[00:00:09]
THIS OPEN MEETING OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES IS AUTHORIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, 551.001 THROUGH 551.146. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE OF MEETING AND AGENDA ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CHANCELLOR. PER TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.1282, THIS MEETING IS BEING BROADCAST OVER THE INTERNET IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, 551.128.
[1. Certification of Notice Posted for the Meeting]
I, JOE D.MAY, SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
[A. Legislative Update Presenters: Justin Lonon, Isaac Faz]
OF THE DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, DO CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS BUILDING, ALL AS REQUIRED BY THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.054.LEGISLATIVE SESSION IS 34 DAYS AWAY.
AS HAS BEEN HARD AT WORK PREPARING FOR THAT SO WILL GIVE US A QUICK UPDATE WHERE WE ARE.
>> I WILL SPEAK VERY FAST, I'M LATINO SO I WILL GO THROUGH IT QUICKLY, IT'S ONLY A 50-PAGE PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, TRUSTEES.
THIS PROVIDES A RECAP OF THE 2018 ELECTION.
WHERE WE ARE TODAY WHERE WE WERE BEFORE ELECTION DAY.
THERE IS A NEW BALANCE, IF YOU WILL IN THE HOUSE AD IN THE SENATE, THOSE DYNAMICKS WILL PLAY OUT DURING THE UPCOMING SESSION IN TERMS OF HOW THE VOTES ARE BEING CAST.
WHEN TE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEETS IN JANUARY.
OF COURSE THAT FIRST DAY WILL BE JANUARY 8TH.
THERE WILL ABOUT EIGHT SPEAKERS WHO WANTED TO -- SORRY, EIGHT CANDIDATES WHO WANTED TO BE SPEAKER.
BUT BEFORE IT GOT REALLY EXCITING AND LED UP TO JANUARY, REPRESENTATIVE BONHAM OUT OF ENGELTON HAD A PRESS CONFERENCE, HE SAID HE HAD 109 PLEDGES, THAT'S A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF PLEDGES TO BECOME THE NEXT SPEAKER.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE FIRST SLIDE, 83 REPUBLICANS AND 67 DEMOCRATS.
HE HAS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT TO BECOME THE NEXT SPEAKER.
ALSO AT HIS PRESS CONFERENCE HE ANNOUNCED SCHOOL FINANCIAL WILL BE A PRIORITY.
HERE IS A LANDSCAPE REVIEW, 86 LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
IT TALKS ABOUT WHO ARE THE CHAIR MEN CURRENTLY AND WHO WILL BE THE CHAIR AND LEADERS, I THINK, WHEN WE START SECTION.
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN ANNOUNCED HE HAD SUFFICIENT VOTES.
IF YOU GO BACK, THE SENATE ONLY HAS ONE VOTE TO LOSE EITHER WAY IF THEY WANT TO GET THINGS DONE IN TERMS OF PUSHING BILLS ON THE SENATE SIDE.
HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
SENATOR SELIGER I THINK WILL STAY WHERE.
I THINK HE IS GOING TO REMAIN THE CHAIRMAN ON APPROPRIATIONS.
I JUST WANTED TO PUT IN PARENTHESES SOME OF THE MEMBERS IN THE COMMITTEES FROM THE DALLAS AREA WHO WILL NOT BE GOING BACK TO AUSTIN, WHETHER RETIREMENT OR LOSING THEIR GENERAL ELECTION OR PRIMARY.
SO WE LOST SOME MEMBERS IN SME OF THOSE COMMITTEES FOR THE NEXT COMING SESSION.
SO THE NEXT SIDE TALKS ABOUT SHAPING PUBLIC POLICY AND WHAT WE DID IN THE PAST SESSION, WE HAD SUCCESS PASSING THE BACCALAUREATE BILL.
WE PROTECTED SMALL BUSINESS FUNDING AND PASSED OUR TEXAS RECRUITMENT BILL.
SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTERS, FUNDED THROUGH ARTICLE 3 HIGHER EDUCATION.
WE NED TO FIND A NEW HOME AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON.
CHANCELLOR MAY HAS MET WITH CHIEF OF STAFF, GOVERNOR ABBOTT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TEAM.
WE HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE OTHER LEAD OFFICES, U.T.
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS TECH, UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON, WE FEEL
[00:05:01]
GOOD ABOUT THE DIRECTION WE ARE GOING.WE ARE GOING TO WORK O TRANSFER ISSUES.
WE KNOW LAST SESSION CHANCELLOR MAY TESTIFIED AT A HEARING FOR A COUPLE OF BILLS SENATOR WEST HAD.
IT PASSED THE SENATE BUT DIDN'T GET THROUGH THE HOUSE.
SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE STUDENTS ARE GRADUATING, SAVING FAMILIES DOLLARS IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY ARE SPENDING ON AND STUDENTS ARE TAKING CLASSES.
WE WILL BE FOCUSED ON TRANSFERABILITY.
I PUT DUAL CREDIT AND DALLAS COUNTY PROMISE.
THOSE ARE TWO WAYS TO INCREASE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ACHIEVE THAT GOAL.
THERE IS A DUAL CREDIT PRIORITY, 30% OF STUDENTS BY 2030 TAKE 12 HOURS OF DUAL CREDIT IN THAT TIME.
GOING REALLY FAST, HAPPY TO SLOW DOWN, ANSWER QUESTIONS AS WE GO ALONG.
>> QUICKLY, WE ARE WATCHING THE LIST OF BILLS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN FILED.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF BILLS RELATED TO TAXES.
CONTROL OF THE TAXES,? SOME OF THE BILLS FILED LAST SESSION WOULD PLACE CAPS ON WHAT THIS BOARD COULD DO, IN TERMS OF TAKING NEW REVENUE, KEEPING REVENUE AND DECISIONS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS COULD MAKE.
SENATOR ABBOTT SAID IT WOULD BE 2.5 REVENUE CAP ON TAX AND THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION GOING ON, I KNOW THAT CAME UP.
FORTUNATELY COMMUNITY COLLEGES WERE CARVED OUT OF THAT BILL BY REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN FOR THE SPEAKER, HE HAS A WORKING RELATIONSHIP SO IT'S SOMETHING WE ARE KEEPING TRACK OF.
THERE WILL BE OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, THE STATE AND COUNTIES ARE PAYING ATTENTION.
WE WILL BE SPEAKING AND ENGAGING WITH THEM AND SEEING HOW THIS PLAYS OUT.
SENATOR BEN COURT WHO HAD HIS TAX PLAN THE LAST SESSION, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING TO ESTABLISH A RELATIONSHIP.
HE SPEAKS HIGHLY OF SOME OF THE WORK WE ARE DOING HERE, SPECIFICALLY ALONG THE DALLAS PROMISE.
WE ARE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO KEEP AN EYE ON THAT PROPERTY TAX BILL.
I WILL TOUCH BRIEFLY ON THE CONGRESS.
THIS PRESENTATION WAS FOCUSED ON THE STATE ISSUES.
BUT IWANT TO SHARE A FEW THINGS THAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE 1/16TH.
SAME SIMILAR SLIDE AS THE ONE BEFORE, IT SHOWS WHERE WE WERE BEFORE ELECTION DAY AND WHERE WE ARE AFTER ELECTION DAY, THE ASTERISK INCLUDES THE TWO INDEPENDENTS, THEY CAUCUS WITH THE SENATE DEMOCRATS AND ON THE HOUSE SIDE THERE WERE A COUPLE RECOUNTS WHEN I SUBMITTED THIS PRESENTATION AND ONE HAS BEEN CONFIRMED AND THAT'S WHAT THE ASTERISKS MEAN DOWN THERE.
YOU COULD SEE THERE'S BEEN A CHANGE NATIONALLY, WHAT WE ARE SEEING IN TEXAS, SOME OF THE CHANGES IN MEMBERS HERE.
THIS IS A SLIDE THAT SORT OF SHOWS WHERE ALL THE CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS ARE IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT SIDE OF THE AISLE THEY ARE AND WHERE THEY ARE REPRESENTING IN THE COUNTRY.
I THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD INFORMATIVE SLIDE.
THE HOUSE SIDE, TE LEADERSHIP, NANCY PELOSI HAS PASSED A SPECIAL ORDER LAST WEEK.
WE EXPECT SHE WILL BE THE SPEAKER.
WE ALSO KNOW KEVIN MCCARTHY WAS ELECTED THE MINORITY LEADER FOR THE REPUBLICANS.
GRANT RANGER OUT OF FORT WORTH, GOOD FOR NORTH TEXAS.
ALSO THE RANKING MEMBERS IS A MEMBER FROM NEW YORK, SO IT WILL BE THE FIRST TIME THAT COMMITTEE IS BEING LED BY TWO WOMEN SO THAT'S HISTORICAL FOR THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
THE ONES THAT DON'T HAVE COLOR DIDN'T HAVE CONTEST.
THEN THE LEADERSHIP FOR THE SENATE IS THE SAME AS THIS YEAR, SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER WILL BE THE MINORITY LEADER, MITCH MCCONNELL WILL BE THE MAJORITY LEADER IN THE SENATE.
THE ASSISTANT DEMOCRATIC, PATTY ALSO ON HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE SENATE ON THE HEALTH COMMITTEE AND THAT TAKES ABOUT THE HIGHER EDUCATION LANDSCAPE IN TERMS OF ON THE FEDERAL SIDE, CHAIRMAN
[00:10:05]
AND SENATOR ALEXANDER, PAT MURRAY IS A RANKING MEMBER.THEY WILL BE HAVING CONVERSATIONS TO TALK ABOUT HIGHER EDUCATION REAUTHORIZATION.
WE WERE JUST IN WASHINGTON RECENTLY.
WE HAD CONVERSATION WITH STAFF FROM BOTH OFFICES TO TALK ABOUT HIGHER EDUCATION AND TALK ABOUT WORKFORCE, WE HAD REALLY GOOD MEETINGS WE WERE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE.
HOUSE EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE.
BOBBY SCOTT, HE DOESN'T HAVE A CHALLENGER TO OPPOSE HIM AND REPUBLICANS, VIRGINIA FOX THE CURRENT CHAIR WULD REMAIN SORT OF THE MINORITY RANKING MEMBER ON THE HOUSE SIDE.
WE HAD MEETINGS TO TALK AOUT WORKFORCE PELL, SIMPLIFYING FAFSA.
THAT WAS DISCUSSED DURING OUR MEETINGS.
WE WILL KEEP AN EYE ON DACA AND THE GOVERNMENT SHUT DOWN WHICH WAS GOING TO OCCUR FOR SOME AGENCIES ON FRIDAY BUT THEY PUNTED FOR TWO WEEKS IN HONOR OF PRESIDENT BUSH WHO PASSED AWAY, AS EVERYONE KNOWS, SO THEY KICKED THAT OUT FOR TWO WEEKS.
THE DEADLINE IS DECEMBER 21ST.
ON THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT, WE KNOW SENATOR MURRAY AND LAMAR ALEXANDER HAVE MET TO TALK ABOUT H.E.A.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK ON WORKFORCE PELL AND FAFSA WHEN IT COMES TO VERIFICATION.
THAT SHOULD BE THE LAST SLIDE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SORRY I SPOKE QUICKLY, I KNOW WE WERE SHORT ON TIME BUT I WANTED TO COVER AS MUCH AS WE COULD.
PROSPER, NOW HIGHER EDUCATION ACT.
>> IT WAS CALLED PROSPER UNDER CHAIRMAN FOXX AND NOW IT'S CALLED AIM HIGHER.
IT'S THE SAME THING BUT THEY WILL HAVE DIFFERENT SORT OF PRIORITIES AMONG THE BILLS THEY ARE TRYING TO PASS.
JUST EXPLAINS SHORT-TERM PELL.
YOU CAN'T RECEIVE PELL IF YOU ARE ENROLLED IN A PROGRAM IF YOU ARE ENROLLED LESS THAN ONE YEAR.
THE PROSPER ACT, DR. FOXX, REDUCE THAT TO 300 HOURS WHICH WOULD BE ROUGHLY HALF OF THE YEAR GOING FROM 600 TO 300.
WE ARE ADVOCATING NOW WITH BOBBY SCOTT, CHAIRMAN SCOTT TO TAKE THAT TO 150 HOURS, MEANING IT WOULD SUPPORT SHORT-TERM PROGRAMS GOING FORWARD.
YOU PROBABLY DON'T THINK ABOUT IF, IF YOU ARE IN A PROGRAM LESS, YOU ARE PAYING OUT OF POCKET.
WHILE EVERYONE ELSE IS ELIGIBLE FOR AID, IF YOU ARE GOING INTO MOST CONSTRUCTION FIELDS OR CERTAIN OTHER AREAS YOU ARE HAVING TO PAY YOUR OWN WAY.
>> REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT'S OFFICE IS OPEN TO THAT.
WE HAD A GOOD CONVERSATION WITH THE POLICY ADVISOR ON EDUCATION.
THEY ARE OPEN TO THAT CONVERSATION.
HOPE, IF H.E.A. IF IT SORT OF STOPS STUMBLING, WORKFORCE PELL OR SOMETHING WE COULD STILL KEEP WORKING ON ASIDE OR SEPARATE FROM H.E.A.
>> THE IMPORTANT THING THIS TIME AROUND, THE PROSPER ACT WAS ONE-SIDED.
IT CAME OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH ONLY THE REPUBLICANS SUPPORTING IT.
AND DID NOT HAVE THE VOTES TO GET ON THE FLOOR, COULD NEVER GET ONTO THE FLOOR BECAUSE I SIMPLY DIDN'T HAVE THE SUPPORT.
THIS TIME AROUND BECAUSE OF THE SPLIT IT WILL HAVE TO BE A BACKED PARTISAN BILL IS THE ONLY WAY.
>> M. BRAVO: ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU.
IN THE INTEREST OF TIME WE ARE GOING TO SKIP OVER THE GUIDED
[A. Purchasing Item: Approval to Engage Change Management Consulting Services, Boston Consulting Group, Districtwide, Best Proposal, Funding Source: Annual Operating Budget]
PATHWAY PRESENTATION AT THIS POINT.WE WILL GO OVER THE PURCHASING ITEMS.
>> THIS IS AN ITEM ON THE REGULAR BOARD AGENDA.
PROCESS LOKING FOR CHANGE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT TO HELP WITH SOME OF THE WORK THAT YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY SEEN THROUGH STUDENTS NETWORK AND SO THIS IS THE RECOMMENDATION THAT IS COMING FORWARD TO THE MEETING THIS AFTERNOON.
[00:15:01]
QUESTIONS, JUSTIN, ABOUT THIS.I FINALLY GOT IT THIS MORNING.
BUT I WAS IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING READY TO COME DOWN HERE, SO I DDN'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THAT.
SO I JUST DECIDED IWOULD WAIT AND ASK MY QUESTIONS ONCE WE GOT HERE.
DID YOU ALL DO A PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE? WHEN I LOOKED ON THE INTERNET TO SEE IF THAT HAD BEEN DONE FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL, I COULDN'T DETERMINE.
THAT'S ONE REASON I WANTED, THE PREPROPOSAL CONFERENCE.
>> TYPICALLY ON R.F.Q.'S FOR SERVICES, WE DON'T DO A PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE.
>> I HAVE SEEN THEM DONE BEFORE.
SO I WONDERED IF TERE WAS ANY PARTICULAR REASON ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU WERE GOING OUT FOR COMPETITIVE PROPOSAL, THERE WAS A REASON WHY YOU DIDN'T.
YOU DIDN'T DO IT? NEXT QUESTION.
I NOTICED THIS WENT TO THE BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP.
AND THEY PRESENTED DATA AND ANALYTICS PERTAINING TO THIS PROPOSED NETWORK.
IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE WORK PRODUCT, BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS EXCELLENT.
BUT, WHAT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT IS, WAS THAT DISCLOSED IN THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL THAT COMPANY HAD BEEN DOING WORK FOR US ON A PRO BONO BASIS?
OURSELVES AND DISSEMINATED IT TO OUR LIST OF PEOPLE THAT WE HAD.
>> C. COMPTON: YEAH, I SAW THAT.
BUT THEIR PARTICIPATION, I ASKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE WE STARTED USING THEM, IF THEY WERE BEING CMPENSATED, AND I WAS TOLD NO, THEY DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY MONEY.
THAT THEY WERE DOING ALL OF THIS WORK PRO BONO.
>> I WOULD CLARIFY IF I COULD TRUSTEE COMPTON.
THAT WAS THE CASE WHEN THEY WERE WORKING WITH OUR FOUNDATION, WHICH IS 501(C)(3).
THEY WENT TO BID AND THEY WERE COMPENSATED FOR THAT.
>> C. COMPTON: ALSO THEY WERE COMPENSATED, THEY WERE DOING WORK PRO BONO NOW YOU ARE SAYING THEY WERE COMPENSATED FOR WHAT?
I'M PRETTY SURE THAT WAS ON THE BOARD AGENDA.
BOSTON CONSULTING DID PRO BONO WORK FOR THE FOUNDATION.
AND WERE NOT COMPENSATED FOR THAT.
WHEN WE HIRED THEM FOR THE FACULTY LOAD SITUATION, IT WAS UNDER AN R.F.P. WHICH THEY BID ON THAT AND WERE COMPENSATED ACCORDING TO THAT.
I DON'T KNOW, WHICH MONTHS, I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND FORTH.
>> C. COMPTON: MY QUESTION REMAINS THE SAME.
THEY WERE PART, THEY WERE ONE OF THE COMPANIES THAT WERE PROVIDING INPUT INTO THE PROPOSED CHANGES, THE NEW DIRECTION WE WERE GOING INTO AND SO FORTH.
WAS THAT DISCLOSED WHEN YOU SENT OUT THOSE REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS IN A COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT, IF THAT INFORMATION WAS NOT DISCLOSED THEN THAT'S A PROBLEM FOR ME.
COMPETITIVE SITUATIONS, EVERYBODY IS SUPPOSED TO START OFF ON THE SAME FOOTING, WITH THE SAME INFORMATION, THE WHOLE NINE YARDS.
SO THEY CAN COMPETITIVELY, FAIRLY AND EQUALLY COMPETE AGAINST EACH OTHER.
SO IF THAT'S NOT PART OF THE PROCESS, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
>> THE REQUEST FOR R.F.P., REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL IS WE DON'T CONSIDER FEES.
>> C. COMPTON: YOU DON'T CONSIDER WHAT?
WE CONSIDER QUALIFICATIONS, WHICH IS THE R.F.Q. METHODOLOGY.
ALL RESPONDENT'S WERE MEASURED ON THEIR QUALIFICATIONS TO DO
[00:20:01]
WHAT WE ASKED FOR THEM TO DO IN THE R.F.Q.USING THAT DATA OR GOING A DIFFERENT DIRECTION MIGHT HAVE BEEN ONE OF THE OPTIONS ONE OF THEM MIGHT HAVE PROPOSED.
BASED ON WHAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR WITH A STUDENT CENTRIC NETWORK AD CREATING THE DEPARTMENT TO HELP US INTERNALLY BUILD OVER TIME A DEPARTMENT TO HANDLE CHANGE MANAGEMENT.
THAT IS NOT SOLELY WHAT BOSTON CONSULTING CAME IN AND DID.
>> C. COMPTON: BUT THEY HAD CONTACTS WITH OUR PEOPLE?
>> JOHN: NOT DURING THE R.F.Q.
>> C. COMPTON: I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE R.F.Q.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE WHOLE PROCESS AND WHAT HAS HAPPENED LEADING UP TO THE AWARD OF THIS R.F.P. TO THIS PARTICULAR COMPANY.
AND AS I'M SAYING, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR WORK PRODUCT.
I THOUGHT THEY PUT FRTH EXCELLENT WORK, VERY HELPFUL INFORMATION.
BUT, THEY HAD, IN MY ESTIMATION AND MY OPINION, THEY HAD A FOOT UP ON THE OTHER COMPANIES WHO WERE ALSO PROPOSING BECAUSE THEY HAD BEEN IN THE COLLEGE DISTRICT, WORKING WITH OUR PEOPLE, ACCESS T INFORMATION AND SO FORTH THAT THE OHER COMPANIES DIDN'T HAVE.
AND THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT FAIR AND EQUAL COMPETITIVENESS.
SO AGAIN, I'M GOING TO SAY, I'VE GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT, AND I'M NOT SUPPORTING THIS VOTE AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY I'M NOT SUPPORTING IT.
>> D. FLORES: IT'S A $1.5 MILLION FOR YEAR-ONE OR NOT TO EXCEED IT.
HOW MANY YEARS DO WE NEED A CHANGE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT SERVICES?
>> JOHN: WE HAVE ESTIMATED AND THIS IS BASICALLY DR. MAY AND MINE ESTIMATION AND JUSTIN'S TOO, LOOKING AT A THREE-YEAR TIME HORIZON WHAT THAT WOULD TAKE TO GET THAT IN PLACE WITH ALL THE THINGS NECESSARY, THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE OFFICE, AS WE TALK ABOUT IT.
SO WE HAVE HAD A THREE-YEAR TIME HORIZON, HOWEVER WE DIDN'T WANT TO GIVE ANYONE FIRM A THREE-YEAR CONTRACT BECAUSE THE SCOPE OF WORK WILL CHANGE ANNUALLY, AND THE AMOUNT COULD CHANGE ANUALLY AS TO WHAT THEY DO.
THE R.F.Q. WAS WRITTEN TO LOOK AT HOW YOU WOULD INTERNALIZE THIS PROCESS TO OUR OWN PEOPLE OF WHAT WE WOULD WORK HERE.
SO WE WOULD REALLY EXPECT OVER TIME, WE WOULD START TO SEE THAT TRAIL OFF.
WE COULD NOT WRITE AND QUITE FRANKLY NOT NEGOTIATED FEES WITH THE SELECTION OF BOSTON CONSULTANT, STILL DEVELOP A SCOPE OF WORK, THAT'S WHAT YOU DO, YOU BASED, BUT ALSO THE SECOND PERSON IN CHARGE, WORKED WITH US ON EDUCATION, BACCALAUREATE ON EDUCATIONAL PLAN AND OTHER THINGS.
I WOULD SAY ALMOST EVERY SINGLE ONE WOULD HAVE SOME TYPE OF KNOWLEDGE OF HOW THE DISTRICT WORKS.
>> D. ZIMMERMANN: BUT IF WE ARE LOOKING AT CHANGE MANAGEMENT, AND WE ONLY GIVE THEM ONE YEAR? IF WE CHANGE COURSES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREAM, DO YOU SEE A PROBLEM WITH THAT?
>> JOHN: THERE COULD BE A NEGATIVE IMPACT, THERE CULD BE A POSITIVE IMPACT.
BUT I DON'T THINK YOU COULD REALLY SCOPE OUT AL THE THINGS THAT ADMINISTRATION WOULD LOOK AT AND ALSO THAT WE WANT TO BRING TO THIS BOARD TO MAKE SURE WE ARE GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION TO OUTLINE A FULL THREE-YEAR CONTRACT.
SOME OF THIS STUFF MIGHT HAPPEN VERY FAST.
SOME OF IT MIGHT TAKE LONGER THAN WHAT WE THOUGHT BUT I THINK ANNUALLY IS THE APPROPRIATE METHOD OF DOING THAT AND IF, FOR SOME REASON THE FIRM IS RECOMMENDED DOES NOT PONY UP TO WHAT WE EXPECT OUT OF HIM, THEN WE CAN LOOK AT MOVING ON AND FINDING SOMEBODY ELSE TO DO THIS WITH.
>> D. ZIMMERMANN: I ALSO HAD CONCERN.
WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE IN-HOUSE.
THERE'S NOT A GROUP OF TEN PEOPLE WE COULD CALL TOGETHER AND ASK.
I WONDER IF WE ARE LOSING WHO WE ARE.
WE START BRINGING IN ALL SORTS OF PEOPLE FROM EVERY PLACE ELSE.
AND I'M AFRAID THAT WE ARE GOING TO LOSE OUR CONNECTIONS TO WHO WE ARE.
[00:25:05]
AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT TELLS ME THAT IF THEY DON'T HAVE 20 YEARS WITH US, THEY DON'T KNOW WHO WE ARE TO START WITH SO WHEN THEY GET TO WHERE EVER IT IS THEY WILL CHANGE US TO, THEY AREN'T GOING TO CARE.BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO FRAMEWORK TO START WITH TO THEN CARRY US THROUGH SO WE AE PROUD OF US WHEN WE GET TO THE END.
WE CAN'T JUST SAYWELL WE CHANGED.
BUT WE HAVE TO CHANGE FOR THE GOOD FOR THE MORE.
WE HAVE TO WORK, I BELIEVE, FOR MORE OF WHERE WE HAVE BEEN TO WHERE WE ARE GOING.
IF WE DON'T KNOW WHO WE ARE TO START WITH, IN OUR CHANGING, THEN I'M CONCERNED THAT WE, I MEAN, EVERYBODY TALKS ABOUT OUR CAMPUSES AND EVERYBODY KNOWS EVERY CAMPUS IS DIFFERENT.
THEY LOVE THE FACT THEY COULD GO TO ONE CAMPUS FOR SOMETHING AND A DIFFERENT CAMPUS FOR SOMETHING ELSE.
IF WE GO INTO CHANGE MANAGEMENT MODE, ALL OF THE SUDDEN EVERYBODY IS GOING TO BE, THE COOKIE CUTTER, EVERYBODY IS GOING TO BE EXACTLY THE SAME AND WE ARE GOING TO BE FORCED INTO THIS IDEA THAT WE HAVE ALL LOST EVERYTHING BECAUSE NOW WE HAVE CHANGED.
WITH US NOT HAVING PEOPLE INVOLVED TO HELP US FROM WHERE WE HAVE BEEN TO WHERE WE ARE GOING.
WHATEVER THAT TURNS OUT TO BE, I'M CONCERNED TAT ANYONE GROUP LOOKING IN.
BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN VERY IMPORTANT IN THE COMMUNITY.
YOU START SPEAKING TO FOLKS AND IT WAS LIKE, OH YEAH, I WENT TO RICHLAND, I WENT TO EAST FIELD.
WELL, I WONDER WHY THEY DID THAT.
AT THE POINT WE ALL COME IN AND EVERYBODY IS DIFFERENT.
>> M. BRAVO: DIANA, DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING?
>> D. FLORES: YEAH, RIGHT NOW, I FORGET HOW MANY MONTHS AGO, I THINK THREE MONTHS --
>> D. FLORES: WE HAD DATA PUT BEFORE US ON WHERE WE ARE, WHERE OUR COLLEGES ARE, IN TERMS OF TE PERFORMANCE METRICS THAT THE COORDINATING BOARD HAS FOR US TO GET PERFORMANCE BASED FUNDING.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE ARE DEAD LAST.
OF THE FIVE BOTTOM COLLEGES IT WAS OUR COLLEGES.
THE OTHERS WEREN'T FAR FROM BOTTOM LAST.
FOR MANY YEARS WE HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB IN SOME AREAS, WE HAVEN'T DONE A GOOD JOB IN OTHER AREAS.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE INSTITUTIONAL MEMORY, THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT, BUT THAT'S NOT THE ONLY THING WE NEED TO HAVE, WE ARE TRYING TO BRING ABOUT CHANGE SO IT WILL BETTER SERVE STUDENTS IN TERMS OF THEM MEETING THEIR EDUCATIONAL GOALS AND IMPROVING THE PERFORMANCE METRICS THAT HAD BEEN IDENTIFIED BY THE COORDINATING BOARD AZMAN S -- AS MANDATED BY THE LEGISLATURE THAT AFFECTS SOME OF OUR FUNDING.
SO IT'S HEALTHY, I THINK, IN SOME RESPECTS, TO BRING IN OUTSIDE PEOPLE TO LOOK AT IT.
WE WOULD HAVE NEVER GOTTEN, IN MY OPINION, WE WOULD HAVE NEVER GOTTEN THE FULL LOOK IN TERMS OF WHERE WE ARE IN FACULTY LOAD IF IT WAS JUST INTERNAL PEOPLE LOOKING AT IT.
IT'S INTERNAL PEOPLE THAT ARE MARRIED TO SOME OF WHAT'S THERE.
SOMETIMES YOU DON'T WANT TO TAKE AN OBJECTIVE LOOK, YOU WILL TAKE A SUBJECTIVE LOOK BECAUSE YOU ARE INVOLVED.
WE'RE NOT EXCLUDING ANY INTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS THAT ARE A NECESSARY PART OF THE PROCESS LOOKING AT, CORRECT?
>> IN FACT, JUST THE OPPOSITE.
>> JOHN: AS YOU RECALL THERE ARE ABOUT 20 POLICIES THAT MEET AND DEVELOPED ALL AT THE SAME TIME WE IDENTIFIED ON THERE AND WE NEED INPUT INTO THEM ALL AT THE SAME TIME.
WE CAN'T DO THIS, I AGREE, WE'VE GOT THE TALENT INTERNALLY TO DO IT, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE SCALE INTERNALLY TO DO WHAT HAS TO BE DONE IN A RELATIVELY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.
IF WE TRY TO DO THESE ONE AT A TIME THEY WILL CLASH WITH EACH OTHER IN THE PROCESS.
[00:30:06]
>> C. COMPTON: IN TERMS OF WHAT?
>> WHEN WE LOOK AT THINGS LIKE HOW WE COMPENSATE FACULTY IN LARGE OR SMALL CLASSES.
HOW WE DO THE LOAD CALCULATIONS THAT ARE THERE.
WE HAD IN THERE WE WOULD MOVE FROM A CREDIT HOUR CALCULATION PER LAB, TO CONTACT HOUR, ALL HAS BROAD RANGE OF IMPLICATIONS HOW WE PAY PEOPLE AND WE NEED TO BE VERY AWARE OF THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
>> M. BRAVO: WESLEY, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING?
>> W. JAMESON: I JUST, IF YOU WOULD, JOHN OR JUSTIN, GIVE US CLIFF NOTES VERSION THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN R.F.Q. AND R.F.P. AND PARAMETERS THAT MAKE UP.
YOU MENTIONED ABOUT PRICE NOT BEING AN R.F.Q. VARIABLE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER THINGS THAT SEPARATE THE TWO ENTITIES?
>> JOHN: BASICALLY IN THE R.F.Q. YOU ARE SOLELY, AND IT'S LEGISLATED HOW WE DO IT, YOU ARE SOLELY BASING YOUR DECISION, THIS IS NOT JUST MINE, IT'S A REVIEW COMMITTEE.
BASED ON QUALIFICATIONS TO ACHIEVE THE SCOPE OF WORK YOU HAVE LAID OUT IN THE R.F.Q.
WE HAD A TWO-PAGE OUTLINE OF WHAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR.
OUR CURRENT PREFERENCE, THOUGH WE HAVEN'T IDENTIFIED WOULD BE TO HAVE THAT INTERNAL LEADER SELECTED, AS YOU WERE TLKING ABOUT AND START TO BUILD ON THAT TEAM.
ALMOST ALL THE RESPONSES SAID WE CAN DO THAT OR WE CAN WORK WITH YOUR PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING THAT.
THE R.F.P. WILL HAVE AN AGREED UPON PRICE.
IT'S RALLY COMMODITY BASIS, VERSUS A SERVICES BASIS.
R.F.Q.'S ARE USED TO EVALUATE FIRMS BECAUSE THE SERVICE YOU ARE ASKING FOR IS MORE NEBULOUS THAN BUYING A WIDGET.
>> M. BRAVO: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
[B. Policy Item - First Reading: TASB Cumulative Updates 32- 34]
OKAY, SO THEN WE WILL GO ONTO POLICY ITEM, THE FIRST READING, UPDATE.>> JUSTIN: THERE'S A NUMBER OF CHANGES ON HERE THAT TRISHA AND ROB HAVE BEEN WORKING ON.
WE CAN SPEAK TO THE DETAIL THAT I THINK MANY OF THESE, IF IT'S BETTER TO SAY, REARRANGING THE FURNITURE A LITTLE BIT AND SO, BUT IT IS, A LOT OF DETAIL AND FAIRLY CONFUSING.
>> YOU HAVE UPDATE 32 AND 34, MAJORITY APPROVED BY THE BOARD, SINCE THEN WE HAVE RECEIVED UPDATES 33 AND 34 WHICH ARE HERE AND WE RECEIVED TODAY 35.
IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, I WAS GOING TO WLK YOU THROUGH EVERYTHING.
BUT YOU RECEIVED A MEMO IN YOUR PACKETS THAT OUTLINES THE DETAIL REGARDING POLICY AND SO I THOUGHT MAYBE WE WULD OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS FOR YOU, SINCE WE ARE NOT MEETING IN JANUARY, THIS IS FIRST READING FOR THESE POLICIES AND THEY WON'T BE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL UNTIL FEBRUARY.
SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON SPECIFIC ITEMS, YOU CAN CONTACT OUR OFFICE ANY TIME BETWEEN NOW AND THEN.
>> D. ZIMMERMANN: THE D.E.C. IS ALL THAT WAS INCLUDED IN OUR PACKET.
>> D.E.C. HAD SOME FURTHER EXPLANATION FROM ME, BUT THE ACTUAL DETAIL OF THE POLICY IS IN THE REGULAR BOARD MEETING BOOK.
>> C. COMPTON: WE HAD ANOTHER HANDOUT.
>> D. FLORES: ON PAGE 59 WHERE IT'S TALKING ABOUT VACATION WEEK FOR STAFF, DO WE HAVE TO FOLLOW GASB POLICY OR COULD WE HAVE OUR OWN POLICY?
>> WE COULD HAVE OUR OWN POLICY.
THIS IS ACTUALLY OUR CURRENT POLICY.
IT WAS MOVED FROM D.E.D. LOCAL TO D.E.C. LOCAL.
IT'S NEW POLICY IN THIS POLICY CODE.
>> CUT AND PASTE, CUT OUT OF THE OLD SECTION, PASTE INTO THE NEW.
>> THAT SPECIFIC SECTION WAS CUT FROM A DIFFERENT SECTION.
>> D. FLORES: POLICIES WE CURRENTLY HAVE.
I HAD BROUGHT UP THIS ISSUE PREVIOUSLY AND DIDN'T FOLLOW-UP ON IT AND THEY WERE IN THAT TRANSITION TIME WITH CHIEF OF H.R.
TO ME, IT'S OFFENSIVE, RIGHT AS THEY WALK IN THE DOOR, THE ADMINISTRATORS BY VIRTUE OF THE LEAVE POLICY, VACATION, ARE MORE VALUABLE THAN REGULAR STAFF AND BY OUR CURRENT
[00:35:02]
POLICY, IT TAKES THEM 20 YEARS, STAFF, TO COME UP TO PARITY WITH ADMINISTRATORS.SO I GUESS THAT'S A THING FOR FIELD COMMITTEE, THE FINANCE COMMITTEE TO LOOK AT BECAUSE H.R. COMES UNDER THERE?
>> LIKELY BECAUSE OF TE FISCAL IMPACT, YES.
AND CERTAINLY, TO TRISHA'S POINT THAT'S A LOCAL POLICY WE COULD CHANGE IF THE BOARD WAS DESIROUS TO CHANGE THAT.
WE COULD LOOK AT IT AND TALK ABOUT I, THERE'S NOTHING CHANGED IN D.E.C. THAT ISN'T IN D.E.D., IT'S JUST BEING MOVED OVER TO D.E.C.
>> THERE ARE CHANGES TO D.E.C.
AND THERE ARE NOTES ON THE SIDE THAT EXPLAIN.
SO DEFINITIONS WERE ADDED AND CERTAIN PROVISIONS WERE ADDED THAT WERE NT PREVIOUSLY IN OUR CURRENT POLICY.
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS THAT ARE REFERRED TO IN POLICY OR USED IN POLICY AND PROVISIONS THAT RELATE TO OUR ACTUAL PRACTICES.
SO TAZ WENT AHEAD AND DEFINED THOSE FOR US FURTHER.
IN ADDITION THEY MADE SOME CHANGES TO OUR SICK LEAVE POOL POLICY.
THE SAME POLICY, HOWEVER, THEY PULLED MORE PROCEDURAL ELEMENTS OUT AND SUGGESTED WE MOVE THOSE TO OUR REGULATIONS SO THEY WILL STILL EXIST BUT THEY WON'T BE IN OUR LOCAL POLICY.
YOU WILL NOTICE THEY CHANGED OUR BEREAVEMENT LEAVE POLICY WHICH PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED FOR BEREAVEMENT LEAVE AND FAMILY ILLNESS.
HOWEVER FAMILY ILLNESS IS PROVIDED BY F.M.L.A. AND OUR POLICY.
SO THERE'S NO REASON TO INCLUDE IT WITH BEREAVEMENT, SO NOW THAT ONLY APPLIES TO THE DEATH OF A FAMILY MEMBER.
THEN YOU WILL NOTE THERE IS A STRIKE ON BIRTH OR ADOPTION OF CHILD.
WE PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED A POLICY FOR FAMILY PACEMENT AND BIRTH OF A CHILD, HOWEVER, BECAUSE THIS POLICY WAS PENDING FOR INPUT BY STAKEHOLDERS, IT DIDN'T GET INCORPORATED.
SO EVEN THOUGH IT'S STRIKED THROUGH HERE, IT DID EXIST AND ONCE APPROVED IT WILL BE INCORPORATED.
[A. Education Workforce Committee Notes for November 6, 2018]
>> M. BRAVO: THE LAST THING ON THE AGENDA IS COMMITTEE NOTES FROM THE LAST MEETING JUST FOR YOUR REVIEW.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.