[1. Certification of Notice Posted for the Meeting]
[00:00:12]
>> 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.
>> I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS NOTICE WAS POSTED ON THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2019, ALL AS REQUIRED BY THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE
[A. Board Self - Assessment Tool and Timeline]
551.054.AT YOUR PLACE, YOU SHOULD HAVE A PAGE THAT LOOKS LIKE THIS, BOARD SELF ASSESSMENT.
EVERYBODY GOT ONE? THERE IS A BAR ACROSS THE TOP.
I THINK IT'S THIS DOCUMENT HERE.
WE HAVE NOT SET A TIME TO HAVE IT BACK.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO TURN THEM IN TODAY.
>> D. ZIMMERMANN: I HOPE NOT BECAUSE I NEED ANOTHER ONE.
>> CHANCELLOR MAY: WE'LL MAKE COPIES.
WE CAN SEND IT OUT ELECTRONICALLY TOO.
YOU WILL LET US KNOW WHEN YOU NEED IT BACK BY.
>> S. WILLIAMS: SOME PEOPLE SAY I DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO LOOK T IT.
>> CHANCELLOR MAY: WE CAN CERTAINLY GIVE A --
>> S. WILLIAMS: WE'LL LET YOU KNOW THEN.
>> SO THE DOCUMENT YOU HAVE IN FRONT IS JUST A SAMPLE.
WE REALLY WANTED YOUR FEEDBACK IN THIS PART OF THE COMMITTEE MEETING.
I CAN TAKE NOTES AND MAKE EDITS.
ONCE YOU COME TO AN AGREEMENT FOR A FINAL TOOL FOR ASSESSMENT, WE'LL SEND IT OUT VIA EMAIL AND PRINT.
AND THEN SET A DEADLINE OF WHEN IT SHOULD BE BACK.
>> IS THIS SURVEY PART OF THIS GOLD SMITH?
THE OPTION THAT HAS THE 2019, THE FOUR PAGER IS BASED ON ACCT AND AGB DOCUMENTATION.
WE HAVE MAILED OUT BOOKS A WHILE BACK ABOUT IT.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: BASED AN ACCT.
>> THE TOOL THAT WAS ON YOUR POCKET, WE DIDN'T INCLUDE IT WITH THE MAIN STUFF BECAUSE WE DIDN'T WANT TO PROMOTE AN OUTSIDE COMPANY.
THAT'S ANOTHER OPTION THAT MS. FLORES HAD SEEN.
THAT IS A COST, THERE IS A COST ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.
SO BUT SHE WANTED YOU TO SEE DIFFERENT OPTIONS OUT THERE.
AND IF YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSION OR RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> CHANCELLOR MAY: MARCIA GOLD SMITH, YOU HAVE A COPY OF THAT.
>> MOTION. I WANT CLARIFICATION ABOUT SOMETHING.
IT SAYS POTENTIAL SELF ASSESSMENT TOOL PROPOSED TIMELINE.
BUT ANYWAY, SO WE'LL TAKE A FORMAL VOTE IN THIS COMMITTEE ON WHAT WE SELECT AS THE ASSESSMENT TOOL? AND I WAS LOOKING AT THIS.
THERE IS A MEETING FOR EVERY MONTH, CORRECT? BASED ON THIS SCHEDULE?
>> NO, THE CHEDULE SHOWS YOU THE TIMELINE OF HOW, WHEN TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT.
WHEN IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE SUBMITTED.
THE ACTUALLY GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE IS PROPOSING TO MEET QUARTERLY.
>> THE ACCREDITING AGENCY, THE
[00:05:02]
STANDARD THAT REQUIRES IS 4.2. G OF THE SAX REGULATION.HOW THE BOARD SELF EVALUATES ITSELF. IN FACT THE STANDARD ITSELF SAYS THAT THE STANDARD ITSELF SAYS THEY WANT TO ENCOURAGE FLEXIBILITY.
THEY DON'T DICTATE THE VEHICLE THAT YOU USE OR MEANS OR METHOD IN FACT, IT TALKS ABOUT YOU MIGHT BRING AN OUTSIDE PARTY TO EVALUATE YOU OR USE A SURVEY.
THERE IS NOT A GREAT DEAL OF RIGIDITY TO THE STANDARD BUT IT IS A REQUIREMENT OF YOUR ACCREDITATION THAT YOU ANNUALLY SELF EVALUATE AS A OARD.
THIS IS AS PEARLA SAID, THE INSTRUMENT THAT WAS DEVELOPED WAS ONE EXAMPLE FOR CONSIDERATION.
AND THAT WOULD BE ONE THAT MIGHT BE SUITABLE FOR THIS BOARD IN DISCUSSION AS THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE MIGHT DETERMINE THAT.
IN TERMS OF THE TIME TABLE FOR SELF EVALUATION, IT NEEDS TO BE ANNUAL.
THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT HAVING THIS RUN CONCURRENT WITH THE CHANCELLOR'S EVALUATION IN THE SPRING.
THERE IS NO MAGIC WHEN IT HAS TO OCCUR.
IT JUST HAS TO HAPPEN ONCE A YEAR.
>> CHANCELLOR MAY: DO WE HAVE A VERSION OF WHAT THE LAST ONE LOOKED LIKE?
>> THAT MIGHT BEG THE QUESTION OF THE LAST TIME.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: I THINK WE HAD ONE.
>> C. COMPTON: HOLD ON JUST A MINUTE.
I'M STILL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT ABOUT THIS COMMITTEE.
SO IF WE'RE MEETING IN AUGUST AND IT'S GOING TO MEET QUARTERLY, WHAT MONTHS WOULD IT BE AN ACTUAL FORMAL MEETING?
>> LOOKING AT THE CALENDAR FOR THE DIFFERENT COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND I WAS SUGGESTING TO MEET PERHAPS IN OCTOBER, AND THEN SINCE THERE IS NO JANUARY MEETING, IN FEBRUARY.
>> C. COMPTON: OCTOBER, FEBRUARY.
TO ALIGN BASED ON -- ALSO TO ACCOMMODATE BECAUSE THERE IS MONTHS YOU DON'T HAVE MEETINGS.
WE'RE SHIFTING A COUPLE A LITTLE BIT OFF.
>> C. COMPTON: THE NEXT FORMAL MEETING TO FORMALLY APPROVE THE TOOL WE'RE GOING TO USE, THE FIRST AVAILABLE WOULD BE OCTOBER?
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: UNLESS YOU ALL WANT TO MEET WHEN WE -- WE COULDN'T IN SEPTEMBER BECAUSE THAT'S RIGHT UPON US.
WE HAVEN'T DONE AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT EALLY IN FOREVER.
SINCE WE HAVE ONE WHEN TRAVEL WAS CHAIR.
PREVIOUS TO THAT WE HAVEN'T BEEN ON AN ANNUAL SCHEDULE.
THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO START AND PUT IN A TIMELINE BY WHICH THEY ARE GOING TO BE DONE, ET CETERA SO I DON'T KNOW, WE'RE JUST STARTING THIS FISCAL YEAR, SEPTEMBER 1, RIGHT? SO THAT'S WHEN SACS WOULD SEE OR FISCAL YEAR, CORRECT? NOT THE CALENDAR YEAR?
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
WHEN THIS IS GOING TO BE APPROVED, WE DO IT IN OCTOBER AND GEAR UP TO WHERE BY AUGUST OF NEXT YEAR OR MAY, WHATEVER THE TIMELINE IS BY WHEN IT'S DONE WE DO IT IN THIS FISCAL YEAR STARTING SEPTEMBER 1.
>> M. BRAVO: THERE IS A TIMELINE HERE.
>> C. COMPTON: WE'RE NOT TRYING TO GET ONE DONE BEFORE 18-19?
>> CHANCELLOR MAY: AND I'M GUESSING JUST WE PROBABLY DON'T HAVE ANYONE WHO CAN ANSWER THIS BUT WHEN WE DO THE CONSOLIDATION REQUEST WE'LL HAVE TO CHECK THE BOX IF THIS IS DONE?
>> THE PER SPECTUS WE SEND IN MARCH ON THE CONSOLIDATION.
AT LEAST IN THE PER SPECTUS, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE PLAN.
[00:10:04]
VISIT -->> CHANCELLOR MAY: THEY MAY WANTED TO LOOK AT IT AT THAT POINT.
>> C. COMPTON: IF WE APPROVE IT IN OCTOBER, THEN IF THE NEXT MEETING IS FEBRUARY, WHY DON'T WE ORMALIZE T IN FEBRUARY?
>> D. ZIMMERMANN: THEN IT'S DONE FOR MARCH.
>> CHANCELLOR MAY: WE PROBABLY NEED TO DO IT IN FEBRUARY SO WE CAN DOCUMENT IT IN TIME FOR MARCH.
>> IF YOU APPROVE IT IN TIME YOU HAVE TIME TO GET IT DONE.
AND GIVE YOURSELF TIME -- LEAD IT.
>> C. COMPTON: OR HAVE IT COMPLETED.
>> BY FEBRUARY, WE COULD GATHER THE FINDINGS OF THE SURVEYS AND HAVE A SUMMARY REPORT FOR THE FEBRUARY MEETING.
>> CHANCELLOR MAY: CAN WE COMPRESS THIS A LITTLE BIT OR DOES IT NEED TO TAKE THAT LONG? I'VE BEEN SO IMPRESSED WITH THE THE PAST COUPLE OF FACILITATING SESSIONS, THEY HAVE A TEMPLATE THAT HAS WORKED BROADLY IN COMMUNITY COLLEGES ACROSS THE STATE.
AND I THINK THAT'S A GREAT PLACE TO START.
PROVIDE COMMENTS TO COUNCIL THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS.
AND THEN ILL IT OUT AND HAVE IT DONE BY THANKSGIVING.
I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IN TERMS OF OUR OWN BOARD PROCESS INTERACTION TO HAVE THIS FEEDBACK SOONER RATHER THAN LATER BECAUSE I THINK LOT OF US WILL BE A BETTER BOARD.
>> M. BRAVO: I AGREE WITH FIL.
LOOKING AT THE TIMELINE, I DON'T SEE WHY WE CAN'T ADOPT IT AND PUSH THE AUGUST THINGS TO SEPTEMBER AND STILL FINISH BY DECEMBER.
I DON'T THINK THAT MEANS WE HAVE TO MEET EVERY MONTH BECAUSE WE CAN FILL OUT THE SELF ASSESSMENT ON OUR OWN AND HAVE A DEADLINE THAT WE EACH GET IT TO YOU.
>> FOR PURPOSES OF EDIFICATION, THE STANDARD IS NOT A HIGH BAR.
IT SAYS, AND THIS IS READING, SOME INSTITUTIONS USE BOARD RETREAT FORMAT.
A REORIENTATION OF A BOARD, SOME BOARDS USE EXTERNAL ESOURCES SUCH AS A FACILITATOR OR BOOK, ALTHOUGH, THAT S NOT ARE ARE REQUIREMENT.
WHAT IS EXPECTED IS SOMETHING MORE SUBSTANTIVE THAN A STATEMENT THAT QUOTE, THE BOARD CONDUCTED A SELF-EVALUATION.
I WOULD SUBMIT IS IT NOT TO BE DISMISSED THIS BOARD HAS REGULARLY EVALUATED ITSELF.
WE NEED TO FORMALIZE IT IN A PROCESS.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
I AGREE THE FORMAT COULD BE A SURVEY WITH A FOLLOW-UP FROM THE ISSUES RAISED.
YOU CAN FRAME IT WITH THE THINGS WE'RE TRYING TO DO AS A DISTRICT.
>> THE TIMELINE IS A SUGGESTED TIMELINE BASED ON ALIGNING WITH WITH DR. MAY'S PERFORMANCE REVIEW AND MEETINGS IN FEBRUARY.
IF YOU DO LIKE DO IT AS SUGGESTED BY TRUSTEE RITTER, COMPLETED BEFORE THANKSGIVING, THAT GIVES YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE FINDINGS THEN AND THAT YOU KNOW, COULD BRING UP CONVERSATION OF WHATEVER YOU WANT TO -- CONTINUE THE CURRENT SCHEDULE WHEN YOU MITE TO TALK K ABOUT YOUR STRATEGIC PRIORITIES.
THE SUGGESTED SCHEDULE ALIGNS WITH THOSE MEETINGS.
>> CHANCELLOR MAY: LOOKING AT THIS DOCUMENT RIGHT HERE.
IS THIS THE PROPOSED SCHEDULE?
>> CHANCELLOR MAY: IF I READ THIS RIGHT IT ALIGNS WITH WHAT TRUST RITTER AND BRAVO SAID.
THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE SELECT AND FINALIZES THE TOOL IN SEPTEMBER.
THE QUESTIONNAIRE IS GIVEN TO THE BOARD.
THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE PROVIDES A SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS IN OCTOBER AND DEVELOPS THOSE TO ALIGN WITH THE MISSION IN NOVEMBER.
AND WE PROVIDE THE DOCUMENTATION TO THE SACS LIAISON SO IT CAN GO FORWARD.
>> C. COMPTON: THAT'S NOT THE SCHEDULE.
YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? THEY ARE SAYING THAT THEY ARE ACTION ITEMS. I ASK ABOUT MEETINGS QUARTERLY.
AND THAT'S WHEN IT WAS OCTOBER, FEBRUARY, MAY AND AUGUST.
THESE ARE THE ACTION ITEMS, THINGS THAT NEED TO BE ACCOMPLISHED AND SUGGESTED MONTHS.
>> CHANCELLOR MAY: THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO RECONCILE.
I'M NOT RECONCILING WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT THE SCHEDULE AND WHAT
[00:15:02]
THIS DOCUMENT SAYS ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.>> CHAIR D. FLORES: A PROCESS QUESTION.
DOES THE COMMITTEE APPROVE THE SURVEY THAT WE'RE GOING TO USE OR DOES THE COMMITTEE RECOMMEND THE SURVEY TO BE USED TO THE WHOLE BOARD?
>> I WOULD SUBMIT THAT THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE IS AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE THAT RECOMMENDS THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT.
ARGUABLY THE COMMITTEE WOULD LOOK AT SURVEY, GET INPUT TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY AND RECOMMEND THE ADOPTION OF AN INSTRUMENT FOR THE BOARD REGULATION.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: WHAT IF THAT CAN'T HAPPEN IN TERMS OF A REGULATION?
>> I THINK WE CAN ACCOMPLISH WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ALTOGETHER HERE.
WHICH IS I THINK IT WAS MENTIONED EVERYBODY RECEIVED THE SURVEY.
IF EVERYBODY WOULD COORDINATE COMMENTS THROUGH MS. MELENA OR ME, WE CAN GET THOSE ADDRESSED AND BACK OUT TO THE FULL BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION AND GET AN INSTRUMENT READY FOR ADOPTION SHORTLY.
THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE BY CHARTER MEETS FOUR TIMES A YEAR BUT THAT DOESN'T MEET IT CAN'T MEET MORE.
>> C. COMPTON: JUST A SHORT MEETING TO APPROVE THIS.
>> P. RITTER: THIS COMMITTEE CAN DELEGATE TO THE CHAIR WITH BOARD APPROVAL OF THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT.
I WOULD BE TOTALLY TRUSTING THESE GUYS WHEN THEY WANTED TO GATHER INPUTS.
>> I THINK IT WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC TO PUT IT IN THE POLICY, THE INSTRUMENT.
YOU MAY DECIDE YOU DON'T LIKE IT.
IT SHOULD IN FACT, BE EFFECTIVE, I WOULD ARGUE YOU MIGHT WANT TO CHANGE THE INSTRUMENT TO MAKE SURE YOU ARE ADDRESSING SELF-EVALUATING NEEDS.
YOU MIGHT WANT TO CHANGE IT FROM TIME TO TIME.
YOU DON'T WANT TO CONSTRAIN TO SOMETHING THE BOARD HAS TO APPROVE.
THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE COULD SAY THIS IS THE INSTRUMENT WE BELIEVE THE BOARD SHOULD USE AND THE BOARD CAN FOLLOW THE PROCESS.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: LIKE A CEO EVALUATION.
BECAUSE THE BOARD AS A WHOLE HASN'T APPROVED THE INSTRUMENT OR PROCESS WE USE F FOR THE CEO EVALUATION.
>> CHANCELLOR MAY: THEY BRING IT TO BOARD TO VOTE ON THE OUTCOME.
>> IT WOULD BE WHAT YOU WOULD BY DOING ESSENTIALLY IN THIS INSTANCE AS WELL.
>> IF YOU LOOK AT THE SCHEDULE AND ADOPT IT NEXT YEAR, YOU WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THE TOOL AND DECIDE DID THIS WORK LAST YEAR AND DO WE WANT TO CONTINUE OR MAKE CHANGES.
IF YOU DON'T OFFICIALLY ADOPT ONE, THIS ALLOWS YOU TO EDIT, BASED ON NEEDS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.
>> CHANCELLOR MAY: I WANT TO -- I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS.
>> I DON'T HAVE THAT DOCUMENT.
I WOULD ARGUE, OR SUBMIT, THAT BASED ON WHAT I'VE HEARD, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE TO SOLICIT INPUT FROM OTHER BOARD MEMBERS, FINALIZE IT IN TIME FOR IT TO BE DISTRIBUTED AND RESPONDED TO THE ALLOW THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE TO COMPILE THOSE SURVEY FINDING IN OCTOBER AND REPORT THE FINDINGS AFTER THE MEETING.
THE PROCESS IS NOT ONE THAT HAS TO BE ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR ACCORDING TO THE SACS STANDARD.
I THINK IT'S POSSIBLE TO ACCOMPLISH THIS IN OUR TIMEFRAME.
>> C. COMPTON: I HOPE WE'RE GOING TO BEAT THIS TODAY BECAUSE EVERYBODY IS GOING TO HAVE SOME DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS FOR THE THINGS ON THERE.
IT MIGHT E GOOD TO USE THIS AND DISCUSS ANY ISSUES AND SO FORTH WHEN WE HAVE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE SELF ASSESSMENT.
AND THEN DECIDE IF WE WANT TO MAKE CHANGES OR USE SOMETHING ELSE.
>> M. BRAVO: THAT'S A GREAT IDEA.
>> C. COMPTON: WE'LL BE SITTING HERE FOREVER.
TALKING ABOUT EVERY QUESTION ON HERE.
THAT COULD TAKE UP A WHOLE BUNCH OF TIME.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: IT'S TRUE.
>> C. COMPTON: YOU KNOW, LET'S USE THIS.
>> M. BRAVO: THEN WE KNOW HOW EFFECTIVE IT IS.
>> E PAY A LOT OF DUES TO ACCT.
[00:20:10]
MAY FIND AFTER GOING THROUGH THE EXERCISE, THAT'S NOT THE INSTRUMENT AND YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHANGE.>> AT LEAST BE INFORMED CRITICISM AT THAT POINT.
>> WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT.
I WAS READY TO JUMP IN WITH CP.
I THINK WE PROBABLY NEED TO MOVE ONTO OTHERS.
>> D. ZIMMERMANN: WE DON'T HAVE TO BE ANYWHERE UNTIL 4:00.
>> C. COMPTON: TO US AS A BOARD.
WE AN JUST SCRATCH IT OUT THEN.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE WE USE THE ACCT TEMPLATE FOR THE BOARD ASSESSMENT AND PROVIDE FOR RETURN AND DISCUSSION AT THE OCTOBER COMMITTEE MEETING.
>> JUST NOT TO BEAT THIS TO DEATH.
THE MOTION BE MADE BY A COMMITTEE MEMBER.
>> THAT'S THE FIRST TIME YOU PULLED IT.
>> S. WILLIAMS: ALL IN FA VOR, SAY, "AYE." OPPOSED?
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: IF I MAY, MR. CHAIR --
>> D. ZIMMERMANN: THE FIRST AND SECOND.
>> WE HAD TWO VOTES FROM NON-COMMITTEE MEMBERS, IT'S PASSED IN DOUBLE FORM.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: IF I MAY, MR. CHAIR, THIS OTHER INSTRUMENT YOU HAVE TO PAY BEFORE YOU SEE IT, RIGHT? I BROUGHT IT FORTH BECAUSE WE HAVE A MEMBER OF THE VFW AIRPORT ON THE BOARD DEALING WITH THE SAME THING WITH THE CHAMBER IN TERMS OF THE BOARD SELF ASSESSMENT TOOLS.
AND THIS ONE IS DESIGNED TO BE FORWARD THINKING.
THE ACCT ONE IS WHERE ARE WE AND HOW DID WE DO.
THIS ONE IS TO FOCUS US FORWARD.
AT SOME POINT YOU WANT TO CONSIDER -- USE BOTH OR THIS ONE.
>> C. COMPTON: CAN YOU GET IN THERE TO REVIEW?
THE WAY THIS VERSION WORKS IS THEY BASICALLY INTERVIEW YOU AND DO A SURVEY FOR EACH OF YOU ASKING YOU WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO YOU AND DEVELOP THE TOOL, THE ASSESSMENT TOOL.
AND THEN YOU WOULD ACTUALLY DO THE TOOL ITSELF.
THEY DON'T EVEN GIVE SAMPLES UNLESS WE PAY.
IT'S VERY CUSTOMIZED BASED ON WHAT YOU WOULD BE INTERESTED IN.
>> D. ZIMMERMANN: I LIKE THIS ONE A LOT.
>> C. COMPTON: YOU WERE SAYINGA?
>> C. COMPTON: THAT NEEDS TO BE PARTS OF WHAT WE DO WHEN WE DO A RETREAT TO REVIEW THE MISSION AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF.
YOU REALLY CAN'T TELL UNTIL YOU GET A LOOK AT IT.
TO EVEN THOUGH WHAT THEY ARE SUGGESTING.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: DOES THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE WANT TO SAY THEY WILL, THE THREE OF US WILL TEST IT OUT TO SEE IF THEN, LOOKING FURTHER INTO IT?
>> VICE CHAIR W. JAMESON: I THINK SINCE IT'S NOT RIDGED IN ITS REQUIREMENT, THE TOOL THAT COMES AS PART OF THE ACCT RESEARCH AND OPERATIONS IS PROBABLY ENOUGH FOR US.
IF THERE WAS A STRONGER NEED TO HAVE DETAIL OR SOME KIND OF PARAMETERS WE'RE NOT BEING COVERED, MAYBE SO.
BUT I JUST DON'T SEE A NEED FOR IT.
>> C. COMPTON: WHEN YOU WERE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION, HOW MUCH DOES IT COST?
>> D. ZIMMERMANN: ON THE FIRST PAGE.
>> C. COMPTON: I DO -- YOU KNOW, I COULDN'T FIGURE OUT EXACTLY.
WELL, LIKE I SAY, YOU COULDN'T SEE.
>> THERE IS LITTLE INFORMATION THAN WHAT I PROVIDED ON THE WEBSITE.
[B. Discussion on Policy BCA (LOCAL): Board Internal Organization - Board Officers and Officials]
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: WE'VE GOT BEFORE THAT, MR. CHAIR, WE'VE GOT --
[00:25:06]
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: INTERNAL ORGANIZATION.
THE TERM FOR THE CHAIR OR, WE DON'T HAVE A VICE CHAIR POSITION.
>> S. WILLIAMS: PUT THIS THERE?
>> C. COMPTON: WE DON'T HAVE A VICE CHAIR.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: WE DON'T HAVE A VICE CHAIR IN THE POLICY?
THE LAW ONLY REQUIRES THAT THE BOARD ELECT A PRESIDENT OR CHAIR AND A SECRETARY, WHICH THIS BOARD DOES ANNUALLY OR WHEN REQUIRED.
BUT THERE IS NO PROHIBITION AGAINST OTHER -- YEAH.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: ANYWAY, MR. CHAIR, RIGHT NOW THE OFFICERS TAKE PLACE FOLLOWING AN ELECTION.
THE QUESTION IS, DO WE WANT TO CONSIDER HAVING BOARD OFFICERS SERVE FOR A DESIGNATED AMOUNT OF TIME LIKE WE HAVE A SITUATION WHERE WE HAD ONE BOARD CHAIR FOR LIKE 18 YEARS.
DO WE WANT TO DO THAT OR DO WE WANT TO SAY BOARD OFFICERS WILL SERVE "X" AMOUNT OF TIME AND ROTATE OFF?
>> P. RITTER: I WAS GOING TO ASK JOE, ROB AND PEARLA, WHAT'S T THE -- I'VE SEEN ORGANIZATIONS FAIL BECAUSE OF, YOU KNOW, LACK OF CONTINUITY OR CAPTURE OF MANAGEMENT.
I DON'T WORRY ABOUT THAT HERE.
WHAT DO OTHER COLLEGES HERE? ARE THERE ANY SACS XPERTS ON THAT?
>> I'M NOT AWARE OF SACS EXPECTATIONS, THE LAW IS SILENT.
OTHER INSTITUTIONS THAT HAVE LIMITED TERMS FOR OFFICERS.
>> P. RITTER: I'M GOING TO SPEAK FROM EXPERIENCE.
EVERY PLACE I'VE BEEN PREVIOUSLY IT WAS KIND OF A TWO-YEAR ROTATION.
AND IT WAS DESIGNED TO BE INCLUSIVE AS POSSIBLE OF THE BOARD IN THAT REGARD.
IN THEIR CASE, THE VICE CHAIR, THAT WAS JUST BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE PRACTICE.
I KNOW THERE ARE COMMUNITY COLLEGES IN TEXAS THAT DO THIS.
>> AS YOU MAY RECALL, I SAW SOMETHING THAT WAS A PROPOSAL LIKE THAT.
I STILL HAVE T THE SCAR TISSUE.
>> I'VE BEEN MARRIED 35 YEARS, I ALWAYS BRING UP THE WRONG THING.
I CANNOT RECALL SPECIFICALLY WHICH INSTITUTIONS N TEXAS BUT SOME HAVE -- OFFICERS INTO A ROLE AND INTO THE CHAIR ROLE.
IF YOU ALL DIRECT ME TO PREPARE SOMETHING LIKE THAT, I'M HAPPY TO.
THERE IS NO LEGAL PROHIBITION.
>> M. BRAVO: CAN WE CHANGE FROM CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD TO CHAIR?
>> M. BRAVO: SAME THING N VICE CHAIRMAN.
ON THE SECOND ONE IT TALKS ABOUT ONE OF ITS MEMBERS IS PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD.
>> YES, PRESIDENT IS A PRODUCT OF THE STATUTE.
IT'S THE WAY THIS READ, 131.082 IN TERMS OF PRESIDENT.
THAT IS CONSIDERED THE SAME AS A CHAIR. YEAH.
>> D. ZIMMERMANN: IT'S BOTH BCA LOCAL AND YET IT'S OF THE SAME CODE NUMBER ON IT AND --
>> YOU HAVE LEGAL POLICY TOO? ONE IS -- LEGAL IS POLICY IS THE LAW.
IS THAT WHAT -- WE CAN CHANGE IT IN THE LOCAL POLICY TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT WITH GOOD PRACTICE.
I AGREE IT SHOULD BE CHAIR ND VICE CHAIR.
>> C. COMPTON: A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS ABOUT THIS.
WE HAVE ONE PERSON HO ENDED UP BEING CHAIR PERSON BECAUSE NOBODY ELSE WANTED TO DO IT.
AND NOBODY ELSE WANTED TO DO IT.
I STILL THINK WE NEED TO DO THE ELECTION EVERY TWO YEARS, WHICH COINCIDES WITH AN ELECTION.
I'M NOT FOR HE SUCCESSION, PRIMARILY BECAUSE IF YOU DO IT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ELECTIONS, IF THIS WERE AN
[00:30:01]
ELECTED BOARD, THAT SEAT COULD TURNOVER OR WHOEVER IS VICE CHAIR MAY DECIDE TO RESIGN FOR SOME REASON.AND ON TERM LIMITS, I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY HEART BURN ABOUT ANYTHING.
BUT IF WE PUT TERM LIMITS ON IT, MAYBE TWO TERMS, BOARD CHAIR.
WHICH MEANS ANY ONE PERSON CAN'T SERVE MORE THAN FOUR YEARS.
YOU CAN HAVE A CHAIR THAT DOESN'T WANT TO BE CHAIR FOR ANOTHER TERM BUT IT'S PARTLY BECAUSE IT'S AN LECTED BOARD AND YOU NEVER KNOW AT ANY GIVEN TIME WHO IS GOING TO BE SITTING HERE.
>> CHANCELLOR MAY: DO WE ELECT THE BOARD THEN THE ELECTION TAKES CARE OF THE LIMITS.
>> IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A NEW CHAIR EVERY TWO YEARS.
BUT TRUSTEE COMPTON'S POINT ABOUT -- THAT IS MANDATED.
THAT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN CHANGE.
THERE IS LAW THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T HAVE ELECTED BOARD OFFICERS OTHER THAN DESIGNATED EXCEPT TO FILL A VACANCY.
AND THAT HAPPENS FROM TIME TO TIME THAT YOU HAVE A VACANCY.
>> C. COMPTON: WHATEVER, THEY ALTER THE ELECTIONS AT THE TIME OF ELECTION.
AND YOU HAVE NEW PEOPLE COMING UP.
I THOUGHT ABOUT THAT TRYING TO REMEMBER ANY EXCEPTION TO THAT AND SOMEBODY WHO DID IT DIFFERENTLY.
>> S. WILLIAMS: FROM SIX TO FOUR YEAR? HAS THAT BEEN DISCUSSED?
>> CHANCELLOR MAY: IT HASN'T BEEN DISCUSSED.
IT APPLIES TO ALL OF THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICTS.
>> IT WOULD REQUIRE LEGISLATION.
>> CHANCELLOR MAY: WHICH I THINK IS LOW PROBABILITY THAT WOULD AGREE ABOUT ANYTHING.
>> IT REALLY DOES LIMIT WHO CAN RUN BECAUSE YOU'VE OT TO BE WILLING TO GIVE THAT MUCH TIME TO US.
>> I'M FINE TAKING IT FORWARD AND OPENING UP A DISCUSSION ON IT IF THE BOARD IS INTERESTED.
BUT I WON'T DO IT UNLESS THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO.
>> C. COMPTON: I WANT TO -- IF YOU DON'T MIND, I WANT TO GO BACK TO WESLEY'S POINTS.
I'M NOT SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING.
DO WE NEED TERM LIMITS IF WE'RE DOING THE ELECTIONS EVERY YEAR.
>> CHANCELLOR MAY: THE BOARD, SINCE THE BOARD ELECTS THE OFFICERS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ELECTION NO MATTER WHAT.
AND ALL THE TERM LIMIT DOES IS EXCLUDE SOMEBODY.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE A TERM LIMIT, EVERYONE IS IN THE POT IF THEY WANT TO BE.
MY POINT AS, IF YOU ARE HERE IN THE POOL, IF YOU ARE NOT AN ELECTED, OF COURSE YOU ARE NOT.
IF YOU ARE HERE, WE AS A BOARD DECIDE WHO IS GOING TO BE THE CHAIR OR VICE CHAIR.
I MEAN, EITHER WAY, I'M POSING A DEVIL'S ADVOCATE.
WHY DO WE WANT TERM LIMITS IF WE ELECT THE OFFICERS AS BOARD MEMBERS EVERY TWO YEARS.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: IT COULD BE THAT I'M GOING TO PICK ON SONNY.
LET'S SAY SONNY HAS BEEN TWO OR FOUR YEARS.
AND THE BOARD REALLY LIKES SONNY AND THINKS MAYBE WE NEED ANOTHER CHAIR.
BECAUSE HE WANTS TO DO IT AGAIN, NOBODY WANTS TO GO BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO HURT HIS FEELINGS.
BOARD CHAIR AGAIN FOR SIX, EIGHT, 10 YEARS.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: I THINK WE NEED A FAIL SAFE.
>> C. COMPTON: WHAT DID YOU DO IF NOBODY WANTS TO DO IT?
>> C. COMPTON: BECAUSE OF THE TIME COMMITMENTS, NOBODY WANTED TO DO IT.
>> VICE CHAIR W. JAMESON: I DON'T THINK WE CAN -- BECAUSE OF THAT.
>> THE POLICY I DRAFT -- THE POLICY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE, THE ONE I WAS PROUD OF HAD A PROVISION IF NOBODY OTHERWISE QUALIFIED TO RUN, CHOSE TO RUN,
[00:35:02]
THEN THE OFFICE COULD BE FILLED WITH SOMEBODY DISQUALIFIED BY THE POLICY.COMMITMENTS OF OTHERS THEY DOESN'T BE BOARD CHAIRS.
>> C. COMPTON: IF YOU WANT TO SAY YOU WANT TO DO IT OR NOT.
>> D. ZIMMERMANN: GOOD FOR YOU.
>> I THINK WE SHOULD CONSIDER, I'M WHERE YOU ARE.
I LIKE CHARLETTA'S TIMEFRAME, TWO TERMS. YOU KNOW, HAVING A PLACE TO -- CONSECUTIVE TERMS. AND HAVE THAT -- IF PEOPLE SAY OKAY, OH, THERE IS GOING TO BE A NEW CHAIR ON THIS DAY AT SOME POINT IN TIME, CAN I ASPIRE TO DO THAT? BECAUSE IT IS A LOT OF WORK.
IT IS A LOT OF ORK THAT YOU ARE DOING NOW AND YOU DID FOR PRIOR TO THAT, CHARLETTA.
I THINK YOU KNOW, GOOD GOVERNANCE PRACTICE.
AND I THINK WE COULD FIND PEOPLE WHO WOULD WANT TO DO IT AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
AND I WOULD SUPPORT TWO, CONSECUTIVE TERM.
>> C. COMPTON: THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO TWO CONSECUTIVE TERMS.
>> YOU WILL HAVE AN ELECTION ANYWAY AFTER THE FIRST TWO YEARS.
DOES THE BOARD WANT TO HAVE A COOLING OFF PERIOD.
SO SAY SOMEBODY SERVED TWO CONSECUTIVE TERMS AND OUT FOR A TERM AND WANTED TO BE PRESIDENT OR CHAIR AGAIN, WOULD THE BOARD EMBRACE THAT?
>> ESPECIALLY IN THE INTERIM CHAIR WAS A FAILURE.
[C. Topics of Discussion for 2019-20]
SIT OUT.DO WE NEED TO HAVE -- OR YOU SAID ONE -- ON THERE.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: YOU ARE ASKING WHICH DO WE WANT IN WHAT ORDER DO WE WANT TO DISCUSS THESE?
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: AS A REMINDER, THESE WHEN WE HAD THE TRAINING WITH DR. PAT FISHER, WHERE THERE WERE QUESTIONS THE BOARD MEMBERS HAD OUT OF THE NOTES, SO AND SO ASKED AND SHE SAID THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO LOOK INTO OR IT'S A BEST PRACTICE AND WE DIDN'T HAVE IT.
THAT'S WHERE THIS LIST CAME FROM.
SONNY WANTS TO KNOW DO WE WANT TO TAKE ANY OFF OR ADD? RIGHT, SONNY? IS THAT RIGHT WHAT ARE SAYING?
>> ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO WHEN WE STARTED HAVING THE DISCUSSION ABOUT DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION, WHICH I THINK IS NUMBER 10 HERE, AND WE DECIDED TO DO A COUPLE OF THINGS.
ONE WAS TO LOOK AT DIVERSITY AND OUR STRATEGIC PLAN.
WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ND MADE ADJUSTMENTESS ON THAT.
THE SECOND WAS TO LOOK AT THE APPROPRIATE ROLE OF THE BOARD IN TERMS OF HIRING AND APPROVING INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE CONTRACTS.
AND WE'VE HEARD FROM TWO EXPERTS IN BOARD GOVERNANCE THAT HAVING BOARDS APPROVE INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE THING FOR A BOARD TO DO.
BUT WE ALSO ALL HAVE A SHARED COMMITTEE TO MOVING THIS TO INCLUSION AND WE NEED TO HAVE AN APPROPRIATE MEANS OF RECEIVING DATA SO WE'RE SURE THAT IS HAPPENING.
TO PUT THAT AT THE TOP OF THE AGENDA IN TERMS OF DECISIONS.
BECAUSE I THINK WE HEARD THAT DISCUSSION FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
AND I THINK IT PUTS THE DISTRICT AT LEGAL RISK OUR GENERAL COUNSEL ADVICES US.
WE SHOULD DECIDE WHAT WE CAN AND SHOULDN'T RECEIVE AND MAKE DECISIONS AND MOVE ON.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: SINCE TRUSTEE RITTER IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE SHOULD WE ALLOW HIM?
>> THESE ITEMS DON'T NECESSARILY REFLECT WERE A PRIORITY.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: IT'S HOW THEY WERE PULLED FROM THE NOTES ACCORDING TO THE QUESTIONS AS SHE WAS MAKING HER PRESENTATION.
>> S. WILLIAMS: IF YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING TO IT, LET US KNOW.
[00:40:01]
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?>> D. ZIMMERMANN: SIX TALKS ABOUT PERSONNEL DECISIONS.
I DIDN'T KNOW WE DID PERSONNEL.
>> I THINK THAT'S WHAT TRUSTEE RITTER WAS TALKING ABOUT.
>> P. RITTER: INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS.
THESE ARE CHANCELLOR PREROGATIVES.
>> P. RITTER: I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE SEEING THAT STUFF.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: WELL, BUT YOU ALWAYS SAY THAT A PERSON IS HIRED, IS NOT OFFICIALLY HIRED UNTIL THE BOARD APPROVES.
WOULD THAT CHANGE? IT'S A CONTRACT ISSUE.
>> BUT THAT'S A LOCAL BOARD POLICY.
THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE CHANCELLOR RECOMMEND AND THE BOARD APPROVE CONTRACTS FOR FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATORS.
THAT'S IN FACT DONE IN OTHER INSTANCES LIKE OURS.
>> D. ZIMMERMANN: I CAN'T IMAGINE US STRIKING THIS AND NO ON THAT.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: WE DO THAT AS A PRACTICE BECAUSE IT WILL RAISE LEGAL ISSUES.
>> D. ZIMMERMANN: THAT'S THE POINT FOR US TO EVEN SEE IT.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: THERE IS REASONS WE SEE IT.
BUT ARE WE GOING TO DISCUSS THIS RIGHT NOW OR DISCUSS IT IN THE FUTURE COMMITTEE MEETING?
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: QUESTION IS, IN WHAT ORDER DO WE WANT THESE ITEMS? SO WE'VE HAD IT SUGGESTED WE'LL ALLOW HIM TO MAKE THAT SUGGESTION.
IT WAS DIVERSITY, INCLUSION AND PERSONNEL DECISIONS?
>> IF YOU HAVE PREFERENCES, MAYBE WE CAN RANK THEM AND DO OUR BEST TO PUT THAT TOGETHER.
>> M. BRAVO: THEY WILL SEPARATE THEM IN QUARTER TERMS?
>> C. COMPTON: IN TERMS OF THE TOPICS HERE.
IN SOME OF THIS I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE IN A LOGICAL ORDER.
FIRST THING THAT I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE A DISCUSS BECAUSE THIS KEEPS COMING UP, LO LOGICICALLY DISCUSS SOME OF THESE TOPICS.
ACCREDITATION AND BOARD BEHAVIOR.
BUT YOU KNOW, THAT KIND OF WAY.
AS IT RELATES TO THE BOARD, THAT IS REALLY VAGUE TO ME.
I THINK WE NEED TO DO A LOGICAL DISCUSSION IF WE'RE GOING DOWN THIS ROAD.
SO EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS LIKE I SAID, THE FIRST THING.
AND I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE A DISCUSSION ABOUT CORPORATE VERSUS HELPING GOVERNMENT.
I THINK THAT OUGHT TO BE ONE OF THE FIRST DISCUSSIONS.
>> CHANCELLOR MAY: BROAD AND THEN NARROWING DOWN IS WHAT YOU ARE THINKING?
>> C. COMPTON: SOME OF THESE TALK ABOUT THEY ARE BASICALLY PROCESSES.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE THOSE NOTES.
THESE ITEMS ARE CONTEXT OF THOSE NOTES.
>> C. COMPTON: SIMPLIFICATION OF BOARD POLICIES MOVING FORWARD IF WE'RE GOING TO BRING IN POLICIES.
I THINK IF YOU -- ELL, WAS ADVISED A LONG TIME AGO AND IT WAS GOOD ADVICE THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO BOX YOURSELF IN.
THAT YOU WANT TO LEAVE POLICIES AS BROAD AS POSSIBLE SO YOU DON'T TIE YOUR OWN HANDS.
YOU DEAL WITH IT AS IT COMES AND MAKE THAT DECISION.
BUT IF YOU TART BEING TOO CONCRETE ABOUT DIFFERENT THINGS, YOU ARE ELIMINATING YOUR OPTIONS BEFORE YOU EVEN GET THERE.
THAT'S WHY I ALWAYS THOUGHT SIMPLIFICATION WAS THE BEST WAY TO GO AND AS BROAD AS YOU CAN POSSIBLY MAKE IT.
SO IF A SPECIFIC ISSUE, YOU ARE NOT PROHIBITING YOURSELF FROM DEALING WITH IT.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: THOSE NOTES
[00:45:03]
FOR -- I MARKED IN BLUE PEN IN TERMS OF DIALOGUE OR QUESTION AND IT WAS LEFT KIND OF UNANSWERED WHEN YOU SHOULD LOOKK AT IT.THEN YOU CAN REVIEW IT AND PUT IN CONTEXT THESE 10 ITEMS.
THIS SEEMS LIKE A LAUNDRY LIST.
THEY ARE NOT ORGANIZED IN A FASHIONABLE FRAMEWORK FOR CONSIDERATION BY A GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE.
A GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE SHOULD HAVE A HEAVY FOCUS ON OUR POLICIES AND OPERATIONS AS A BOARD AND BE [INDISCERNIBLE] OUR COMMITTEES.
DOESN'T SEEM TO FIT INTO THAT.
AND WE MIGHT ASK OUR GENERAL COUNSEL TO MAKE THAT INPUT AND FROM THE FISHER -- SPEAKERS] COULD BE PLACED ON THE CALENDAR, THE WAY WE DID WITH THE OTHER COMMITTEES SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE GETTING AT WHEN.
THIS IS PRETTY VAGUE TO ME TOO.
>> CHANCELLOR MAY: IT SEEMS LIKE SOME ARE BEGGING FOR DEFINITIONS.
>> I'LL GET THE LIST FROM PEARLA AND TRY TO PUT CLARITY AROUND WHAT I THINK PAM FISHER WAS ADDRESSING THE TIME THE BOARD'S ISSUES THAT ARE APPROPRIATE TO THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE.
I'LL MAKE REFERENCE AND YOU CAN MAKE THEM UP HOW YOU WANT TO IN A WORK SESSION OR WHATEVER.
>> P. RITTER: ONE THING YOU MIGHT CONSIDER IS THE ACCT SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL.
IT SEEMS A LOT OF THE ISSUES RAISED HERE ARE CATEGORIZED IN A TAXONOMY THAT WAS PRESENTED HERE.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: PULL THAT FROM THE NOTES ANYWHERE YOU HAVE QUESTIONS THAT WAS LEFT OPEN ENDED.
I DIDN'T WANT YOU TO FEEL YOUR QUESTIONS WERE IGNORED AND NOT FOLLOWED UP, ET CETERA.
>> CHANCELLOR MAY: TRUSTEE RITTER AROUND THE SURVEY.
>> GET IT DISTRIBUTED, YES, SIR.
>> VICE CHAIR W. JAMESON: INTO ONE, BIGGER, MORE SPECIFIC ITEM LIKE THE INCLUSION AND THE PERSONNEL CONSENSUS AND ACCREDITATION OF BEHAVIOR.
THOSE THINGS NATURALLY GO TOGETHER.
MAYBE WE CAN PAIR THOSE DOWN TO ABOUT SIX.
>> S. WILLIAMS: MAYBE ONE OR TWO NEED TO BE ADDED.
>> IF YOU WILL COMMUNICATE THOSE, EITHER TO CHAIR WILLIAMS OR PEARLA, WE'LL GET THOSE INTO THE LIST AS WELL.
I HINK THE PURPOSE OF THE LIST FOR TODAY'S PURPOSES WAS TO ADDRESS NOT AS THE ENTIRE ELEMENT WHAT DOES THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE WANT TO LOOK AT.
WE'LL PUT IT IN A FORMAT YOU CAN USE.
>> S. WILLIAMS: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
GOING BACK TO THE BOARD SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL AND TIMELINE.
WE DECIDED ON THE TOOL BUT NOT THE TIMELINE IN TERMS OF WHEN THE ANNUAL IS DONE.
SO DO WE WANT TO TIME OR ASSESSMENT PROCESS WITH THE CHANCELLOR'S EVALUATION? OR HAVE IT COMPLETELY SEPARATE? HOW DO WE WANT TO DO THAT?
>> C. COMPTON: IT REALLY IS RIGHT NOW IN TERMS OF THE CHANCELLOR'S EVALUATION, DOESN'T IS SAY THE CHAIR IS SUPPOSED TO -- COMMITTEE IN JANUARY? IT'S WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FEBRUARY BECAUSE THEY ARE DOING THEIR PROPOSAL TO SACS.
>> P. RITTER: IN NOVEMBER WE PUT TOGETHER OR
>> CHANCELLOR MAY: THE GOALS PERHAPS OF THE BOARD GOING FORWARD.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: OPTIMALLY IN OCTOBER.
IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN --
>> CHANCELLOR MAY: THE TIMEFRAM-
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: DOESN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO RUN CONCURRENT --
>> C. COMPTON: THE COMMITTEE THAT IS IN PLACE.
THE CHAIR APPOINTS THE NEW ONE
[00:50:01]
IN JANUARY.>> CHANCELLOR MAY: THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING FOR THAT.
BUT FOR THE BOARD GOALS, WHICH INFORM EVERYTHING THAT WE DO FROM A PLANNING BUDGET AND TURNING MY GOALS THAT REALLY NEEDS TO -- CONNECTING --
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT FOR THE BOARD SELF-ASSESSMENT? SO JUST SO WE MAKE SURE IN THE POLICY THAT THE TIMELINE IS THERE THAT OU KNOW, BY THIS DATE WHICH YOU WILL HAVE CONDUCTED THE BOARD ASSESSMENT.
SO IT'S NOT LEFT OPEN ENDED AND WE DON'T DO IT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A DATE WHICH IS OUR GUIDIN-
>> WE'LL BRING IT BACK AS A POLICY.
I THINK THE CHANCELLOR'S POINT ABOUT THE BOARD SELF-EVALUATION INFORMING THE BOARD GOALS THAT WILL THEN DRIVE THE CHANCELLOR'S EVALUATION, YOU HAVE A BOARD MEETING, SO IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO DO THIS IN THE FALL AND HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY AT THE RETREAT TO HAVE AN ASSESSMENT ON BOARD FINDINGS.
>> M. BRAVO: THE SUGGESTED TIMELINE WAS TO DECIDE ON A TOOL IN AUGUST.
>> AND THEN SEPTEMBER THE SURVEYS, HAVE THE FINDINGS IN THE OCTOBER MEETING TO THE ORK SESSION.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: IN POLICY.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: THE CHANCELLOR'S EVALUATION THAT -- THERE IS A TIMELINE IN THERE TO BE DONE.
>> WE'LL MAKE A POLICY THAT IS CONSISTENT.
FOR THIS YEAR THE COMMITTEE HAS VOTED ON THE ADOPTION OF AN ESTIMATE FOR THIS YEAR'S SELF-EVALUATION SUBMITTED AND COMPILED BY OCTOBER SO WE CAN KEEP WITH OUR OTHER TIME LINES THAT ARE IMPORTANT O US.
>> YES, YOU WILL HAVE TO CONSIDER IT.
BUT FOR THIS YEAR, WE'RE COMPRESSING IT INTO A TIMEFRAME THAT MAKES SENSE FOR THE OTHER THINGS WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
>> S. WILLIAMS: ANYTHING ELSE?
>> D. ZIMMERMANN: ON THE QUESTIONS, T TALKED ABOUT ON THIS PAGE 3, IT TALKS ABOUT THE BOARD UNDERSTANDS AND ADHERE TO ALL LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES.
AND THEN ON DOWN, ONE DOWN IS THE MAINTAINS CONFIDENTIALITY OF PRIVILEGES INFORMATION.
IF IT'S PRIVILEGED INFORMATION AND WE GO TALKING IT ABOUT TOWN THAT CAN GET US INTO LEGAL TROUBLE.
SO THOSE I GUESS AS BEING QUESTIONABLE.
>> WHAT I WOULD SUBMIT, THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE OF ONE ANOTHER.
I THINK THE CONFIDENTIALITY, I THINK ARE IMPORTANT TO THE OPERATION OF THE BOARD THAT COULD BE ANSWERED SEPARATE AND APART FROM THAT QUESTION.
GIVE ME A SHOUT AND WE'LL WALK THROUGH.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: YOU SAY, YES, YES, YES.
>> D. ZIMMERMANN: THE QUESTION --
>> THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO FILL --
>> D. ZIMMERMANN: LEAVE IT FOR NEXT YEAR.
>> I'M HAPPY TO VISIT WITH YOU.
>> CHANCELLOR MAY: USE THE SURVEY TO EVALUATE --
>> C. COMPTON: ONE THING I WANTED TO SAY BEFORE WE ADJOURN.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR FOLLOWING THROUGH ON THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE.
BECAUSE THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT I'VE DISCUSSED DOING AROUND TO DOING BECAUSE I REALLY THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, AND THE ONLY THING I'M GOING TO SAY HAT I THOUGHT -- WAS THINKING ABOUT A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, YOU KNOW, A OARD MEMBER SINCE THIS GOVERNANCE BUT I CAN DEAL WITH THIS.
>> P. RITTER: ANY COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.
>> D. ZIMMERMANN: I DON'T KNOW.
>> C. COMPTON: NO BUT -- I WILL, YOU KNOW HIS PERTAINS TO --
>> C. COMPTON: RATHER HAVE THE STUFF RESOLVED IN COMMITTEE SO WE'RE JUST VOTING ON IT.
ABOUT SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED IN A COMMITTEE AND BOARD.
>> CHAIR D. FLORES: IT COULD BE JUST AN EMERGENCY SITUATION, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WOULD FALL
[00:55:02]
UNDER GOVERNANCE OF THAT.IF YOU CAN'T GET THE SEVEN OF US TO DO IT -- AND THESE MEETINGS, AS YOU KNOW, THEY ARE NOT CLOSED TO ANY BOARD MEMBER.
>> C. COMPTON: EVERYONE IS NOT ATTENDING ALL OF THESE, MATTER OF HEARING THE DISCUSSION AND SO FORTH.
ANYWAY, THANKS FOR FOLLOWING THROUGH TO THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE.
>>
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.