KIRTLAND COMMUNITY COLLEGE

BOARD OF TRUSTEES WORKSHOP: College Planning

Kirtland House, College Drive

February 3, 2006

CALL TO ORDER

The workshop was called to order by Chair Sally Galer at 12:45 p.m..

Members Present: Robert Bovee, Sally Galer, Roy Spangler, Richard Silverman, Patricia Webb, Denis Weiss, Roberta Werle

Members Absent: None

Others Present: Kathy Koch, Charles Rorie

PRESIDENT’S EVALUATION PROCESS AND CALENDAR

Per board request at the January meeting, Recording Secretary, Kathy Koch, gathered all documents and minutes of the 2005 President’s Evaluation and Board of Trustees Self-Evaluation and provided copies for the board’s review. She provided a re-draft of the process and calendar for a 2006 President’s Evaluation based on the procedure followed the previous year.

Kathy Koch said she spoke with The Association of Community College Trustees (ACCT) Board Services office and they are willing to do the compilation as they did last year. They commented that if an accurate comparison is desired, it would be wise to use the same instrument as last year. It was agreed to use the same instrument for one more year.

It was agreed that a resolution to approve the calendar and process for the President’s Evaluation will be presented at the February 16, 2006 regular board of trustees meeting. At that meeting, Kathy Koch will also distribute to individual board members a copy of the 2006 President’s Evaluation form and Board of Trustees Self-Evaluation form with mailing envelopes addressed to Board Services at ACCT.

REPORT OF BOARD TASK GROUP ON ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTS

Trustees Richard Silverman and Roberta Werle have been working with the college president, Charles Rorie to look at administrative contracts and to provide a recommendation to the board. Richard Silverman commented that administrative rollovers, or rolling contracts, provide less time to make budget decisions about administrative positions. He said that, in some cases, you are looking at balancing the budget starting next year, but you realize you are past the date, and administrators all have two year contracts by that time. Administrative decisions should be part of any financial/budget planning and the current situation makes it more difficult to weigh administrative positions as part of budget cuts, rather than faculty or staff positions. Therefore, the task group drafted the proposal being presented for discussion.

They looked at what other community colleges in Michigan do, and Silverman said that a significant number did not have rollovers. He said that the recommendation is that initially, when an administrator is hired, he/she would a get one year contract for a probationary period of three years. After that, administrators would receive two year, non-rollover contracts. If a decision is made to not continue the administrator or the position in the second year of a two year contract, that person would be notified by April 1. It is also suggested that if the person in question had completed five years at his or her current position, it would include 90 days of severance pay. In the event of unsatisfactory performance leading to a decision not to renew an administrator at the end of a two-year contract, the administrator must be notified of the decision by no later than December 31 of the second year of that contract.

Trustee Roy Spangler reminded the board that the two-year rolling contracts we currently have cost the college a great deal of money in separation agreements over the years. He said it is extremely expensive and he even favors one year, non-rolling contracts. Trustee Denis Weiss expressed a dislike of automatic contracts. Charles Rorie conveyed a concern that this proposal will be perceived as a bad value judgement of the current administration. Chair Sally Galer stated that we have had a history of rolling contracts and with Target Specific Bargaining/Problem Solving we have made a big effort to work with our Kirtland employees. Therefore, she would like to see, out of respect, that atmosphere to be applied to such a transition as the one being proposed. Roberta Werle commented that these same administrators come to the board month after month and remind us that the world is not the same as it was ten years ago. The amount of monies that we have are not the same as they were; the physical plant is not as it was ten years ago or even five years ago. We do not have the same resources as we had in the past and everyone needs to be willing tighten their belts a bit. It is happening all over and it is no reflection upon the worker, but unfortunately it is the worker that seems to be suffering the effects of current conditions. But it is happening, and we have to be somewhat realistic about the situation.

Denis Weiss asked about severance and expressed that he does not think it is equitable for someone who has been here five years to get the same rate as someone who has been with the college for ten years or more. He said that a graduated severance pay is appropriate for an administrative level. We are talking about responsible individuals who are administrating the operation of this college. If we put trust in them to do a job, we owe them something for longevity. You still need to have some compassion for an individual who is out of a job regardless of the reason and just as important is the message that is conveyed to the people who are left behind. They are not going to have much confidence and loyalty to the college if they see someone who has been with the college for a long time not treated fairly. It was agreed, with the exception of Trustee Werle, to include a graduated severance for years of service up to a certain ceiling. Chair Galer stated that the discussion can be continued at the February 16 board meeting. Although the proposal is presented as guidelines, they chose to have it presented it at the board meeting in a resolution format.

ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTS: An alternative proposal

Withdrawn

BREAK: 1:55 to 2:05 p.m.

REVIEW OF COLLEGE PLANS FOR PROGRESS

Goals for 2005-09

Charles Rorie provided a handout of the college vision, mission, and guiding principles which were developed through the AQIP process that was approved by the board. He assured everyone that the administration does make a conscious effort to make decisions with these guidelines in mind. Other handouts included a defined map of our service area and the goals used for planning the objectives for the current year developed through the management by objectives process. He explained that the goals are long term and the objectives are current for this year.

2005-06 Objectives

Charles Rorie said that we have already begun the planning process for developing the preliminary budget for 2006-07, so now is a good time for the board to provide direction in preparing the budget and developing objectives for next year. Trustee Silverman asked to see the objectives as soon as they are ready, or in draft form because it is easier to react to a draft stage than a finished proposal. Charles Rorie agreed that as the 2006-07 objectives are developed, as soon as there is something to review, he will get it to the board members to consider for input.

STUDENT HOUSING

Eliminate, Maintain, or Construct

Charles Rorie started out by stating that the administrators are not supportive of continuing student housing. It is perceived to be not cost effective; there is a feeling that it uses a disproportionate amount of college resources for a small part of the total population of the college; the current configuration of the houses is the worst possible layout for trying to operate college housing, and it has presented numerous management and operational problems. It takes a considerable amount of administrative time and it is thus unpopular. The issue comes back to the question, “Does the board want student housing?” If so, a clear expression of this board direction is required.

If the board chooses to continue and expand student housing, there are risks involved. If we get out of housing, we will lose some enrollment; if we stay with current housing it will cost at least $350,000 for well system upgrades. It becomes a question of, “Are we going to cut back to basics or look toward a future of growth?” Richard Silverman said that everything we expected from housing, with the exception of the disciplinary problems, was anticipated and proved wrong the nay-sayers who said that we would never fill it. Now we have a track record of success, and it is not a coincidence that the enrollment growth occurred at the same time we went into the housing business. He said he is not sympathetic to administrators’ positions with housing. He thinks the problems are manageable and part of the package. If we don’t go forward, we become obsolete, shutting off options and opportunities for the future of the college. It would be shortsighted not to move ahead with a more detailed business plan and bid it out. Denis Weiss said that he can understand the opposition of administrators, but so much opportunity is made available with housing. Roy Spangler spoke of financial considerations and the need for looking at additional revenue sources while making careful decisions about expenditures. We need to look at all options and alternatives before making any decisions because the taxpayers of this district have entrusted us with their dollars. He expressed concern about providing housing to serve students from outside our district. Silverman responded that housing will not only serve people from out of district, citing that half of North Central Michigan College’s housing population comes from within the district. Roberta Werle agreed, saying that Saginaw Valley State University was not much larger than Kirtland until they offered housing and local students are taking advantage of it. Local students want the experience of campus life for at least some part of the college experience. She agreed that we need more presentations with varying options such as outsourcing management and ownership.

Trustee Patricia Webb asked, “Are we in support?” The response was that all are in support, with some reservations from Spangler (that he is 99 percent behind it). Richard Silverman agreed that they should not accept presentations from any contractor without a track record in constructing student housing. Charles Rorie suggested that he prepare a resolution from the board directing the administration to provide a detailed business plan for additional student housing.

Well System Requirements and Costs

Charles Rorie pointed out that a decision needs to be made very soon, because if we continue any kind of housing, it will cost not less than $350,000.

State Capital Funding Request

Roy Spangler recommended the expenditure for using the services of a consultant in Lansing to help get the funding. Sally Galer and Richard Silverman agreed that this is an expense that is well justified.

KIRTLAND M-TEC

Charles Rorie distributed a plan developed and compiled by Doty Latuszek. Roberta Werle complimented the plan, saying that it is well put together. Charles Rorie said he wanted to speak more generally as to where we are with the M-TEC. After significant development and costs and further consideration, at this point in time, the M-TEC is close to being a break-even operation. Therefore, he recommends following the plan. We are doing well enough that we should try to develop and grow the M-TEC to its potential. There are some new proposals at the state level dealing with curriculum which might provide additional opportunities. Richard Silverman asked about negative public relations within our district over the M-TEC; where are we with that. Rorie responded that he thinks we are in better shape than we were. We have had significant use of the M-TEC by public schools within our district. The plan was well received by the board.

FINANCIAL PLANNING

Annual Tuition Increases

Charles Rorie reported that the administration is considering a 5 percent increase for 2006-07.

Headlee Restoration Election

Charles Rorie checked with the election attorney expert within the college’s legal firm and learned that we can put a restoration election on the ballot at any of the regular elections in any year. There are four election opportunities each year. We would gain a little over $1 million per year from a Headlee Restoration. Roy Spangler said that the problem with the Headlee amendment is that the legislation was passed to address taxable value, but the interpretation of it has been used to establish tax rates. Roberta Werle commented that Headlee has outlived its usefulness . Richard Silverman said that public discussion needs to take place so it doesn’t come as a surprise. Rorie agreed that it should be included into a plan that we need to talk to the community about it for at least year to inform the constituents before a restoration election is scheduled.

Charles Rorie agreed to develop a community outreach plan to concentrate on the college’s visibility as an asset to our district for one year, and a Headlee restoration election campaign plan for the following year. Roberta Werle agreed that the language needs to be out there so people can become familiar with it. They need to learn that through no fault of theirs, or ours, the intention of the original millage has been compromised. Board consensus was to move toward seeking Headlee restoration.

Curriculum Review and Revisions

The process for review is one of the objectives listed in the College Plans for Progress and investment in new programs or revisions to current programs is an important priority of the college.

Co-curricular Activities Review and Revisions

Discussion centered on the college athletic program. Patricia Webb said that she thinks it is important that we have it. Richard Silverman agreed and pointed out that the reason we got into athletics in the first place is because it would make Kirtland a cool place to be. It attracts students from in and out of the district; we would get a lot of free advertising, and it has been demonstrated that if we priced out the advertising, it would take over $100,000 to get the free space in the newspapers that we receive because of the athletic program. If you look at diversity, it is without question the only tool we have for it in a community that needs it. He said that the community response has been positive. The biggest resistance to it is internally, on this campus, but before we would give that program up, the board should hear from the community, because those are the people who are coming to the basketball games. Rorie agreed that it is good for the college to have athletics. With more emphasis on local players, tightening up on regulations, academic and disciplinary expectations, the program is improving. Sally Galer agreed that the culture is beginning to change to focus on academics and the integrity of the program. With such positive progress, she is more inclined to support it. Silverman pointed out that the men’s average grade point average last year was 2.9 and the women’s was 3.0. It has become more structured and regimented including mandatory study sessions and a formal discipline policy. The housing started around the same time as the athletics program started and the whole marketing thrust was that we are going to grow and to do that we have to make this a cool place.

He agreed that we need to review the program every year and community outreach for feedback is needed. Roberta Werle thinks that if we go forward with it and increase student housing, athletics goes hand in hand with that. It would result in more people on campus with a school spirit type of atmosphere. If we really are interested in our students as a whole, it promotes talents that are not necessarily associated with academics or technical schools, and there is a purpose for that.

Charles Rorie explained that the athletics program is costing $125,000 per year. Silverman argued that figure, because when priced out in the second year of the program, it was at $100,000. And, he said you need to figure actual cash revenue that is generated by the program. First of all, not every athlete is on a full scholarship, so that is revenue. Then there is housing rent and auxiliary funds like the bookstore and cafeteria. When he priced it out, the program was costing about t $65,000. Rorie assured the board members that there is no proposal to do away with athletics, but visible board support, if appropriate, would help planners make suitable decisions.

Quasi-Endowment/Fund Balance Use

Charles Rorie stated that we are approaching the point where we may not be able to maintain the full $2 million figure. Some of the fund might be needed for maintenance and repairs, etc. A closed session will be called for at the February 16, 2006 board meeting to discuss financial direction for approaching negotiations. At that point the administrators will have a set of assumptions in relation to the budget for the board to consider how much to make available for improvement to the contracts.

Additional Millage

Charles Rorie asked about the possibility of seeking additional millage. No one was in favor, if it can be avoided.

OTHER PLANNING TOPICS

Key Financial Measurement Development

Denis Weiss referred to the detail of financial reports and wishes to see a higher level of summaries of key measures of the college. The financials should be looked at by the board at a higher level, looking at the big picture rather than seeing all the details. Richard Silverman said that he likes to look at trends over five years. What are the significant key indicators? Charles Rorie suggested forming an ad hoc group to work with the Chief Business and Finance Officer, Ed Koliba, for this purpose. Silverman and Weiss agreed to serve, but it will need the whole board’s input to choose the key measurements. Does the board want to look at cost per full time student and how it has changed over a five year period? Roy Spangler spoke of other areas like health care, first-time-in-college-students to see if we are getting our market share from local high schools. What is the comparison - going up or down? He said he is willing to work in committee to get it started.

Roberta Werle commented that cost centers don’t give a good idea what any one particular person is paid or what it costs, especially when it is spread over several cost centers. Aging facilities is a serious problem and she complimented the administrators for bringing that information to the board as to what it is going to take to repair all the buildings. She would like to see more information addressing facilities maintenance needs. It is getting to be more of a problem. Sally Galer agreed that this could include more involvement at the state level through a consulting firm as discussed earlier.

Using Focus Groups from the Community as a Means of Planning

Richard Silverman wanted to bring up the idea that we need to communicate better with the community to get a better feeling of their needs, and it is a good way for the board and administration to get involved at the community level. He favors the board identifying certain issues they want community input on and going into those communities with administrators to ask them. Roy Spangler suggested an outgrowth of current advisory committees. Silverman suggested questions like curriculum issues; for example, looking for citizens interested in a small engine program to get out into the community and find people who are interested to give us some feedback. He gave athletics as another example; theatre could be one; people like to be asked. Senior citizens should also be a target group.

ADJOURNMENT

The workshop was adjourned at 4:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Kathy Koch