about it. There are other people at play. We are part of a coordinated body.
They don't tell us what to do, but we are team
players, that being the Board of Regents, who has the
six state universities and a municipal university, 19 community colleges, and 6 technical
colleges. And so we do speak for the most part with a unified voice from that group.
We also work very closely with the 19 through the
Kansas Association of Community College trustees, their executive director and their lobbyists.
There is very frequently a unified effort there,
as well as , and Dr. Calaway, you'll have to help me with the name that it's being given,
it's not a formalized name, but the group, is it a
response team from the KACCT that there are several
presidents and trustees of which Dr. Calaway is one that will come to Topeka on a regular
basis to visit with legislators. I see Dr. Cook
shaking his head because he's well aware of the
conversations that occur at those board meetings at KACCT.
Certainly there is value in submitting a letter with nine signatures on it, or six or seven.
I was told never to do math on the fly. That's
a great policy, y'all. And I think it just depends on
the issue, the timeliness of the issue and like Trustee Sharp said, sometimes things
happen at the drop of a hat. In the instance and without
continuing my report, and I am going to sit down,
but a perfect example is the tax bill that was passed out of House Tax Committee. It
wasn't printed. There was never a hearing. It was
put into a bill and passed out. You can't do
anything about that until after the fact sometimes. And so those are all the things that sort
of go into the big hopper and get turned around, if
you will. But where there is a known ‑‑ where there is a known issue or sort of an issue
of ‑‑ that there might be small differences in different
bills, but we know what the general concepts are to answer your question, Trustee Lindquist,
I think that ‑‑ Lindstrom, pardon me. This is
what you get when you're writing testimony at 11:00 p.m. and then you go back into the
office at 6:00 a.m. I do think that there can be
some value in a unified voice for the institution itself.
>> Chair Rayl: Trustee Musil. >> Trustee Musil: I think we ought to consider
what many other governmental institutions subsections of state government
do, whether they're school boards or cities, and
consider maybe for next legislative session, you can ‑‑ they do a statement of kind
of principles on broad ‑‑ on tax policy, we want some
consistency, we want some certainty, and then they
might take positions on specific bills and we take positions on local government control
that we should be the ones that determine the success,
failure, future, or whatever of this institution, which then affects things like budget and
caps on our spending and guns on ‑‑ so ‑‑ so that we
have ‑‑ I think to some extent if we had more of a discussion here and a public vote
on those things, it might carry more weight that there
are seven people here speaking for 575,000 Johnson Countians and not just Dr. Calaway
going up there as the ‑‑ who's seen as an employee
of an institution kind of protecting himself and his faculty and staff, which is not the
reality, but I, you know, maybe there are ways we can assist
both the president going up there or Dr. Sopcich and *** going up there and speaking
to say is, your point ‑‑ is it ‑‑ they're not
speak ‑‑ they may be speaking for the institution. We're speaking based on our role
as elected officials who are elected countywide. And
maybe we ought to do more in that sense because we've never really ‑‑ I don't think ‑‑ we
haven't had a specific legislative agenda we've all kind
of known where we were going on certain issues, but making that public and publicizing it
as the will of the Board might have a stronger impact. I think it's worth ‑‑ I think
Trustee Lindstrom's idea is worth looking into.
>> Dr. Calaway: Madam Chair, if I might. >> Chair Rayl: Yes, Dr. Calaway.
>> Dr. Calaway: As you might remember, in previous years we would hold legislative
breakfast meetings where we would invite our legislative delegation to come in and we would
do exactly what Trustee Musil described. Unfortunately, the last couple of sessions, some our
elected representatives have chosen not to come visit with us, and that's really unfortunate,
but as a result of that, I mean we really did
go through the process of developing our own legislative agenda and we would ‑‑ we
would share that with them during those December breakfast meetings. And I think there's a
lot of value in what Trustee Musil just described, maybe as part of a fall board either retreat
or maybe special meeting or maybe as part of a
meeting like we do with our budget in April, maybe somewhere like in October, so having
that kind of a conversation where we make our legislative
platform, you know, pretty clear, because of the ‑‑ the nature of where we're at,
which is we have elected officials up in ‑‑ who leave
Johnson County, go up to Topeka to represent us, not wanting to meet with us, that might
be the best way for us to deal with that and to provide
that out in a ‑‑ some kind of written form. But I
think also then to Trustee Lindstrom's suggestion, it doesn't mean that once you do that, you
don't ‑‑ you don't deal with issues when they ‑‑ when they happen, and maybe that
‑‑ to ***'s question, certainly to Dr. Williams' suggestion.
So I just think that there's opportunities for us to be more involved and maybe more
influential. We've done I think a pretty solid job of influencing the agenda through KACCT
and certainly ***'s represented us very well. I give it my best shot every week or once
every couple weeks or so and I'll be up there this
Wednesday again. But you're right, I mean at a
certain place, I think it would be good for them to hear from all of you particularly
on some of these really important issues like, you know,
the tax issues, like the guns on campus, like local
control. You know, maybe gentle ‑‑ it may be sometimes less than gentle reminders
of our very, very strong position on things might be important,
and whether it's all of you as a collective group or maybe the Chair representing all
of you, you know, maybe it's Dr. Williams, myself,
and Board chair representing all of us. I mean there's a number of ways that we could
do that. But I will tell you this. Our Faculty Association
carries a lot of weight. It may not ‑‑ they may not always want to listen, but they know
that they influence votes, right. >> Dr. Williams: I hope so.
>> Dr. Calaway: Yeah, we have 21, 22,000 students who are voters, plus their families.
That's ‑‑ that becomes a large number very quickly, and I think that there's ways
that we can assure safety on campus and assure that the
taxpayers of Johnson County aren't taking the brunt
of a lot of this and, you know, the reality of life is when someone makes some simple
swipe of a pen, they don't always realize what the
unintended consequences will be and I think that's a
lot of what we fight on a regular basis when we go up there.
>> Chair Rayl: Yes, Trustee Lindstrom. >> Trustee Lindstrom: Just more specific.
I think it's important if our legislators do not
know, Trustee Stewart mentioned the machinery and equipment was one of his major concerns.
The impact of that could be a potential $533,000 ‑‑ I don't know what the exact number
is, I don't have it in front of me in my computer,
but it's somewhere in that ballpark. I don't know
and if they know, but if they don't or if we're not sure our legislators know that's
the impact that it has on this institution and what the alternatives
are for us if that happens, I think we ‑‑ it's incumbent upon us to inform them of that,
whether it come in the form of a letter, a phone call.
I just think it's more meaningful if it's one sheet of paper saying this is ‑‑ this
is the college position on what's about to happen.
>> Dr. Williams: And if I may, just to kind of echo that sentiment. I mean what I see
the utility of having a statement is when these
bills come out unannounced or unbeknownst to
those in the audience, you can pull out the statement and you know the position of the
Faculty Association and the Board of Trustees, it
serves as a ‑‑ for whatever damage the unintended
swipe of a pen can do, there's a lot of power in the intentional swipe of a pen. And I think
that's what I'm suggesting that we consider. I think
we share ‑‑ I know we share a lot of the same
perspectives on these issues, and to go back to the rhetoric, the war, the crisis, the
battle, whatever form you want to characterize it
as is not one that we should not take opportunities to
confront, address. And so I think one way to do that is to invite this discussion and
I very much appreciate that it inspired the discussion
it has inspired already tonight. But please know that
faculty would be ready and willing to meet with any or all of you to help craft such
a position, and I think we would probably have a lot more
impact than we can imagine at the moment. >> Chair Rayl: Agreed. Any other comments
from the Board? Trustee Stewart. >> Trustee Stewart: Don't interpret this as
I don't support or I do support a Faculty Senate. But I really don't understand yet
what the Faculty Senate is going to do and how that
relates to the operation of the college. Are Faculty Senate members compensated? Are they
compensated for time off to serve on the Faculty Senate? I mean these are questions that I
think we need to understand to ‑‑ and is it a ‑‑ is it just a forum to share
best practices? That's one thing. If it's a forum ‑‑ is it another
faculty ‑‑ I mean it's not technically that, but is it
another arm of the faculty ‑‑ not ‑‑ I shouldn't say arm, but since you ‑‑ I'm
pleased that you have the adjuncts representation because then
it does get us a better perspective collegewide. But I'm in the dark on this, and I may have
some biases that I've heard in the past about Faculty
Senates and I think we need to be more fully informed on how does this affect us? Will
the Faculty Senate request a forum and an agenda
item on our Board agenda that we could choose to allow or not allow? Are we going to hear
from a Faculty Association report and then a
Faculty Senate report? I mean these are just questions that are in my mind as how is this
going to operate, and it's not sub planning our
deans and assistant deans. I know that's done in some
cases. So I guess my radar is up on this as to what's trying to be accomplished. So it
may be very beneficial. Like said, I'm not for it
or against it, I just want to know more about it.
>> Dr. Williams: Well, I certainly appreciate the concerns and a lot of your concerns
have been raised by other faculty, have been raised by myself, have been raised by, you
know, pretty much anyone who has actually heard
the idea. But I can tell you that the intent is good,
that we are working cooperatively to make this a forum that is representative and compatible
with existing groups, and so it by no means will be an arm of the Faculty Association,
but it is ‑‑ has a potential role, a positive
role that I think the way that I've, you know, characterized it
to those who have asked me about how I envision the function to be, the power, the authority,
the, you know, the ‑‑ I guess authority is the best way to put it, of the Faculty
Association is fairly broad if you look at our constitution,
and it's, again, it's been ratified and approved by the
faculty. It doesn't seem to leave a whole lot for a Faculty Senate to do, and yet there
are opportunities for a senate to weigh in on
items such as we don't represent adjunct issues. There
are certainly issues that another group, a representative group can serve in an advisory
capacity and help inform decisions, even negotiable
kinds of situations, while that's the role of the
Faculty Association, I mean I just said this recently in another meeting, having, you know,
I don't know, 24 pairs of eyes ‑‑ or actually
more than that, say 30 with at‑large members, pairs
of eyes look at an issue and have an informed, thorough discussion of topics, I mean that
can be informative to the negotiating team.
So I think like the birth of anything, there's some struggle, there's some noise, you know,
there's some questions similar to what you just asked that we're still working out, you
know, within the faculty body ourselves. But certainly
the intent and the hope is to make this a very
positive, meaningful experience, cooperative experience with the existing groups, and suffice
it to say that there are checks in place to ‑‑ to
be sure of that so that there isn't encroachment or
overreach or chaos in the beginning that can be avoided by better discussions and better
crafting of territory, if you will, from the beginning.
But as your question ‑‑ I mean what we hope to have at some point is a presentation
to the Board, and of course, you know, as it
gets more refined, we're not really at that point right
now, certainly the authority will be ‑‑ and the recognition will be, you know, whatever
is granted by the administration and the ‑‑ and
the Board. So doing it right from the beginning is
always going to, you know, achieve that rather than doing something that's going to cause
reactions and questions. So I'm certain that you will have representatives before you,
or you'll have ideas represented through me in future
‑‑ in future reports. >> Chair Rayl: I have a lot of the same questions
I suppose that Trustee Stewart raised, more of a lack of understanding than anything
else, and I ‑‑ and maybe some ‑‑ I wouldn't say
concerns, but just questions about redundancy and whether or not we're, you know, duplicating
efforts and redundancy always creates the opportunity for people to be at odds on issues
as well. So I would certainly welcome your presentation and would like to have a better
understanding of the role that the senate will play.
>> Dr. Williams: I couldn't say it any better myself. I've actually raised ‑‑ I'm happy
some of these comments were made tonight because this reinforces some of the concerns that,
again, not to oppose the idea, but just to put out there that there are questions and
then that there is a ‑‑ you know, there's a process
involved. If you ‑‑ if the Faculty Association has a
claimed authority, there's a process for transferring authority, there's a process for delegating
authority, there's an appropriate way to proceed so that there isn't redundancies or duplication
of efforts, and most importantly to be representative and cooperative, not to have opportunities
where there will be groups at odds. And so all of those concerns have certainly been
those that I have had and others as we've worked with
the task force to develop this group. But I think
they're mindful of that. I'll encourage the Faculty Senate to watch this report and listen
to directly, you know, the comments and questions
that were raised by the trustees, and hopefully that will inform their future efforts as well.
>> Chair Rayl: Any other comments from the Board? I imagine Dr. Williams is about
ready to keel over, so. Anything else? Thank you very much for your comments and for taking
the time to address us. >> Madam Chair?
>> Chair Rayl: Yes, Trustee ‑‑ >> I know Ron will like this, but the president's
comment about a swipe of a pen, a famous Kansasan, Dwight D. Eisenhower was
quoted as President saying farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you're
a thousand miles from the cornfield, and I remembered that quote and I think it fits
pretty aptly to some of the things that go on in Topeka
today. >> Chair Rayl: That's a good one. I like that.
Okay. Next on our agenda is the Consent Agenda. The Consent Agenda is an
opportunity for the Board to consider in a single motion several items of a fairly routine
nature, and before we consider the Consent Agenda,
we always offer an opportunity for members of
the Board to withdraw any particular item on the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.
So I'll make that inquiry at this time. Is there anything that anyone would like to pull
from the Consent Agenda?
I would like to do that, actually. And I'm not sure now that we're all electronic how
to refer to particular things, so I will do my
best to describe what I want to pull. I'd like to pull
item number 1, which is retirements from the human resources section of the Consent Agenda,
and that is on Page 105 of the Board packet. If you are looking at the electronic page
numbers it's Page 108. And I would like to consider
that separately. That being said, do I have a motion
to approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda absent item number 1 of the human resources?
>> So moved. >> Chair Rayl: I have a motion.
>> Second. >> Chair Rayl: And a second. Any discussion?
Hearing none, all in favor say aye. (Ayes.)
>> Chair Rayl: Opposed? Motion carries. I'll entertain a motion and a discussion and
make my comments. So do I have a motion to approve item number 1 of the human resources
section, which is Page 105 of the Board packet? >> Is that the Jeff Frost and Sandra Hastings?
>> Chair Rayl: Yes, it is.. >> I would ‑‑ I would move that we accept
the recommendation of the College Administration to approve the above‑listed
retirements. >> Second.
>> Chair Rayl: I have a motion and a second. I would just mention the reason that I
pulled this was because I wanted to make a few comments about Jeff Frost seeing his
retirement on here, which makes me sad. It seems as though we've had several retirements
appear in our Board packet that gives us an opportunity to recognize the great works that
some folks have done for our institution over the
years that are now leaving, and the reason that I
wanted to comment about Jeff is because Jeff was an instructor of mine when I first started
here at Johnson County Community College. I took
his statistics class. And I don't remember every
instructor I had, but I do remember Jeff. And he was a great teacher, and when I assumed
a position as a full‑time faculty member here
at the college, he was the facilitator for the program
that I attended to introduce me to academia, which was a whole different world for me.
And so I spent a year learning and conversing and
being mentored by Jeff, and when I was on faculty, I
continued to rely on him for guidance and mentoring, and I consider him a friend and
I will always be grateful for the many things that
I've learned from him, both about academia and
about life, and I certainly wish him the best. And so I'm not opposing the recommendation,
I just wanted to make a few comments about Jeff and wish him well. Any further
discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye.
(Ayes.) >> Chair Rayl: Opposed? Motion carries.
To my knowledge, we have nothing for an Executive Session this evening, and so absent
anything else, we are adjourned. (Adjournment.)