To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

2004 San Francisco Board of Supervisors election

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 2004 San Francisco Board of Supervisors elections occurred on November 2, 2004. Seven of the eleven seats were contested in this election. Six incumbents and one open seat were up for election.

Municipal elections in California are officially non-partisan, though most candidates in San Francisco do receive funding and support from various political parties. This is the first Board of Supervisors election in San Francisco to implement ranked-choice voting.[1]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    356
    2 755
    103 092
    19 126
    356
  • ✪ JCCC Board of Trustees Meeting for October 16th, 2018
  • ✪ Rep. Jamie Raskin and Trent England Debate "Electoral College v. Popular Vote"
  • ✪ 9/11 First Responders Expose the Truth & Tragedy Behind the Aftermath
  • ✪ The Power of Choice: The Life and Ideas of Milton Friedman - Full Video
  • ✪ Transmedia, June 2012

Transcription

>> Chair Jerry Cook: Good afternoon. And welcome to the October 16th board meeting for Johnson County Community College trustees. We will start, please, 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 Jerry Cook: Roll call and recognition of visitors. Ms. Schlicht. >> Ms. Terri Schlicht: This evening's visitors include Dick Carter, Connie Owen, Rachel Koger, Paula Marriott, Ann Pesha, Cheryl Batliner, Dennis Batliner, Rick Marriott, Melody Rayl, Roberta Eveslage, Blake Koger, and Brian Batliner. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Thank you. Welcome to the meeting. Awards and recognitions. Dr. Sopcich. >> Dr. Joe Sopcich: Thank you, Dr. Cook. We have two awards tonight, and we'll ask Dr. Larson to take the first one. Barbara. >> Dr. Barbara Larson: Thank you, Dr. Sopcich. We are sorry to not have done this last month, because September is recognized each year as National Preparedness Month, providing opportunities to remind us that we all must prepare ourselves and our families now and throughout the year. At JCCC, we make this a priority every month. This requires an ongoing commitment to professional development to maintain a high level of knowledge and understanding of best practices. We wanted to take a moment tonight to recognize Alisa Pacer. Alisa was one of 32 participants who completed the National Emergency Management Advanced Academy program in August. This program reinforces the qualities needed to lead emergency management programs, provides current best practices, and allows participants to collaborate on projects with others from around the country. NEMAA participation requires a year-long commitment spread across four week-long sessions where participants work within a collaborative environment on topics such as program management and oversight, effective communication, integrated collaboration, and strategic thinking. The NEMAA program reinforces the qualities needed to lead emergency management programs. The program supports the JCCC strategic priorities of fostering collaboration inside JCCC and with the community with the ultimate goal of improving coordination to help everyone be prepared before, during, and after a disaster. So Alisa, could you please come to the podium. Thank you. (Applause.) >> Ms. Alisa Pacer: Thank you so much. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Alisa, we really appreciate everything you do. And if you've attended a number of our college events, each time or in many of the cases we have an announcement before the meeting as to the safety and security procedures, and Alisa has been right in the middle of that and a leader for that. And so we really appreciate your great work, Alisa. Any comments you'd like to make? >> Ms. Alisa Pacer: Thank you. No. It was a great academy. It was a wonderful experience. And I appreciate you allowing me to be there, so, and be a part of it. So thank you. Thank you so much. (Applause.) >> Dr. Joe Sopcich: Our next item of recognition, Dr. Weber. >> Dr. Randy Weber: Yeah. I'd like to ask Claire Ehney, our director for the Hiersteiner Child Development Center, to come up. It is with my pleasure that I announce that in late September, the HCDC was notified that it had been awarded a four-year Department of Education Childcare Assistance, means parents and school, referred to as a C Campus grant, totaling $462,000. The C campus program supports the participation of low income parents and post-secondary education through the provision of campus-based child care services. JCCC, the grant will support us by creating a child care access fund for eligible low income student families, supplementing the center's budget for professional development and enhancing the center's programmatic assessment and evaluation procedures. 85% of the grant funding will be provided directly to child care scholarships. The JCCC Foundation is supporting the project by providing a cash match of $10,000 a year, for a total of $40,000. All the Foundation funding will go directly to child care scholarships. So in total, what this means is that we'll be able to award around $54,000 in child care scholarships each semester to students during the grant. The success of the C campus grant is measured by the post-secondary persistence and degree of completion rates among C campus program participants who remain at JCCC. And I have to say, I had a C campus grant at my prior institution, and it was one of the few things that we really saw that the participants in this grant started to really just out-perform the student population at-large because while their child is in the child care center, which usually they only put them in there while they're in classes, they're able to get additional tutoring, go to work for a couple more hours and do some more things. And so I wanted to bring Claire here to represent her team. We have members of our grants office here who supported the grant. But this is something we're really excited about to be able to help student families through the center. Claire. Thank you very much. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Congratulations. Would you like to say a few words? >> Ms. Claire Ehney: I would love to say a few words. I'll make it short. But about 4:15 today I was able to call a parent, a student-parent who had her child on the wait list and had hoped to get the child in and we had an opening this afternoon. So when I called her and said, "And you will get this grant," there was just dead silence. And I thought, oh, dear. And then really she broke out crying. And I thought she -- she was so overwhelmed I thought she would not contain herself. I'm so thrilled that we're going to be able to help so many student-parents. We've already been able to convert five children from part-time because their parents couldn't afford full-time, we had the space and we've already converted them to five full days. So it's just going to be such a great thing for the students here. So thank you. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Claire, student wellness takes on many different shapes and forms, and in this particular case, we on behalf of the trustees and the administration really want to thank you and congratulate you that, just as the example you've given, you help many, many families through their children. And so thank you very much. Congratulations. Appreciate it. >> Ms. Claire Ehney: Thank you. (Applause.) >> Dr. Joe Sopcich: Thank you, Claire. And Dr. Weber mentioned the grant team that works on this one, that worked on this one. Malinda, Anthony, Selina, if you would all stand up and take a bow for making this stuff. All these great things happen because of a lot of the effort you put into it. So thank you very, very much. (Applause.) >> Chair Jerry Cook: Next item on the agenda is the Open Forum agenda. It's an item at each regularly scheduled board meeting. Speakers must register by completing the registration form prior to the Open Forum agenda item giving his or her name, city of residence, name of any group he or she is representing, the topic, and a brief one- or two-sentence summary of the presentation. Each registered speaker is allotted five minutes to speak behind the podium. If there are a significant number of speakers, the time will be reduced for each registered speaker. When addressing the board, registered speakers are asked to remain at the podium, should be respectful and civil, and are encouraged to address individual personnel or student matters directly with the appropriate college department. Personal insults, profanity or language that is not appropriate to be aired live on television, and offensive comments based on protected status or class are prohibited. The Chair of the board has the authority to keep order. So the first speaker tonight is Connie Owen. If you would come forward, please, and state your name and address. I guess we know your name, but for the record, name and address would be good. Thanks, Connie. And you have five minutes. >> Ms. Connie Owen: Thank you. I'm Connie Owen. I live in Overland Park, and I'm a huge fan of JCCC. I'm very grateful, this is a wonderful, wonderful community asset, and my family benefits, my community benefits, and I want you to know that from the get-go. But I'm also here to talk about another community asset that is very near and dear to my heart, and that is Stoll Park. And I will keep things brief, but needs a little bit of background. As some of you know, maybe all of you by now, there's a little bit of history fraught with JCCC and Stoll Park's relationship. And 14 years ago, JCCC attempted to land swap with the Parks Department so that the Stoll Park would become part of the JCCC campus. Many residents, community members, social moms banded together and fought that off. Stoll Park is terribly, terribly important to many, many, many people, thousands of people across the county, and the issue was dropped, but only as a result of public outcry. In the process of fighting that fight, we discovered many, many instances where there had been a lack of transparency and things had been discussed for a couple of years before they became public knowledge, and there were many reasons that the residents became very suspicious of how the process was handled by whomever was handling it on the part of JCCC and possibly on the part of the Parks Department. But fortunately we fended that off. At the time, the "Kansas City Star" ran articles, columns in our favor saying do not destroy the park, and one of them was a column by Mike Hendricks that said Stoll Park is saved, but for how long? And predicted that JCCC would want the property again. So I'm here because there is a proposal JCCC has presented to the Parks Department for an emergency-only egress access through Stoll Park, on the north end of Stoll Park, south property line of JCCC. And although that seems like an unbelievably reasonable request on its face, we have already had issues of lack of transparency, the issue only became known to the public because the "Kansas City Star" reported on it, and there was some outcry about it. So to their credit, JCCC and the Parks Department held a listening session to hear from neighbors, and it was attended by a huge number of people, about 65, many, many, many passionate opponents, no supporters of the plan. You heard a lot about "we don't trust you." This is, you know, there's a history here. And there was another listening session. I went to both of these. And there were fewer people, but the same -- the same sentiments were being brought up. Many of the comments -- I mean there were -- there was a wide variety of comments, not just don't do this, we don't trust you, but have you done a traffic study? Have you done a feasibility study? If you route through Stoll Park you're going to end up in one heck of a logjam when you're trying to get out on 119th Street. There's no traffic signal. Is this really going to be the best way to go about this? Have you had any professional consultants at all? And apparently none. And there were questions of what if it's at night, there are no lights in Stoll Park. There aren't supposed to be any lights in Stoll Park. On and on and on and on. And why don't you go through St. Thomas Aquinas and a variety of really legitimate concerns. Juco transcribed all of those concerns, if you would ever -- hopefully you would want to read every single one of them because people brought up all kinds of -- of concerns and topics that I never would have thought of. So the issue is actually up to J -- to the Parks Department to say, okay, we'll go forward with this emergency access plan or to say, no, thank you, we don't need to do it. The first public meeting where the Parks Department will address that is tomorrow night. So many of us opponents have had it on our calendars. We're going to go. We're going to speak. Some people even spoke to the Parks Department last month when it wasn't even on the agenda yet. This morning, I got an e-mail that there had been something added to your agenda for tonight that modified what you wanted to say to the Parks Department and it apparently went out to some people by e-mail. I didn't get it. I attended both listening sessions and provided my e-mail. I only got it because somebody shared it with me. Very few people can drop and run the very same day to attend a meeting about something they care passionately about, especially when it starts at 5:00. And this ties in to if there is a reasonable request, it's hard for the community, with this history, to trust it when the behavior is that of someone who has something to hide. And I try not to say that as being terribly reactionary, but so far, we're not being -- we're not being given information that we need, and I'm saying the public who's concerned about this. A number of us are identified by now. Brings me to a second question. What happens with Stoll Park, what happens with JCCC, is a concern for the entire county. It is a concern for everybody who's paying for the college, everybody who is paying for the park. And if you'll look on the statistics for the Parks Department, of all of the Johnson County parks, Stoll Park has the third highest population of people using it, behind only Shawnee Mission and Heritage. So if you go population per square mile or square acre, Stoll Park is the most intensively used park in the county. This is not only the people who live around it; this is people from across the county who come to the soccer matches, to the fishing lake, to the running track, to all the families that -- that do youth soccer. >> Chair Jerry Cook: If I can ask you to summarize, your five minutes is up, if I can ask you to summarize. >> Ms. Connie Owen: There's no reason to hurry this. This was rushed, I'm sure, so that it could be before the board at the park meeting tomorrow night. There's no reason to push them into a decision. That only makes it look more suspect. It looks like you're going to want to eventually build a road through the park and do more than just emergency access. If you really want to convince the population that you really want to just do something limited and reasonable, take some time, do some studies, really include the community. Thank you for your time. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Thanks, Connie. Appreciate that. Rick Marriott. State your address, please. Five minutes, Rick. >> Mr. Rick Marriott: Sure. My name is Rick Marriott. I live at 26150 West 111th Place in Olathe. I sent out an e-mail here recently to several of the board members, and Nancy Ingram was the first to reply back. So she's -- her name goes in that drawing, I was going to award that trip to Hawaii, so you may have a better shot than some of the others. I appreciate the feedback from the people that did, excuse me, reply. I'm here on behalf of the Save JCCC Track program. And I was -- I was just -- I never -- I ran track in high school. I'm not a track guy. But this at one time was the crown jewel of Johnson County Community College. And to see a bulldozer out there, it -- it just wasn't good for me to see. And in the article, I was disappointed in several things, the college has made an irreversible decision, demolition has begun. I just -- I just learned about this in January in "The Kansas City Star." I knew nothing about it ahead of that time, and I don't know that many did, if you get my drift. There's some language in here about this is the right thing for the long-term viability of our athletic department. I'm a former coach. I've never understood how that could help the athletic department by eliminating programs. And there was a question or something here said reversible regarding the track issue, reversing that so that a couple of people can influence operational decisions. I thought that was an incorrect statement, my opinion, of course. I don't think in this -- you mentioned the public outcry. I think there has been one, but it appears that it might be too late because the doggone program has been dropped. Evidently it was dropped when I read the article, I just didn't realize it. I was at a cross country meet here not too long ago, ran into Brian Batliner, who's been a -- he's been for this to try to get some conversation going. But I don't know if you're familiar with a study done, NCAA Division II value study. It was called the Hartwick Day Study. I don't know if you're familiar with it, ever heard of it. But this study was done, Division II level, which I know the community college isn't that, but in that study they found that additional sports equals an increased revenue, GPAs improve, retention of students improve, there's a better academic profile. My -- I have an alma mater where I got my master's degree at Adams State College in Colorado. They needed student enrollment. They added nine sports, and by doing -- they added men's and women's soccer, lacrosse, brought baseball back, they added sports to increase revenue, to increase students. I mentioned to the athletic director, I talked to today, and I told him what was happening here and he said what sport are they dropping? I said they're dropping track. He said that's a no brainer! You don't even need a track! And cross country, you need dirt! It's unbelievable. I hate -- I hate to see such a finality come. When I went to Washburn, they dropped football. It wasn't too many years later, they brought football back. Adams State they dropped baseball. Wasn't too many years later, they saw the viability and brought baseball back. In this study, it -- there's an executive summary. I'll send an e-mail out and I'll get this to you so you can look at it, athletic scholarships tend to bolster enrollment near the middle of the academic profile, most notably, not at the bottom of the profile, athletic scholarships offered to females are especially helpful to institutions of academic profiles. Same with -- same with males. My five minutes is about up, but I -- the horse is out of the barn it appears. But I would encourage those who want to bring this back never to say never. I have one handout I'm going to hand out to you. A coach, this is -- this was stated by Billy Graham not too many years ago. Well, it was in the '50s probably. A coach will impact more people in one year than the average person will in an entire lifetime. What you have done is taken that cross country, that track coach out. As I understand, there's been some other sports eliminated here in the last few years. If you would, take one of these, pass it around. I just came back from the 64th reunion of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, where I saw coaches who have been so influential in people's lives. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Again, Rick, your time is up, but if you could summarize your -- >> Mr. Rick Marriott: I will. Just one real quick statement. The most influential person in my life, other than Jesus Christ of Nazareth, was a track coach! I didn't even like track! I didn't run track! But he was a track coach. I just hate -- I hate to see what's been done. Thank you for your time. I -- one other thing. I have sat where you've sat. I was on the Board of Education in Olathe for 14 years. We always had tough issues. But when we had a tough issue, especially boundary lines, we went out to the public and we had some battles and we had some changes. I'm just hoping we can get some changes here sometime. Thank you for your time. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Rick, thank you. Thank you very much. Brian Batliner. >> Mr. Brian Batliner: Brian Batliner. 11420 West 104th Street, Overland Park. That was amazing from Rick. And I'm so blessed to have run into him in the last month. Hard for me to even get my words together after hearing all that, but he echos a lot of what I think you've heard from us over the last ten months now. I did want to -- want to -- I had planned to, before he got me a little bit emotional there, talk about the Race the President -- or the, excuse me, Lace Up for Learning 5K Sunday. It was great event. Unfortunately the weather put a little bit of a damper on it I think, put a damper on it for all of us. But it was really nice to come out and we brought a lot of fast folks out there and I don't know if Dr. Sopcich updated you, but our -- the Save JCCC Track team was the award winner for the fastest team. So the benefit to that was we had a lot of finishers up front that really raised some money, helped them raise some money for scholarships and kind of got to share a nice moment at the end of Dr. Sopcich finishing, we kind of lined the finish line and cheered him on and he came over and gave us some high fives and stuff. >> Dr. Joe Sopcich: I could hardly breathe. They were very hospitable. >> Mr. Brian Batliner: I was impressed that you were able to do that. So that was really cool. We have continued to engage in the last month. A lot has happened since then. We've met all sorts of other new people that have continued to just find out about this or learn more, like Rick, who are disappointed and -- and a lot that were at the event on Saturday -- or Sunday, excuse me, were asking about our shirts and what that's all about and finding out for the first time and there's still some frustration there and then of course all of you know that this was all done in the backdrop of our -- our track now being a pile of rubble, which is -- is tough. And that was tough for us to see last week. Myself, a lot of other athletes have left a lot of sweat on that track and we -- we did it for this college with pride and, you know, we really felt that that was something that we would get to see other alums go on and get to do. So that was -- that was tough. But we're still really hopeful. And we're really hopeful that an olive branch can be extended back out, we can have some discussions towards solutions. I know that there's been some talk of that, but we have a lot of people that still want to come to the table. I actually got an e-mail this week from Van Rose, which Rick was talking about influential coaches, I don't know if you know who Van Rose is, but Shawnee Mission Northwest High School. He won 14 boys state titles in a row at one point. It was a high school record for all sports in the country, period, to win that many state titles. There's about a hundred to 200 kids out a year in track. So if you want to talk about impacting a community, like Rick said, there's no man in this community that's probably impacted more people than Van Rose has over his 50 years of coaching. Anyway, he gave me a solution. He said that he -- what if we parcel it up and we just had the high school coaches in the area, they could coach pole vault and distance and we'll just split it up, the high school coaches will cover it but they'll still compete for Johnson County Community College and -- and he said maybe that's a crazy idea. I thought, you know, that may be. The -- the validity of that may not be possible. But I thought there's something interesting and here's a high school coach that's influenced more lives in this community than anyone out there trying to provide innovative solutions, still, to this day. And that's what we're going to continue to do. There's a cross country meet up here on Saturday. It's going to be the biggest regional meet in the state of Kansas. Lots of great cross country. Those of you that weren't out there running with us on Sunday, I hope you can come out and watch some cross country with us this week and engage with some of those folks. And that's all I have for this month. We'll see you next month. I think we're getting close to our one-year anniversary here. So all becoming family in here. It's kind of nice. (Laughter.) >> Dr. Joe Sopcich: Brian, what was your time on Sunday morning? >> Mr. Batliner: What was my time? >> Dr. Sopcich: Yeah. >> Mr. Batliner: A lot slower than when I ran here, I'll tell you that. It was 20:45 I think. >> Dr. Joe Sopcich: 20? >> Mr. Batliner: 20, yeah. >> Dr. Joe Sopcich: That's great. >> Mr. Batliner: Blake kicked my butt, though. So I just want to say that now and take those words out of his mouth. He's going to speak next, so. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Thanks, Brian. Blake Kroger. Koger. >> Blake Koger. 24853 West 148th Court, Olathe, Kansas. Brian, I won't give you too hard of a time. The race, it was -- it was sad to see how far, you know, some of these great runners have -- have come. (Laughter.) You'll get there. >> Dr. Joe Sopcich: Excuse me, Blake. What did you run it in? >> Mr. Koger: Not that much faster, honestly. But I was -- well, I'll leave it at that. I'll leave it at that. So, you know, last month my wife, Rachel, spoke and I was kind of looking around the room and I saw everybody seemed very -- to have engaged you all, and I really enjoyed that. And it comes as no surprise to me that -- that she's able to do because I see her day-in and day-out amaze me in so many ways and so many passions in her life that she takes, and for her to speak on our behalf, something that she is passionate about, but also, you know, I think quite frankly probably a little tired of dealing with and hearing Brian and I rant and rave about -- about things. For her to do that means a lot. We actually just had our six-year wedding anniversary last -- last Saturday. And that was nice. The thing about our relationship is that we're always there to support one another. We met in high school cross country, you know, 16 years ago. So without the sport, we wouldn't have got to know each other. So that -- that -- that means something to me and I -- and I think it goes back to, you know, part of what she talked about was, you know, why we all love athletics and sports and what it means to a community and to lives and to individuals that follow it as fans or participate it -- participate in it as athletes. And there's just something about it. Right? I mean it -- it mimics every aspect of life. And I feel like we've talked -- it's really hard to come up here for five minutes and boil down all of these messages into one coherent, you know, speech, which I'm not going to accomplish today. But the fact that we've cut programs from this college, you know, golf, tennis, now cross country and track, which, you know, we can go all day about comparing programs or not. But these are -- these are important sports, important programs for people's lives in this community. And sports means something in addition to the education that -- at this college. Again, I wouldn't be here as a resident of Johnson County, or most likely wouldn't be, without having come here and run at this program, gotten my education and been able to go on to another college and get a four-year degree. It's really important. And -- and I think today's political environment, we all get frustrated and -- and we see what happens in Washington and we see all the annoying ads on TV for the elections coming up in the next, you know, month or whatever and the community sometimes feels left out, like we don't have a voice. You look at the Stoll Park issue, we feel the same way, you know, like these programs were cut without a lot of -- there may have been communication, but there wasn't a huge effort to get the word out. As an alumni of this college, I've never once heard from the college, on anything. I've never -- like is there an alumni association? Is there -- I know there's a Foundation. I don't know, like never once been contacted. That might be beneficial to contact your alumni base for reasons such as program feedback, fundraising, which, again, people would be willing to do to help support the program. There are a number of issues here, and again, I'm just rambling up here. It's hard to boil it down. The fact of the matter is, is we're all passionate. We all want to trust you as our elected officials to -- to steward the community's funds and the programs that the community cares about. I think it was once said in maybe one of Dr. Sopcich's e-mails that he's heard from more people on this issue and more effort has been -- been proposed on this issue than any other issue in the past or whatever. Well, that's because people care about it, you know, and we still run into people left and right that haven't heard about it. So either we're not quite yet hitting our stride on how to get the word out or there's a lot of people that care and there wasn't a lot of communication about it. So at the risk of saying more things that I'd regret, I'm going to -- I'm going to end it there. Thanks. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Thanks, Blake. Appreciate it. That closes the Open Forum. Next item is the Student Senate report. Mr. Harris-Webster. >> Mr. Harris-Webster: How are you all doing tonight? Good? All right. I'll just go without the PowerPoint. Okay. So glad to be here. Tiger, the student body president, and just have a couple, a few announcements. Want to update you all on what we've been doing this last month. This is our just overview. We have two new senators. We have Student Senate funding update, JCCC Gives. We were asked about that last meeting. And events in progress and completed. So this is our first new senator, TJ. And she's in Rules and Conduct Committee. Actually she was going to be here today. TJ, are you here? Yeah, you want to stand up? She's in her second semester. And, yeah, so fun fact is that she likes documentaries and watches them in her free time. So that's pretty interesting. Thank you, TJ. And our other new senator is Erica, and she could not be here tonight because she has -- she had work obligations. But she is very involved at this school. She's actually the vice president of the Black Student Union and she's currently, she's been here since 2015, has made Honor Roll four times and she used to play football was her fun fact. And crochets for therapeutic reasons. So really glad to have two more senators on our team. On the Student Senate funding, so we have $38,000 that we have every year given to us that we allocate to student organizations. Some of that goes to fun stuff, like we had Soccer Club last week that came out and we were able to help a few of them go to a Sporting game. And then we also have Model U.N. that comes and this is one that's a club, but they're going -- these members are going and competing in these competitions at universities, go and compete at and they do very well at. So we're excited to help them sponsor. We've already donated a little over 20% of our funding, which is 2.1% more from last year. So just wanted to point that out to you all. JCCC Gives, I was asked on who to make the check out to last time. And I've never written a check in my life, to be honest, so I just transfer funds on my phone. So that's my banking experience. (Laughter.) But that's where the check can be written out to and the memo, so JCCC Gives. We are expecting -- we can accept nominations from student -- for students, staff, and faculty. So just really want to expand that to members of just the JCC community. And gift drop-off is in the new CSI, which is where the old Testing Center used to be, and that's Student Center 334. Last year we helped about 60 people and we hope to expand that number. And we also hope to raise about $5,000 this year for JCCC Gives. So the nominations forms were just posted online and I'll be sure to have that sent out to the president's office and we can send that to all of you board members. So we'll be updating more as we progress towards the season. So an event that we did, really excited about this, the Space Committee came over and opened, had an open session in the CoLab and as you can see, I've got two arrows right there. So they had -- it's kind of difficult to see from this picture. But it's right there. We have blue -- they had blueprints blown up and they had it all around the room and empty spaces. So students got to come, listen to them, they wrote down ideas that we had on the board and we were able to go up afterwards and put sticky notes on the blueprints areas where we think certain places should be, student lounge areas, coffee shops, more study areas. We expanded a few ideas on the library. So it was really successful and was glad to have people there for that. And Interclub Council. So I mentioned this last meeting. It's a once-a-month meeting where we have all the club leaders and any other student, staff, faculty member that's throwing an event that's open to all students. So last month we had 17 clubs come. Fantastic number. We just did a team building activity and this is a place where they can just -- they have an Open Forum where we just talk about issues that they're having on campus, how we can better solve that, as well as they're able to collaborate. So if someone needs help on creating a logo or poster, they can work together with marketing, and so it's a lot more collaboration around campus. That's what this event is doing. That's the last Friday of every month. So this is unfortunate, talked about it last time. We really got a lot of people psyched and pumped about the soccer game and we got rained out, switched locations. So we had a half-time show. We were going to have people do like a three-legged race and they were going to give money to the club winners that won. But that was rained out. So we're going to be planning a future event with another -- with the soccer, as well as the volleyball and some of the basketball tournaments. Hopefully it will be warm inside. So that's what I'm looking forward to. Trick or Treat For Kids, it's going to be a scary-awesome event. And that's going to be in COM 1.5, which is the Food Court area. That's going to be October 26th. Bring your kids. It's going to be fun. We're going to have a lot of clubs there throwing different tables, handing out candy. So really looking forward to this. And then, finally, our PR has been working -- Public Relations Committee has been working really hard on making all these posters and just trying to spread our logo, as well as build collaboration. So this is our poster that we've created. We're going to be seeing that around campus. We actually just saw some today. We have ten seats that are still open on Student Senate. So if you know of anyone, let me know. And I'll be glad to plug them in. But thank you for all your time. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Tiger, thank you. I think if I recall, Trustee Musil had the question about who to write the check to. The rest of us are just going to transfer on our phone. But do you have that information clearly now so that you -- (Laughter.) >> Trustee Greg Musil: I think last year if you go to JCCC Gives it will get to the right account. Yes. >> Chair Jerry Cook: But thanks. As Trustee Musil challenged all of us a year ago, I would -- I would challenge all of us to make a contribution to the -- to the campaign and see if we can't help them meet their $5,000 goal. But, Tiger, thanks. Any comments or questions by anybody? >> Trustee Greg Musil: Good report. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Thanks, Tiger. Appreciate it. >> Mr. Harris-Webster: Thank you very much. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Appreciate what you're doing. College Lobbyist Report. Mr. Carter. >> Mr. Dick Carter: Well, we find ourselves in that lull before the election in November where no committees are really meeting that are doing legislative work. There are a few that are out there, but none that are pertinent to higher education. As always, I like to talk to you about where we are with regard to the state budget, and one of the comments that I made last month was that we should expect an uptick in September, and we did see that to the tune of about $80 million in receipts in excess of what was expected to the state's coffers. That puts the fiscal year to-date number about $100 million ahead of where things were last year. And most of those increases are attributed to individual and corporate income tax filings for late filers in September. And I think we'll see another uptick in October as well. The -- the trend appears to be continuing to move forward and certainly we'll get a snapshot of what that looks like after the election when the Consensus Revenue Estimating Group meets to give their forecast for not only the remainder of the fiscal year for 2019, but for 2020, which is what the legislature will be talking about as far as funding purposes are concerned when they meet in Topeka in January. There is another item that I wanted to mention to you. A lot of data this particular month, or at least just information, and that is fall enrollment numbers. You'll recall that the Board of Regents used to assemble a document that would give the head count for the 20th day of -- of classes each September. They've changed their method of calculation for how they are reporting those numbers, and they are now reporting them, or at least for the purposes of the new measurement method, full-time equivalency is calculated by dividing the total number of undergraduate credit hours taken in a semester by 15. There's a different number for graduate classes, but that doesn't apply here. I would just say that community colleges, at least the community college sector overall was down about 2.6%. We come in right -- right around that number for this particular institution. But I have included a table so that you can take a look and see what -- what those numbers look like across the system, not only for the other 18 community colleges, but for the tech schools, as well as the state universities. And then, finally, wanted to talk a little bit about the new regents that Governor Colyer appointed. Interestingly, all three are former legislators. That means one-third of the current sitting Board of Regents have served in the state legislature at some point in the past. Two of them were on appropriations. One was the ranking member, and that's Bill Feuerborn, who was reappointed, lives in Garnett, and Mark Hutton, who is a construction company owner in Wichita. So they understand the financial aspects of funding the various components of state government. Allen Schmidt served briefly in the Senate and did not seek re-election after -- after filling out a partial term. But again, all of those folks have a sense of how state government runs, and that -- that generally bodes well for institutions, especially -- especially higher education. The other update that I wanted to provide to you is not in the report, but I talked about it at the last meeting, and that is the issue of the statewide mill levy that we just became aware of about this time last month. The -- the Kansas Association of Counties Policy Committee met and the request for legislation for statewide mill levy was turned down. The -- the committee advised the commissioner that was seeking the legislation to be introduced to go back to the Board of Regents. In conversations with them, no communication has been established thus far, but that doesn't mean we won't see something pop up when the legislature comes to Topeka in January. So, again, not a lot of committee work as of yet. We're still waiting for the Budget Committee to meet and take up the Board of Regents' unified request, and that will be the big issue for the board and that we'll be advocating for this year. And so I would stop there, Mr. Chairman, see if there's any questions. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Any questions of Mr. Carter? >> Trustee Lee Cross: Mr. Chair? >> Chair Jerry Cook: Yeah. Trustee Cross? >> Trustee Lee Cross: Mr. Carter, thank you for being here. Wouldn't a statewide mill levy, would that not still be a statewide tax? >> Mr. Dick Carter: Well, yeah, of course it would. >> Trustee Lee Cross: It could be ad valorem, but however we did it, it would still be the implementation of tax. >> Mr. Dick Carter: It's going to redirect where that money comes from and where it goes. >> Trustee Lee Cross: Certainly. It would be raising taxes? >> Mr. Dick Carter: It could be termed as that I suppose. >> Trustee Lee Cross: Thank you. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Any other questions? Trustee Musil? >> Trustee Greg Musil: Well, it would be that. It would be just like the 20 mills now that is taxed to everybody, property -- on the real property in the state that goes into the K-12 formula. It would be some mills that would go into a community college formula to be distributed by Topeka. Right? I mean that's the concept of it? >> Mr. Dick Carter: That is the concept. >> Trustee Greg Musil: How it would be distributed is not clear, but we -- we have always been fairly certain that if we put in a dollar, we would not get a dollar back. And that's I think what the other community colleges are counting on. So that's why we have a concern about it. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Any others? Thanks, Mr. Carter. I appreciate it very much. Human Resources. Committee reports. Trustee Cross. >> Trustee Lee Cross: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Human Resources Committee met on October -- October 1st, 2018, in the Robert Lytle Conference Room. We've been meeting every other month. Those present included Trustee Lawson, Vice President Larson, myself, and many, many other people that you can read about in your board packet. We did a review of operational issues for the hiring process. Ms. Garland reviewed the posting, hiring, and onboarding processes for employment. Ms. Vivas reviewed the staff and faculty appraisal process. Ms. Centlivre reviewed the content process and timeline of the upcoming supervisor 360 evaluations. And updates were provided by Ms. Martley, who discussed the Living as a Leader participation and other available leadership development, such as the Chair Academy Foundation Program and many others that are listed in the board packet here. Ms. Martley also discussed the mandatory training for fiscal year 2018 and completions, which include a new staff orientation, new supervisor orientation, full-time faculty orientation, hiring committee orientation, and the bloodborne pathogen training. The mandatory training for fiscal year '19 includes discrimination awareness in the workplace, e-mail and messaging safety, password security basics, and sexual harassment training, including staff-to-staff, to be completed by December 1st, 2018. This timely programming also includes JCCC policies, procedures, and videos in the resource section of each module. Ms. Centlivre also indicated that the bargaining unit were currently voting on the proposed Master Agreement and the results would be back at 5 p.m. Monday, October 8th. It's my understanding we have those results back; is that correct? >> Chair Jerry Cook: Uh-huh. >> Trustee Lee Cross: And the next Human Resources Committee meeting is scheduled for December 3rd, 2018, at 10 a.m. in the Lytle Conference Room, and I guess I'll ask Trustee Lawson if she has anything to add. >> Trustee Angeliina Lawson: I don't. Thank you. >> Trustee Lee Cross: Mr. Chair, that concludes my report. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Any questions of Trustee Cross? Thank you. Appreciate it. Learning Quality, Trustee Lawson. >> Trustee Angeliina Lawson: I find -- we met on October 1st at 8:30 in the morning in this meeting room here. I find the minutes that were posted in our board packet to be sufficient. They're on Page 4 and 5. So I know we all have that accessibility, as well as the public. So I won't go into more detail on that. I don't have anything else to add. But I'll open it up to the other trustees. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Questions of Trustee Lawson, Learning Quality? Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Management? Trustee Musil? >> Trustee Greg Musil: Thank you. My pleasure to have chaired the meeting while Trustee Lindstrom was out of the country. We met on October 3rd in the board room and the information related to the Management meeting starts at Page 7 and runs through Page 22 of the board packet. The Management Committee heard five presentations from staff. The first was from Kate Allen, Associate Vice President for Institutional Advancement and Government Affairs, providing the annual report on the college's Foundation. Foundation finished the fiscal year with over $44 million in net assets and provided more than 1.2 million in scholarships to students in the past year, which is another record which we continue to want to break every year. Significant contribution last year was the Sunderland Foundation gift of $10 million toward the college's capital campaign, the largest single gift ever received by the Foundation. I think that report, two things were unique. Investment growth in 2000 in the previous year was very strong because of our -- our investments in equities and the one-time gift. So it's not like you can guarantee that every year going forward. Our second report was from Rachel Lierz, Associate Vice President Financial Services and CFO, about the budget guidelines and the preliminary budget calendar for 2019-2020. It is very similar to past years. Recommendations will be brought forward to the Management Committee at our December 5th meeting and then will be brought to the full board at our December meeting to adopt guidelines for the budget process for fiscal year 2020. The -- as drafted, the guidelines would include modest tuition increases for next year, the first time in four years that there would have been increases in student tuition. I think the indication was student tuition at one time was about 25% of our General Fund revenue and now it's about 18 or 19%. So trying to figure out the right balance of that continues to be a -- a process. Janelle Vogler, Interim Associate Vice President for Business Services, presented the Single Source Report. It's found on Page 8 of the board packet. It's a summary of bids between 50,000 and $150,000 value. In Rex Hays' absence, Dr. Larson, Executive Vice President Finance and Administrative Services, gave a monthly update on capital projects, and this report is on Page 14. She also provided updates on the progress of the construction projects on campus and reviewed the report on the financial statuses of Facility Master Plan projects. That report is at Page 15 of your packet. Finally, Tom Pagano, the Vice President for Information Services and Chief Information Officer, provided a report of the FY 2018 technology funds objectives, which were largely unintelligible to some of us on the committee. Seriously, Tom breaks it down about what we do on campus to make sure we have connectivity and security and accessibility for those who -- who deserve it and are entitled to it and authorized. He reported on the safety and security process, particularly in the Facilities Master Plan. Talked about how we're going to get access to the new buildings for our -- our information services. And he discussed a collaboration between the Information Services Department and the Police Department in implementing new digital cameras across the campus to once again focus on our safety and security issues. We have four recommendations to present this evening. The first is -- the first three are recommendations on requests for proposals and bids. The first was a recommendation for a bid on the mobile dental vehicle. The current Oral Health on Wheels van is now ten years old and must be replaced -- replaced. The van is integral to our dental hygiene curriculum, allowing our students to obtain hands-on experience in the community and it's a great public resource, I think, advertising and marketing asset for the -- for the college. So it is the recommendation of the Management Committee that the board accept the recommendation of college administration to approve the proposal from Lifeline Mobile, Inc., at a total expenditure of $468,805 for a mobile dental vehicle, and I'll so move. >> Second. >> Chair Jerry Cook: We have a motion and a second. Any questions? Any questions? All in favor signify by saying aye. (Ayes.) >> Chair Jerry Cook: Opposed? Motion carries. >> Trustee Greg Musil: That includes the equipping the van, as well as just the vehicle itself. The second recommendation involves the renewal of the annual contract for printing of our continuing education calendars that are -- I think 110,000 or so are printed and distributed countywide. There was discussion about opt-outs for those who don't want a printed calendar and we talked about the online opportunities to enroll. But Karen Martley explained why printed calendars or catalogs are still very valuable to those who actually sign up for our continuing ed programs, seem to prefer the printed catalogs. It's the recommendation of the Management Committee that the board accept the recommendation of college administration to approve the renewal of the Annual Contract for the Printing of Continuing Ed Calendars with Henry Wurst Inc., at a total annual expenditure not to exceed $264,000, and I'll make that motion. >> Trustee Paul Snider: Second. >> Chair Jerry Cook: We have a motion and a second. Any questions? Any questions? All in favor signify by saying aye. (Ayes.) >> Chair Jerry Cook: Opposed? Motion carries. >> Trustee Greg Musil: Our last bid was for the Annual Contract for Beverages and Beverage Snack Vending. With recent retirements among the vending staff and Dining Services, this new contract will change the way we deliver vending on campus. It will be delivered by the third-party provider. They'll provide all the equipment and updating the stock in our vending machines. As in the past, it's the recommendation of the Management Committee that the board accept the recommendation of the college administration to approve the proposals from Pepsico for a total annual expenditure not to exceed $85,000 for beverage pouring rights and for a beverage vending commission at a rate of 40% and canteen vending at a snack vending commission rate of 20.1%, and I will so move. >> Trustee Paul Snider: Second. >> Chair Jerry Cook: We have a motion and a second. Any questions? Any questions? All in favor signify by saying aye. (Ayes.) >> Chair Jerry Cook: Opposed? Motion carries. >> Trustee Greg Musil: This is our annual opportunity to mention that former Trustee Jon Stewart is a Coke fan, Coca-Cola fan. We have to do that every year. The final is a guaranteed maximum price contract for the renovations to the library in the Integrated Resource Centers. We finally received a maximum guaranteed -- or guaranteed maximum price for renovations to the Billington Library and the Integrated Resource Centers on the first floor. During the Management Committee presentation, Dr. Larson explained that the guaranteed maximum price is within the budgeted project amount shared with the board back in February of 2018. But the timeline for completing the project has changed and the renovation will be extended by approximately five months. So the move-in date for all phases of this work is now anticipated to be February of 2020 rather than September of 2019. This will allow library services to remain open to all students during construction. It's a very complex phasing process with multiple floors of the library being affected and ultimately will allow all of our Resource Centers to be on the first floor. It's the recommendation of the Management Committee that the board accept the recommendation of the college administration to approve the guaranteed maximum price proposal from JE Dunn Construction Company for Construction Manager at-Risk services for renovations to the Billington Library and the Integrated Resource Centers on the first floor in the amount of $5,420,383, and I so move. >> Second. >> Chair Jerry Cook: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Any discussion? Any questions? All in favor signify by saying aye. (Ayes.) >> Chair Jerry Cook: Opposed? Motion carries. >> Trustee Greg Musil: The last is an announcement at the suggestion of Trustee Lindstrom, the Chair of the Management Committee. We are going to perhaps move the committee meeting around campus at times instead of always being in this room. And our December 5th meeting will be in the Industrial Technology Center as guests of Burlington Northern Santa Fe. So if you have that on your calendar and it will come out in the agenda that it will be in a different location. December -- >> Dr. Barbara Larson: No. It's November. I'm sorry, this is a typo here. It is November. >> Trustee Greg Musil: It's our November meeting. Okay. Our November meeting will be in the ITC. >> Trustee Lee Cross: Can you unilaterally do that, Mr. Chair? Or does he need approval from the whole board? >> Chair Jerry Cook: No. They can -- they can decide where they would like to meet. >> Trustee Greg Musil: Trustee Lindstrom can decide. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Although I would say unless you have questions of Trustee Musil, I would like to say that if you're -- if you're tuning in tonight for the first time, we just spent a lot of money in a few minutes. And I would again remind the listening audience that a lot of this work is done in committee. Management -- Management Committee really has the brunt of the fiscal decisions, and that is usually a one-and-a-half to two-hour meeting going into these items in great detail. So I don't want it to appear that I didn't add it all up. But we're probably close to eight or nine million dollars tonight that we just spent, and it's -- it takes a lot of study and work by staff and the committee. So really want to thank the Management Committee for the detail. Trustee Musil, anything you'd like to add to that? >> Trustee Greg Musil: No, Mr. Chairman. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Trustee Lindstrom? >> Trustee David Lindstrom: I just want to thank Trustee Musil for two things, for making the report tonight, A, and then also for conducting the meeting earlier this month. And -- and as it relates to the expenditures, those are all within our budgeted amounts as well. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Thank you. Trustee Ingram? >> Trustee Nancy Ingram: Well, the thing that I wanted to add to that as well, and thank you for making that comment, but I did call Janelle Vogler earlier, after I got this, and they've changed the format on these bid reports, too, and I think it's a lot easier to read. I think it's very clear and I think what the purpose and description that are listed in there, you know, maybe some of the questions that we might have had are in this report. So although you all don't realize that, what we are seeing is something a little bit different and abbreviated and I found to be really helpful this month. So thank you. And I understand Jim Feickert needs some of those kudos as well. So she shared that with me today. So thank you. >> (Inaudible) (Off mic) >> Chair Jerry Cook: Thank you. Thank you very much. We're going to go out of our regular routine and go into an Executive Session at this point. I would like to entertain a motion to go into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing matters exempt from the Kansas Open Meetings Act relating to privileged conversations with legal counsel and the attorney-client relationship and consultations with the board's bargaining representation and employer-employee negotiations. This session will last 15 minutes. We would like to invite Joe Sopcich, Becky Centlivre, Colleen Chandler, Gurbhushan Singh, Jim Lane, Barbara Larson, Rachel Lierz, Randy Weber, Tanya Wilson, and Melody Rayl to join this Executive Session. And I would entertain a motion to do so. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Lindstrom and Ingram. It's 5:58. In order to clear the room, we would ask the room be cleared for this Executive Session and then after a 15-minute period you're all welcome back in. Let's start the Executive Session at 6:05. That will give you six minutes to clear the room. Thank you. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Ayes.) >> Trustee Lee Cross: Yes. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Opposed? Motion carries. (Executive session). >> Chair Jerry Cook: Thank you. We are back in Open Session. We are out of Executive Session. No action was taken, and we apologize for the inconvenience, but we are back with our regular agenda and that brings us to President's Recommendation for Action. Treasurer's Report. Trustee Cross. >> Trustee Lee Cross: Oh, yes. Under the President's Recommendations for Action is the Treasurer's Report. The board packet contains the Treasurer's Report for the month ended August 31st, 2018. Some items of note include Page 1 of the Treasurer's Report is the General Post-Secondary Technical Education Fund Summary, and August was the second month of the college's 2018-'19 fiscal year. State grant payments for the fall semester of $10,630,740 were received during the August -- during August and recorded in the General/Post-Secondary Technical Education Funds. An ad valorem tax distribution of 4.7 million was received from Johnson County in September and will be included in next month's report. The college's unencumbered cash balance as of August 31st, 2018, in all funds was 100-point -- 109.7 million, which is approximately 8.9 million higher than at the same time last year. Expenditures in the Primary Operating Funds are within the approved budgetary limits and, therefore, Mr. Chair, it is the recommendation of the college administration that the Board of Trustees approve the Treasurer's Report for the month ended August 31st, 2018, subject to audit. >> Chair Jerry Cook: We have a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Any questions? Any questions? All in favor signify by saying aye. (Ayes.) >> Chair Jerry Cook: Opposed? Motion carries. >> Trustee Lee Cross: Mr. Chair, if I may. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Yes, sir. >> Trustee Lee Cross: I'd like to tell you I was checking a text from my wife, but I was looking at the baseball score. I apologize. >> Trustee Greg Musil: Who's ahead? >> Trustee Lee Cross: Boston. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Thank you very much. That's helpful. (Laughter.) Next item is the recommendation on the Master Agreement. Dr. Sopcich. >> Dr. Joe Sopcich: Thank you, Dr. Cook. Before I read the recommendation on the Master Agreement, I'd like to recognize the hard work of all parties involved, certainly the faculty team, as well as the administration team and the Board of Trustees, all gave this issue incredible you could say reverence over the period of so many months. It's unusual. We don't always go to impasse. But we did reach an agreement. And I would like to thank all of you for that. So I'm going to read the recommendation to the board. It is the recommendation of the college administration that the Board of Trustees accept and ratify the modifications substantive changes to terms of the Master Agreement between the Board of Trustees and the Faculty Association for a term period of October 16th, 2018, to June 30th, 2021, as negotiated and as presented above. These terms are on Pages 35-37 of your board packet. >> Chair Jerry Cook: We have a recommendation. >> Trustee Greg Musil: Move for approval. >> Chair Jerry Cook: We have a motion. Is there a second? >> Trustee David Lindstrom: Second. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Motion and a second. Any discussion? Trustee Musil? >> Trustee Greg Musil: I do want to say a few words. This is a -- this is a big deal in the life of the college. First of all, it's a three-year contract. Otherwise we budget one year at a time. Most of our bids are one year at a time and we review them. It's -- the largest single expenditure is on personnel, which includes both staff and adjuncts, as well as members of the bargaining unit. But this is an important step for the college to take, and this year was unique. I've been through -- this is my third time going through the collective bargaining process and this is the first time we've gone to impasse, which means we were not able to reach an agreement by July 31st under the new law as opposed to June 30th under the old law. So I'm very pleased that we can approve a Master Agreement tonight that I believe is most fair and reasonable to all stakeholders in the college, including members of the bargaining unit. I'm disappointed that it took this long. I'm disappointed by some of the rhetoric that -- that I read about. I read from -- about the process, allegations that were made about the board that suggested unfair or unreasonable intentions or motives or actions, because I didn't observe any of those. I'm pleased that 81% of the members who voted voted in support of this, a proposal that was essentially on the table in April and May and certainly in June. I think when you look at the terms, which we typically don't highlight and they're in the board packet, so everybody can look at them, but our proposal in April was 3% for fiscal year 2019, a 3% increase for fiscal year 2020, and a 3% increase for fiscal year '21, 3% a year guaranteed for three years, a cumulative impact of over 9%. Our benefit packages are fair and reasonable as well. I don't think there are very many people in this county as a percentage that can say I have a guaranteed income and increases for the next three years. Certainly Board of Regents university faculty cannot say that. K-12 faculty cannot say that. And this isn't about not wanting to pay our faculty fairly. I think I started in the first contract negotiation I was in that the question I asked is, can we attract and retain quality faculty. And when somebody convinces me that we cannot attract and retain quality faculty or quality administrators or quality staff, then we need to look at the marketplace and we need to figure out how to assist in that. I thought from the start this was fair. I think it's fair today, and that's why I made the motion and that's why I'll vote in favor of it. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Any other questions or comments? Trustee Snider? >> Trustee Paul Snider: Just I agree with Trustee Musil's comments. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Others? Trustee Lindstrom? >> Trustee David Lindstrom: Well said. I concur. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Trustee Cross? >> Trustee Lee Cross: If I may. I'll probably vote for this tonight after a lengthy process in which there was frankly rhetoric on both sides of -- of this negotiation that was unfortunate. And a lot of it misunderstood and miscommunicated intentions and actions. I will say that it's frustrating for those of us that didn't 100% concur with this result that time and, again, we point to local examples of K-12 or Board of Regents schools, all the while we hold this college out as a world-class example of what can happen in Johnson County community -- in Johnson County. So it has frustrated me to no end that we hold out convenient examples in order to drive down the price of the teachers who help us produce the best students in America, but yet we don't want to look at too closely what many of our peers pay, or we find a formula to lock that in. And I think before arrows or words are thrown, that the weight of them be realized before they're cast. With that said, I think it was a very difficult process and there were a lot of different realities that had to sink in to a lot of different people and the whole process was unfortunate. So there were words on both sides, I observed that, frankly disagree with Trustee Musil on this, and I'll probably vote for this. >> Chair Jerry Cook: I -- I don't want to get into a countering discussion here tonight, but I would say that in terms of Trustee Cross, your comment about holding salaries down, sitting on the ACCT board and being at the summer retreat this summer in Seattle, very few, if any, were above 2.5% for one year, much less 3, 3, and 3 for three years. So I don't believe we've held anything down. I think we have continued to be very competitive in the marketplace, border to border and coast to coast. But I appreciate your comments. Any other comments? We have a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Ayes.) >> Chair Jerry Cook: Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you and thank you very much for the team and the great work, both sides, as Dr. Sopcich has said, to get this resolved for the benefit of our students and the teaching and learning process here at Johnson County Community College. Monthly Report to the Board. Dr. Sopcich. >> Dr. Joe Sopcich: At our Trustee retreat that we held several months ago, we talked about a Promise program here at Johnson County Community College, and Promise programs are something where communities are trying to get ahead of the curve with regards to providing educational opportunity for those who may be challenged to pursue that. There are over -- I believe over 200 Promise programs now. The number keeps climbing. I was just with about 40 other community college presidents, probably 30 of them have some form of a Promise program or another, as each of those communities are trying to respond to the workforce needs that are being projected in the future. So the administration proposed a Promise program and some very good questions were raised, were raised by trustees at that. And Dr. Weber is going to take us through a presentation and -- and also include a recommendation at the end. >> Dr. Randy Weber: I appreciate time to talk about this this evening. I'm going to go through this semi-swiftly because some of what -- most of what we'll be discussing or I'll be talking about are things that were introduced at our board retreat with some specific follow-up information. But the Promise program, as we look at it, I always want to start with our mission and say we inspire learning to transform lives and strengthen community. And the last time that I presented on this topic, I talked quite a bit about data and numbers and information. What I want to be able to make sure we do is we -- we take a little bit of time to think about the lives that we are trying to transform and what the program is designed to do, which is really to increase college going rates of low income students and to improve success rates of students who are not succeeding here at the rate we think they would along with a first choice institution like we talked about. So the first thing I want to do is introduce you to the Johnsons. The Johnsons are a typical Johnson County family. They live in a home valued right around $299,000. Their yearly income is $78,000, and they currently contribute $318 annually to JCCC. So let's keep them in mind as we talk a little bit about the data and their experience and the impact of their lives in trying to transform their lives through -- through the college. I talked a little bit about this, but showed a little differently when we discussed this in August. This is the percentage of Johnson County high school graduates who enroll at JCCC. And you can see in 2014 to '15 we experienced a bump in our yield of students graduating from Johnson County high schools. But since 2015 we've experienced a gradual decline in our yield of high school graduates coming to JCCC. The total numbers have been about the same, but that's because graduation classes are getting a little bit higher, so it's kind of our first-time freshmen were disguising that. And these numbers aren't necessarily unique to Johnson County. Community colleges, institutions across the state are seeing lower participation rates. Mr. Musil. >> Trustee Greg Musil: I can't remember from our retreat, are those any high school graduates from the previous spring that enrolled for any class? Or is it full-time equivalent? Or how did -- what are you -- >> Dr. Randy Weber: Great question. The state report with the full-time equivalent only makes a trickier question as we start to think of it. So these are any student who graduated from a Johnson County high school the academic year prior who enrolled in any courses here. So this includes our first-time full-time freshmen, as well as maybe a student who attends KU or K-State and takes one or two gen eds from the residence halls there. So this is our yield of any of them. >> Trustee Lee Cross: Just a quick follow-up. I think you're asking -- is this the total percentage of Johnson County high school graduates on campus? >> Dr. Randy Weber: No. So who would take classes. So there are students who -- -- >> Trustee Greg Musil: (Inaudible). >> Dr. Randy Weber: Yeah. So a number of part-timers may take classes online from -- I mean we may have students who are out-of-state going to University of Arkansas taking public speaking online from us. So that's -- that's a four-year average. But that's a declining number. We see a decline in the college going rate in Johnson County, as well as across the state. We've heard Blake Flanders speak to it a number of times. This -- this graph here, what this shows is the student outcomes that we have by aid type. And so looking across the spectrum, you see the percent of students receiving aid. It amounts to just over 100%, because students can be in two categories of the first three. What this says is that 76% of our students who receive activity aid, these are students who are most engaged at our college, they're in band, they're in drama, they're in culinary, they graduate or transfer from JCCC. 9% of the -- excuse me, 9% of students receive Foundation aid, and 67% of them receive -- graduate or transfer. The real telling statistic here to me that I'll even say is alarming is that our low income students at 43% graduation transfer rate are our Pell students. They are outperforming our students who come with no aid. And the reason for that, in my belief, is that there's no expectation for students on no aid. At least with Pell, you have to maintain academic progress in order to maintain Pell eligibility. And so one of the big things we're looking at with our program, I think this is the thing that spins us a little bit from what we see in Tennessee and Oregon, is we're trying to get our students engaged in our Pathways program, get involved, get some of our student experience on you so you can be successful. This 36% is -- is to our team not -- not an acceptable number. So we're trying to say, how do we entice student engagement at the college? The other changing demographic that we have occurring in Johnson County that we hear about when we're out in the community a lot is the growing rate of poverty in our county. And in the last 10 years, the free or reduced lunch participation rate has went from 14% to 22.5. That's a 59% increase in 10 years. I don't know that there's another county in the state has seen that drastic of a change over 10 years. Almost one in four students in Johnson County receives free or reduced lunch. We had a question at the last time, has that -- has that matrix changed? And it hasn't. It's just -- it's just grown with -- with national economy change. >> Dr. Joe Sopcich: Randy, what are the qualifications for free and reduced lunch? >> Dr. Randy Weber: It's got a sliding scale. I have to be careful to speak to it. I want to say it's a family income of less than -- well, free is different than reduced. I don't want to speak to, excuse me, speak to the numbers because I'll speak to them incorrectly. But I do know that whatever the criteria is only adjusted at less than the CGI for -- of 2% for the last number of years. So that, that increase for us compared to other -- other counties is -- is a reality that we need to face. And one of the things we know about students who participate in free or reduced lunch is that low income families do not typically participate in college. So these are families who are less likely to see college as a realistic option for them. So when we think about the Johnsons and our typical Promise family, one of the things that we realize is that going back to that slide with the performance rates, our average student, 50% of them are not receiving need-based aid and they're not receiving merit aid. And we -- I've heard the conversation a lot about skin in the game, students have to have some investment in that. Our financial aid office factors for a student living at home with their family, the cost of attending college is at $15,216. Tuition and fees is $2,200 of that. Their books and supplies is 1560. That's an investment that they have to make for academic success. Their transportation is over $3,300. Room and board and miscellaneous and personal expenses are almost $8,000. So there's a lot of investment that a student makes beyond tuition and fees when they consider coming to Johnson County Community Colleges, in addition to all these things on the right here that we see that are life happening to them. So the proposal that we've talked about a little bit, and we discussed in August and socialized it a little bit, has requirements that a student be a Johnson County resident, they need to be degree or certificate seeking, first-time, full-time. They must directly matriculate from high school. So they had to have graduated in the prior academic year, whether it be December or May. They must be eligible for federal aid. And we've discussed the GPA requirement of 2.0 for seven high school semesters. I'll say as we've talked about this, this issue, there have been two topics at large. One, do we need it? The other is, is the 2.0 the right high school GPA? And that's a discussion I think that -- that warrants a little more information. We have some rankings from some of our schools, but I can tell you our local school districts are walking away from ranking their students. So it's a little difficult. But we can see from '16 and '17 where -- where different GPAs would have ranked as students who would be incoming, so we could definitely contribute that to future conversation. The other thing that really distinguishes our program and recommendation that we're wanting to do from other programs in the country is that we've heard it, it's called a free community college or an entitlement program. And the big thing that we're looking at is we're trying to say this is an opportunity program where students need to be engaged in their college experience, and if they are, we're willing to invest in them and their engagement. So there are three criteria here that the Promise program would -- would expect for continued eligibility, first being that they maintain a 2.0 GPA and full-time status, and I think that's something we'd want to stand on because that's academic progress and financial aid. And so if we're really making this an opportunity program, if they maintain a 2.0 GPA at Johnson County, they're staying within good academic standing, they should stay within good program standing. Secondly, that they complete two-thirds of their attempted courses. So you could keep your GPA above the threshold if you continue to drop courses. So they're not making academic progress. I keep hitting my microphone. I apologize. And then the last one is, again, that they complete the Pathways program. We've seen really good results from the Pathways program. Unfortunately what we haven't seen is the amount of participation from our students that we want to. Interestingly, those numbers I showed you with the 36% would have been the fall '14 cohort. We -- they were not in the Pathways. Every Pathways-eligible student, this is our third year of it, we don't have graduation rates for them yet because we need three years of data to show that. Then when we get to what -- who are the students who are impacted by the program and what does it cost, this break-down chart here shows at the top the annual amount of credit hours that we offer and the total number of student head count at the bottom in blue. So I'm going to go through the student head count briefly to kind of show who would be eligible for the program and the impact of the college. So in the fall of 2016 -- or '15, I guess it would have been here, we would have had 20,187 students, 15,300 of whom were Johnson County residents, 8100 degree seeking, 1555 first-time full-time in college. Excuse me, full-time would have been 975. 809 directly matriculating from high school, which leaves us a number of 779 students from the fall of '15 who would have been Promise eligible. So when we look at those 779 students taking 19,215 credit hours, their gross tuition and fees would have been $1.748 million. When we factor out their Pell and institutional scholarships of 55%, that's about $961,000 reduction. So the cost to the program for these students would be $786,000 the first year, estimated. That does not account for obviously actual enrollments or any adjustment in tuition. So Year 2 and beyond, what we'd be looking at is approximately $1.4 million if this didn't -- if we didn't change tuition and we didn't increase enrollment by this. We would anticipate an increase in enrollment. One thing I would really want to point out here, though, when we look at the cost of the program, this program will not cost anything if students don't enroll and they don't persist and engage in Pathways. This program might be the only thing on our budget that is directly tied to the mission and only costs if we have enrollment and we have completion, or at least persistence towards completion. So it's one of those things where we're not saying let's invest in this and see what happens. Let's invest in this and students must make progress for it to cost us money. If they don't enroll and they don't progress, the program is not going to cost what -- what it would otherwise. What we were asked at the last session was to speak to what we would consider to be our target goals for the program. And so using the metrics that we just had a little bit ago, this is -- this is what we would anticipate that we would be able to do. We would want to increase the percentage of Johnson County high school graduates enrolled at JCCC to -- we start at the 18.74, try to grow 2% the first year, 1% a year thereafter. Our peer group at the bottom, you can see their '14 to '17 average is 23.25. So by fall '23 we would surpass our peer group enrollment or yield rate. That's a very aggressive goal for us because we don't tend to have the same college going rate historically as some of the schools in our peer group. Our peer group are the schools that we've identified through the national benchmark community college project, who are like institutions to us. But given our average income in Johnson County, we don't tend to have as many college goers, or community college goers, so that would be an aggressive goal for us. The other goal is around student success and student outcomes. And what we're looking at here is, I'll start in the middle and work out, is our activity aid graduation transfer at 76% is phenomenal. We would want to maintain that. Our students who receive Foundation scholarships, so they have certain qualifications and engagements that they meet, we would want to bump that up to a little bit to 70%. But the two big wins here are getting our Pell eligible students, which is the Plus program that we talked about a little bit, try to get them some incentive to participate in Pathways and our students who are on no aid more engaged in their college experience so that our graduation transfer rates for both of them would be 50% or greater along the same timeline. Speaking of timeline, then, what we're looking at, and this is kind of the big thing that's a change from August when we discussed this, we had talked about looking at rolling out an implementation of fall '19. Given the feedback that we've received, what we would like to do is continue to get additional feedback from key stakeholders in the community. So the timeline that we're looking to explore is to -- to build some narrative the remainder of this fall, then in the spring meeting with key stakeholders within the college and the community who have yet to -- to give specific feedback to it, to get some information that we might need that might modify it, might impact that high school GPA, might impact some other things. K-12s have frequently provided information on -- on this, other Promise programs across the country. As we decide -- determined we were going to look at delaying our timeline a year, we decided to wait to reach out to K-12 until we had a little clearer narrative. So that's what we'll want to do in the spring, along with other community partners. So then in the fall of '19 we'd be looking at final approval requests along with a spring '20 community awareness and a first cohort enrolled in the fall of 2020. So that's what we're looking at, is -- is pushing this back a year so we can get a little more community engagement and buy-in. But I think the work group that's been working on this still sees the ability to increase college going rates for low income students, as well as increase success rates for students across the board. That's exactly what this program is designed to do and what we think we can do with it. I will point out with maybe leaving a stat, the Tennessee, the state that frequently gets -- gets looked at the most for this program, two distinct characteristics of their program are they increased their low income college going rate from 45 to 54% as a result of this -- this program. They increased their success rates for all college students who engaged in their Promise program significantly, and then on top of that, what they were able to do after they built out their direct matriculating program and they really got some maturity and some statewide acceptance and understanding of it, they built on an adult program, which is some of the questions and interest that we've had from folks is what can we do about adults, what can we do about adults. It's hard to start with an adult program because it's -- campaigning to adults is one of the toughest things to do in a community college environment. But if you have a community-wide program and then you add to it, it's a little bit easier, is what Tennessee has learned. So with that, I would field any questions or comments from the group. >> Chair Jerry Cook: I will -- I have an opening comment to make. You know, I think of this and it's -- it's -- and some of the testimony we've heard tonight and months past on Open Forum of, well, I didn't know that was going on, I didn't know that decision was being made, I wasn't aware of that. I -- I -- I come in contact with people that lived in this county a long time and I'm -- I'm convinced they still don't know we have the Nerman Museum of Contemporary Art, they don't know we have a hospitality program. And it's kind of like health insurance and life insurance, you know, I've got the policy, but I really don't know what it is until I need it. And so we -- we heard a pretty emotional presentation tonight by Claire in our child center program that this young lady was pleased she got a scholarship because it would help her with her young child. And so I'm kind of torn here, more community input, more time, yes, I -- I understand that. But my question is, how many students do we lose in the meantime because they don't have the dollars we're talking about to finish a degree, just like the young lady Claire talked about, I don't know what I would have done with my child if I didn't have this scholarship. So I can appreciate a timing. But at the same time, I'm wondering who do we lose in the meantime? And this isn't an entitlement program. This isn't a free college program. It's -- it's intended to help that student who needs just a little bit more money with costs and expenses to finish the program. So that's where I am on this. I'm kind of torn. I appreciate getting more community input and we've certainly heard a lot of testimony of how insensitive we are not to get input in a timely fashion, and yet I go back to the track. That's a two-year-old program and we heard testimony tonight that somebody heard about it for the very first time. But having said that, any questions or comments that you have of Dr. Weber? >> Dr. Randy Weber: I would add to that real quick. Our program -- because I thank you for those comments -- was designed around something that I can't -- I can't escape from my first -- my first spring here almost four years ago, which was we -- we have a Sunflower Grant which is designed to -- for -- it's a success program for a specific student population. And the students in the program are awarded a scholarship and a mentor as part of the program. And when they spoke at their dinner to a person, what each of one them said was I applied for the money, I was successful because of my mentor. And we believe that this program has that same design. Students are going to come because of the discount, or the money. They're going to be successful because Pathways is designed and they're going to be engaged in it at a rate greater than if they didn't do it because of the tie to the money. So -- so the money is there, but -- but it's the enticement to get them to have the experience that we're so desperate to have them to get through. >> Dr. Joe Sopcich: Randy, this has often been described as an economic development plan or workforce development as these communities are trying to get their workforce ready in the future. Have you heard any examples where that's working? >> Dr. Randy Weber: Yeah. So that's -- that's really the thing that we're aiming for is we see -- we see the Georgetown Study is -- is a nationwide study that is projecting what -- what future workforce demands will be and -- and the demands for some form of post-secondary are extremely high, but we're seeing a lot of it isn't necessarily baccalaureate level. And so this is our contribution. And we anticipate Johnson County will even have a higher -- I think the Kansas rate is 76% of jobs will require some form of post-secondary. And what we know is that that's the college going rate is 79% right now. So we have to have almost 100% success rate with those students in order to meet job demands of the future. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Trustee Ingram, then Snider, then Cross. >> Trustee Nancy Ingram: What you are telling us is, as you look forward, you would rather wait to start this? >> Dr. Randy Weber: I would rather wait. I feel it's necessary to wait given -- >> Trustee Nancy Ingram: Okay. >> Dr. Randy Weber: -- given current dynamics. I would rather not wait, personally, since you're asking me. I think we could roll it out. I think the last year we've spent responding to some things that people feel we didn't -- felt we didn't get appropriate community buy-in. >> Trustee Nancy Ingram: Right. >> Dr. Randy Weber: This is an attempt to do that. So sometimes the question is do you overreact to a certain level of responsiveness. >> Trustee Nancy Ingram: Right. >> Dr. Randy Weber: And I question if that's what we're doing. But this is isn't something I want to be -- I want our community to embrace and I feel like if we have a little more time to get them to embrace it, then they won't have to swallow it and fight against it for a whole time -- for a significant amount of time. But personally, I'd rather do it sooner rather than later for the reasons Trustee Cook said, which is we have missed opportunity in the meantime. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Trustee Snider? >> Trustee Paul Snider: Randy, I appreciate the comments. I'm glad the college is looking at programs like this, other ways that we can add to student success and engagement. I am glad we're taking the time, though, to -- to get input from the community. No doubt this -- this has a lot of merit. I think there are a number of things we could do to -- to make our students more successful and different ways we could shape affordability for the college. But I think this does have a lot of promise, no pun intended. But I was one of those that did have a lot of questions. I'm sure others did. And I know at the Foundation when we explored this, there were questions. I think anytime we expose this topic to someone, questions are going to emanate. And so I am glad we're taking the time and -- because this does have the potential, if it were to move forward, to be a big deal for the county and I want to make sure that we do it right. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Trustee Cross? >> Trustee Lee Cross: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Dr. Weber. I looked at the Federal Register online here at the United States Department of Ag, and the food at the division -- Food and Service Division. Reduced meals start at 185% of poverty. Does that sound about right? >> Dr. Randy Weber: I think that's probably the formula. >> That's correct. >> Trustee Lee Cross: And then free meals are at 130% of the poverty line, depending upon the family size? >> Dr. Randy Weber: The poverty in Johnson County is what, 24,000 or something like that? >> Trustee Lee Cross: Something like that. And this is no criticism of you. I just, I appreciate you raising these issues because while we have the Johnsons, you know, at 299, and making 78 I think is your average, I mean it's not representative I think -- and that's your point -- of that 22% that's struggling. Right? >> Dr. Randy Weber: And the interesting thing is, this doesn't cost for those students. The students who are going to be Pell eligible, the federal government is going to pay for. But without a program that's so simple that middle school and early high school they just understand college is an option without complexity, those families don't consider college, which the federal government is going to pay for. And so that's -- we're not spending more on the students that people think are at most risk. The federal government is the one who is investing in them. The trick is, the program has to be simple enough that when they're talking around their communities, their schools, their churches, they can talk about, well, of course you can go to college because it's a community program available to all. Not, well, the Pell will be there, because they don't understand Pell will be there five years from now. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Trustee Musil? >> Trustee Greg Musil: Well, I -- I appreciated hearing this in August. Today we had some new slides that were helpful, some new data that's helpful and troubling, I think as you pointed out, that our no aid students have such a low success rate. The kind of questions I've heard and that I think we ought to explore, and I've tried to make a list of them, is there is no need criteria, and that's always a question of whether -- my daughter could -- could qualify for this. And you say federal aid eligible, all she has to do is fill out a FAFSA, right? >> Dr. Randy Weber: Correct. >> Trustee Greg Musil: So there's always a question about whether my daughter should qualify for more advantage at the college or pay our relatively low full freight. So I think that's what I've heard from people. The GPA levels, both at the high school and the college level, need to be fully fleshed out, what the right level is. It -- we all need to recognize, this is still a small percentage of the overall attendance cost. I think you said 15,200 is the total if you live at home. And of that, 1200 was tuition and fees? >> Dr. Randy Weber: 2200. >> Trustee Greg Musil: 2200 is tuition and fees. So I just want to make sure we don't see this as some panacea that everybody can now afford college. Because it's not. It's when your car breaks down that you have problems or you don't have a way to get here. Does it -- does it make a difference? And that's why I hope in building the campaign and the narrative, we will -- we will go to K-12 schools before -- as part of building the narrative, because they're the ones that can help us -- tell us how do we get to those kids when they're sixth graders or they're ninth graders and say you can go to college, I don't care what your family situation is, here's a very simple plan for you to do it. But if we develop the narrative here and then go to the K-12 and tell them this is what we think is going to work, I think -- I think we need to involve them earlier than the stakeholder point that was on the board. And I guess maybe I'm not clear on building the narrative. We're going to tell them what we want and what the story is and how it works. I want them to be part of that process. >> Dr. Randy Weber: Well, no, it's -- a little bit of it is -- one of the questions we want to ask, what's the feedback we want to receive from them when we get with them so we can have some consistency and response in that? I think we got much of the kind of the preliminary design to that, but -- >> Trustee Greg Musil: The other thing I've heard is it doesn't target a need. I mean if we want to fill up our CTE building, would it be reasonable to say we're going to have a program so you can get into this? So you're not looking at -- I mean, again, who are you targeting? Who are you going to help? Are you going to try to help everybody? And I know that gets dicey, politically and economically. But those questions have been asked of me and I think we need to ask of the community. And then I have a question. I wonder what -- if there's -- if we established whether this has an impact on our giving to our Foundation for Foundation scholarships, if there's a program out there that appears to say the college will take care of you if you meet these criteria. And I -- I don't know. I'm not asking Kate to respond tonight and it would take some study of other places where they've -- we rely on a million dollars -- a million two in scholarship money every year. That comes in from donors. And will that continue to come in if we have a program that says we're going to pay for things if you meet these criteria? >> Dr. Joe Sopcich: The more successful programs are really geared -- are benefiting from philanthropy. In other words, their philanthropy has gone up and it kind of provides a foundation for these programs. >> Trustee Greg Musil: I just want to see that data. >> Dr. Joe Sopcich: Yeah. >> Trustee Greg Musil: I mean the problem I see in this is you said there are hundreds of Promise programs, and every one of them is different, it's in a different, you know, socioeconomic program, it's in different kind of schools, it's in different kind of state programs, and so I think we can make this work with the time table you've -- you've set out. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Trustee Lawson? >> Trustee Angeliina Lawson: Thank you. I just want to say thank you so much, Randy, Dr. Weber, for this presentation and the work that you've put into this because it has been quite a process. There are so many variables out there that we have to kind of synthesize to our population. I know I've been an advocate for the population of focusing on returning students between 25 and 40, and I've mentioned this before, into specific programs that are anchored into our business, our trade, healthcare, technology industries. Then it kind of takes away the GPA issue. And then it also has a different reason when you have a student returning, they have a different reason for wanting to attend school and the classes. So right now, I remember the last time you had a presentation, there was a slide comparing high schoolers to returning, and it looked like, if I was -- if I'm not mistaken, that high schoolers already have an increase all by itself, there's a -- they're already coming in here; what's low is the returning students. And so I wonder and I'm curious that if we bolster the returning students with the college Promise or the JCCC Promise, into specific in-demand careers, that that might be the need that we're looking for, especially when we're going into the workforce. High school and elementary school, that's definitely a long-term plan, but sometimes we might need the workforce development right now, and those short-term certification programs could be really beneficial when we have the new CTE building. There's also other programs that are currently doing something very similar, which is the JC adult continuing -- or adult ed accelerating opportunity, and that right now is for students to earn their GED and enroll in career tech courses, but in order to get your college funded, you have to -- through the federal and I believe it's the state grants, you have to not -- you have to be able to go towards the GED. So there are already similar types of college Promise programs that are already existing. So that's exciting, and the federal government's already funding that. I really like the point that you brought out that it's not going to cost us anything just by having this there. It has to be an active enrollment in that, and I think that was a point that I hadn't heard before, so I appreciate you mentioning that. The last question I have is you brought up food need. I don't see -- I'd be curious to find out how we can incorporate the -- the food need into this program. If we're seeing an increase in that on campus, how are we also helping that with this program? And that's kind of my -- >> Chair Jerry Cook: Any other comments or questions? Thank you, Dr. Weber. Appreciate it. And I guess at this point the direction is that we'll go on to the extended timeline and get more data and -- >> Dr. Joe Sopcich: I'd like to thank Randy for the work he's done on this, as well as all the team that's put all this together. Some of the examples of programs that I heard were, like Greg said, they're all over the place and I really appreciated where you're trying to take this program. It seems to have the appropriate disciplines and parameters. So thank you very much. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Do you have any other items in your Monthly Report to the Board? >> Dr. Joe Sopcich: That concludes the monthly report. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Okay. Thank you. Dr. Weber, thank you very much. We have no old business tonight. Excuse me. We have one new business item. We've had a request from the Johnson County Parks and Rec for a resolution, and so, Dr. Sopcich, I'll introduce you to lead us into that. >> Dr. Joe Sopcich: Sure. Last -- was it Monday, the Parks Board requested a resolution from -- from our trustees in regards to Stoll Park. And so we turned that around as fast as we could, it was to facilitate the Parks Board meeting which was going to be tomorrow night. I just want to put this into a little bit of context here because we're talking about safety. We're talking about safety for every one of you and every student we have on this campus. And for those of you who were around five years ago when we had that lockdown, and I was, and I can remember what we all experienced, let alone the fear and the uncertainty for the students and the people that were here. Fortunately, our PD and it seems like all the municipal police departments came to our assistance and it was a real frightening moment. We were lucky because it was a false alarm. But we learned an awful lot about ourselves and how to respond to that. Since then, we've committed ourselves to safety, we've committed ourselves to safety for our students and people who work here on campus, and this is one of the -- one more thing that we can do. We've talked about more cameras. We've talked about more police officers. We've been talking and doing all of these things. And this is another component of our -- of our campus safety project. So, Barbara? >> Dr. Barbara Larson: Sure. Thank you, Dr. Sopcich. And you're right, we received a request that we formalize our request to Johnson County Parks and Recreation District, or JCPRD, beyond the language of our Facilities Master Plan which was adopted by the board in 2016. So staff has drafted a resolution that's in your packet that outlines the college's commitment to a safe and secure environment and the policy language that supports that. We identify that JCCC's evacuation procedures and protocols have been prioritized as an area for improvement and specifically given the nature of our students as commuter, we address the need to create an alternate or additional route to and from campus in the event of an emergency. Therefore, we have approached the JCPRD to consider creating an emergency ingress-egress route between the college and the park. The resolution in your packet makes clear that this route would only be used in a catastrophic or emergency situation in which an alternate route becomes a safety option for our police, emergency responders, or emergency organizations. It also makes clear that use of the route would only occur through a coordinated law enforcement-led effort to ensure the safety of park patrons, as well as our students, faculty, and staff. The college has a very positive working relationship with JCPRD park police, Overland Park police, as well as the Johnson County sheriff and the state highway patrol. We describe in the resolution examples of catastrophic events such as a gas explosion, following a tornado where a portion of either property has been destroyed or regular exits blocked, or an evacuation following a violent intruder event. As with any planning for emergency preparedness, we hope that we will never have cause to utilize this route. But if it were the only means by which a first responder could get to campus or to the park, we would have it available to our organizations. Together with the JCPRD, we held two listening sessions over this past month, and we hope that this resolution addresses some of the concerns that we heard during those sessions, particularly the concern that this route may be used for non-emergency purposes, as well as the overly broad language in the adopted Facilities Master Plan. If you move to approve this resolution this evening, the language in the Facilities Master Plan would be amended to strike the original reference to constructing a road and instead describe accurately the intent of this plan, which as you can see is a crushed gravel path to join the south end of our campus to the 10-foot walking path in the park. >> Dr. Joe Sopcich: Barbara, the yellow line is the property line? >> Dr. Barbara Larson: The yellow line is the property line. I know that's difficult to see. >> Dr. Joe Sopcich: And how far from the yellow line to that path? >> Dr. Barbara Larson: Approximately 15 yards. In addition, there is a bit of asphalt added to the very end of the north -- the north end of the north parking lot. Again, this could be used by the park if for some reason 119th Street were blocked because of an emergency situation, and vehicles, emergency vehicles could get to the park or through -- from the park to the campus. Do you have questions? >> Dr. Joe Sopcich: Do you have the bollards there? >> Dr. Barbara Larson: There are -- there are some bollards there. And the plan would envision the bollards being separated the width of a vehicle, and then with cables or -- >> Dr. Joe Sopcich: And those would go up at the very top? >> Dr. Barbara Larson: At the top, on our property, as well as at the north end of the -- of the parking lot there. >> Trustee Greg Musil: Would there be bollards and a gate at the parking lot entrance on our property to the crushed gravel path? >> Dr. Barbara Larson: Yes. >> Trustee Greg Musil: So there will be two places on -- there will be one at the property line and another one at the parking lot curb? >> Dr. Barbara Larson: Say that -- I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understood the question. >> Trustee Greg Musil: It will be blocked off at the property line; is that right? >> Dr. Barbara Larson: No. We had envisioned it blocked off at our south -- >> Trustee Greg Musil: Only at the parking lot? Okay. >> Trustee Lee Cross: Mr. Chair? >> Chair Jerry Cook: Yes, Trustee Cross. >> Trustee Lee Cross: Thank you, Vice President Larson, for this. I mean I fully support the administration on this and I'm almost certain that I was someone that encouraged this, this action certainly in the four or five years that we struggled with our role and responsibility allowing guns on campus, so I'm happy to step in front of the administration on this one and fully support you because I know I asked for it. I absolutely wanted this, so I commend you and thank the administration for doing this and I fully support it. >> Dr. Joe Sopcich: It might be kind of difficult for people to read the fine print there, but what's the safety cable deal? On the left side, very bottom it says safety cable to prevent vehicle access. >> Dr. Barbara Larson: Right. So, again, that would be the cable -- right now there are bollards and a cable on the north end of that parking lot. So it would be the same cable, but just at a -- at an extended distance. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Trustee Lindstrom? >> Trustee David Lindstrom: I support this, but I also attended, as many of the other trustees did, the public hearing and heard Ms. Owens' comments tonight. Is Ms. Owens still here? And -- and I think to address her and her neighbors' concern as it relates to trust, I would not be opposed to adding any kind of language that says that my intentions or the intentions of this board are to do exactly what we're talking about here and nothing further, that this is not a slippery slope. This is exactly what we intend, and communicate that to the neighbors as well. So I don't -- I don't want to complicate this. But if there's a way to incorporate that kind of language. And I know that this board cannot hold any future boards, but -- but to assure the neighbors that this is what we're -- what our intentions are, I would not be opposed to that. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Trustee Snider? Trustee Snider? >> Trustee Paul Snider: Thank you. I would support what Trustee Lindstrom said. I understand the mechanics of not necessarily being able to incorporate that into the resolution, but perhaps we could do a letter that we all sign or those that would be interested signing, something to that effect. It would be more just to memorialize that people could keep. But the point I wanted to make was that just to remind everyone that I will not be participating in the JCPRD board meeting section on this, nor voting, so I won't be partcipating in the discussion or vote. And then I did have a question just more from a historical perspective, why the paths on the community college property are -- are gravel paths versus asphalt paths. Is there a reason other than cost? >> Dr. Joe Sopcich: I would agree with that, because that 5K went on those gravel paths on Sunday and it was very inconvenient to those of us who take running more seriously. (Laughter) So I would support anything to do with asphalt. >> Trustee Paul Snider: Well, I mean does anyone know? Was there a reason other than cost that those were done? Is Rex still here? >> Dr. Barbara Larson: I don't know about the gravel paths on our property. Was there any reason? Has there ever been discussion about asphalting those? >> All of them, you're talking about? >> Dr. Barbara Larson: No. The ones -- the gravel paths here. >> Yeah, we did talk about asphalt and gravel, both options. >> Trustee Paul Snider: So it's just a cost issue? >> Yes. >> Trustee Paul Snider: Okay. So I guess I would encourage us at some point to look at that and we've got all sorts of property even kind of running down the -- whatever the road is by the soccer fields and all that down to, you know, the new Student Center and everything else, having the nice wide path for people to walk on would be a tremendous asset to people here and the community in general. That's just from a parks perspective. The number one asset that people like are -- are short walking paths, usually 2-mile circuit paths, and then the second most appreciated benefit from Parks and Rec are -- are more than 2-mile walking paths. (Laughter.) So it's important to people in the community. And then I would just note, you know, and we might revisit this with JCPRD, should they want to move forward, that -- that particularly the new addition might look at something, I think connecting a gravel path to an asphalt path may look awkward. >> Dr. Barbara Larson: Okay. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Trustee Ingram? >> Trustee Nancy Ingram: Yes, I just wanted to say as well that much like you, I was one of the people who had asked for another exit. So I appreciate Trustee Lindstrom's comments because I would support what you're suggesting, but I will also vote for it, so thank you. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Trustee Musil? >> Trustee Greg Musil: Well, I -- Connie and I go way back, and I appreciate her concerns and -- and her -- her questioning because much of it makes sense particularly with respect to the process that led to this, which wasn't done as well as it could have been done, which is because humans were involved. But I -- I'm trying to figure out if there is a reason why this -- I don't think any information will come forward. I don't know that any more arguments will come forward. But if it is a -- if it is advantageous or if the neighborhoods feel better that we take -- put this off until next month and JCPRD takes it up next month, I would not be opposed to that. It's not listed in our agenda and we got a request from JCPRD on Monday to come up with a resolution, which I think is completely consistent with what the master plan intended and certainly the second half of the language in the master plan said. So it's -- it's not a surprise. Connie, you mentioned that you didn't get the e-mail today. I had asked everybody yesterday on campus that if there's going to be a resolution, send it out to e-mails that we have because if we hadn't sent it out, somebody would have said I never got it at all and that is the first I heard about it. So the first you heard about it was from somebody else. There's nothing in this that is time sensitive to me. I'm going to leave that thought in mind. But I would like to go through some of the arguments that were made at the first listening session, which I attended, and both of the listening session transcripts, both of which I read, because I think it's important, it's important that particularly you want to discuss with the broader public and I agree, I agree that certainly whoever is silly enough sometimes to watch these recorded meetings, but we all run into people who do. And I think it's important to know, nobody up here can change or be responsible for what happened in 2004. And this proposal has nothing to do with what happened in 2004, other than the underlying sense that you didn't know what was coming in 2004 and it took a lot to fight and stop it. But this is not taking over the park or swapping out the park or using the park in any way, in any planned session. So -- and I agree, you pointed out how poorly worded, in my opinion, our master plan was. I take responsibility for that as a board member at the time. There was never a discussion at our board meetings or board retreats on the master plan about any road through Stoll Park. There was no discussion about anything except an emergency access point. And yet the master -- or the facilities plan said road through Stoll Park. So we're going to -- we can fix that because that was never the intent. But let me run through some of the concerns I heard and I highlighted through both my meeting notes and then going through the transcripts. Safety of people in the park. People will be careening out of the campus through the park where kids are playing and soccer games are going on and people are walking their dogs. At the second listening session, Chief Russell clearly made clear what I thought was obvious from the start. The park will be evacuated first. Nobody is going to start evacuating cars into the park while people are still using the park. So make it clear, the park is going to be evacuated first. If there are soccer games going on, they're going to get out. For one thing, it will open that road which has cars parked on both sides when there are soccer games going on. Safety of drivers on the path, and I know that -- I highlighted the term "mass pandemonium." This is going to -- if there's an emergency on this campus as big as the one that turned out to be a false alarm five years ago, three years -- three and a half years ago, there will be law enforcement officers from every jurisdiction at every intersection, including in the park. And if it's at night, they will put down flares, like they do at Royals games or Chiefs games or -- I mean I'm not concerned that the law enforcement community doesn't know how to evacuate us, even at night, even when the park is otherwise closed. Exiting on to 119th Street, it's going to be a bottleneck. You don't have an emergency and have law enforcement officers saying, well, wait at the stop sign until the traffic clears. Stop -- traffic will be stopped at 119th and Quivira and people will be waived out of this park in whatever direction they want to go as fast as they can go. And it doesn't take a traffic signal. It takes a uniformed officer there in a vest that they're hired and trained to do. There's a lot of concern about protecting this park. I don't see in any way that this threatens the park or its uses. It actually enhances it because if there's a blockage of 119th Street exit, now they can get out through the campus, which I never thought about before. But if you've got people at a soccer match and there is an accident on 119th that blocks that exit, getting them out in an orderly fashion makes sense. People ask about the specific types of emergencies, and I've asked that question and I pushed back to Dr. Larson and Tanya Wilson yesterday and -- and I pushed back to the chief. Tell us how it's going to work and -- and I think what I learned is we don't know, because I can't predict the myriad of scenarios that might occur. I don't know if the west exit on College Boulevard will be blocked because the tornado landed the police academy roof there versus the east exit on Quivira being blocked because it took part of the HCA building. So the overall issue here is Dr. Joe Sopcich is not going to decide to take down the bollards, nor is the executive team. It's going to be done by law enforcement. It's going to be done by our authorized law enforcement who are just as capable and trained and authorized under state law as the Overland Park Police Department and it's going to be the Parks and Rec police department. The -- the thought that it's going to be some willy-nilly, unpredictable event I think is just -- >> Would the gentleman answer a question? That would -- that's per our plan in any emergency, correct? The chief law enforcement, not the executive, is going to make the decision, right? >> Trustee Greg Musil: Law enforcement have the authority to take over in times of emergency. >> Right. >> Trustee Greg Musil: And I trust Chief Russell to do that and I trust Chief Donchez at Overland Park and I can't remember the chief's name at the Parks and Rec. >> Trustee Lee Cross: I concur. >> Trustee Greg Musil: There's been a concern about 116th Street, which is stubbed into the park and has a -- or into the college property and has a -- a walking park coming off it. That has never been discussed, has never been mentioned, has never been suggested, would clearly require city approval, not something Johnson County Community College can do. Other campus activities. We're going to send concerts out through there, we're going to send graduation out through there. I don't know what our gym holds for graduation, 1500? 3,000? Versus how many thousands of people are on campus during the day? >> Dr. Barbara Larson: 5,000. >> Trustee Greg Musil: There's no reason, plus graduations occur after the students are gone for the semester. There's no -- there's no reason or scenario that makes any sense where we would take those relatively small groups of people out through the fourth -- the fifth best entrance to campus. So I -- I mean I know those are -- those are fears that have been brought up. People will drive around the barriers. That can happen anytime, and we will enforce it with law enforcement as best we can. Pick a different route. You know, go through St. Thomas Aquinas' parking lot, which is not adjacent to campus, but is on the other side of their athletic facilities. >> Right. >> Trustee Greg Musil: And enters into a parking lot of high school kids. That would need to be evacuated before you could evacuate the campus. So there's the aerial view. I -- I just don't -- and look at the distance between any parking lot and St. Thomas Aquinas and I'm not -- you'd have to go south of their football field or you would destroy their baseball field or their softball field or their football field. So I don't see that as a reasonable alternative. A gravel path isn't necessary, and gravel won't support things. I do development work. Many times in a subdivision you have to have two entrances and exits, and you build the second one with the second phase. And with the first phase you build a gravel street/path/roadway, that is not just putting down gravel. You put it down with a base and gravel that will hold a full-sized fire truck, because you have to be able to get emergency vehicles in and out. So we know this is not just going to be a gravel path. And what we also know is, and the neighbors acknowledged in the first listening session is that, well, if there's an emergency, ambulances and fire trucks are going to go through the grass anyway. So why build a path? We just had 10 inches of rain. If we -- if we all acknowledge that in an emergency and we need to get an ambulance on campus, they're going to drive through the grass and mud anyway, why not make it a path that is safe and sound and secure? I just -- to acknowledge it's going to happen anyway, but let's not make it the best and safest possible route we can, again, doesn't resonate with me. The foot in the door thing, I acknowledge Trustee Lindstrom, I can't bind future board, and I -- 14 years ago you had to fight a different board. And 14 years from now you may have to fight a different board. I -- I can tell you as one board member, I see no reason and I see no scenario I can envision where I could support anything more than this emergency exit. Now, I'm not going to tell you there will never, ever, in the next 150 years be a need for something beyond that through this -- through this part of campus. If anybody tells you that, they're not being truthful with you. But I -- there's no compelling reason I could even envision as to why anything more than that would be done. And I'll make the commitment unless somebody gives me that compelling reason, I will stand with you next time at the -- at the rally and say, no, an emergency exit is all we need. >> Am I allowed to respond? >> Chair Jerry Cook: In light of what you -- we've heard today, Dr. Sopcich, I think, do you have something you'd like to say? >> Dr. Joe Sopcich: Well, Trustee Musil brought up a good point with regards to timing. And Ms. Owen made some really good points. We're very appreciative of that. And we will, we'll slow this down. We won't go to the county tomorrow night. We'll have the opportunity for a greater interaction between folks at Stoll Park and -- and the college and we can talk some more about this thing. And so we'll -- we'll take it from there. So thank you for your points of view. They're well taken. Very much appreciated. And also thank you for the trustees around this table for also expressing their insights and -- and points of view, too. That's very much appreciated. >> Chair Jerry Cook: I will just close this discussion by saying that -- and, Connie, appreciate your comments tonight. I think at the hearing, at the listening sessions, if you will, there were a lot of people that had good things to say, both about Johnson County Parks and Rec, Stoll Park, and the college. And I appreciate your concern about what's happened in the past and can we trust you. I'm one that believes the safety and security will be a lot better with a planned plan than if an emergency comes and we just go helter-skelter. And I believe Barbara, Dr. Larson had indicated that there's language that's changed as a result of those listening sessions. And -- and I would hope that, Dr. Sopcich, that we have college staff with the homes association. I don't envision another session with 300 people. But, Connie, perhaps you and the president of the homes association can sit down and we can have a dialogue of -- of how we have listened as a college in terms of your concerns, and -- and the comments that Trustee Musil made that will be good for both sides. We -- this board does not want to be perceived that we're trying to rush something through. We -- we responded to a request by the Parks and Rec Department, and Trustee Snider's on that board and he said we can hold this -- we can hold this back and get more information. So we apologize if it was perceived by you and the -- and the homes association that we're trying to run something through again, and we understand that. And so we will slow it down and we will have a chance to -- to have some dialogue. So with that, let's -- we've spent enough time on that topic tonight unless anybody has a closing comment. Thanks, Dr. Larson. Appreciate that. Chief Russell, thank you. So we'll take a little more time and make sure we can come to some understanding. Reports from Board Liaisons. Faculty Association. Dr. Harvey, thank you for your patience. >> Dr. Melanie Harvey: Thank you. Well, I do want to talk about a few things. I had a couple things planned and I guess another thing I'll talk about. First of all, I just want to say that JCCC Gives thing, I really appreciate that our college does that and our students get so involved in that. I've had a number of students in the past that have been beneficiaries of -- of the JCCC Gives, and I think it's tremendously helpful to bless those students and their families at that time of year. I'm also so excited about the Hiersteiner Child Development Center grant. That's huge! My youngest went to Hiersteiner. It's a great place. And I know I have so many students that are parents, that are working really hard to balance and juggle so many things. And child care costs are a lot, and it's a -- it's a big thing for everyone of any economic level to shell out money for child care. When your kids go to school, if they go to public school, it's like you get an instant raise because you suddenly are not shelling out all that money. But I think it's a huge thing to be able to support some of our most financially needy students with -- with something like taking care of your children so that you can go and be a student. So I'm super excited about that. We did get a table for Some Enchanted Evening, the Faculty Association. So I'm looking forward to joining this year and bringing some of my fellow faculty to that event. I'm also looking forward to some meetings that are showing up on my calendar now. I guess because we've been at impasse, I'm not sure, but this semester so far I haven't really been invited to much dialogue with anyone. So I'm looking forward to not being in such a reactionary mode, but in more of a proactive and being more informed and part of the discussion instead of finding out about things later. So I'm looking forward to that. I did want to say one thing about the Stoll Park. You know, I understand and appreciate the homeowners and their concerns and that feeling of, you know, not -- uncertainty about the level of transparency and concerns about what you don't know, but I do also really appreciate this college's commitment to safety. And I have to tell you that yesterday I listened to a podcast, This American Life. I listen to it periodically. And they have a podcast that came out Sunday on -- called "Before The Next One," and it is about school shootings. And as a person who gets in front of a classroom regularly, it's hard to not listen to that and it's just very sobering and you just realize you never know. Hopefully the odds are -- are small that it will happen. But just the fact that the college does everything it can to make sure that our people are as prepared as possible in the event of an unthinkable thing like that, it just makes me feel just a little bit better. But I do encourage you to listen to that. It is -- it is very eye-opening. The other thing I want to talk about is a couple of changes in our contract that are kind of interesting, the one that was just approved tonight. The first was our Distinguished Service Award, which is we're just now taking applications for that, portfolios, faculty. It is something in the contract that recognizes faculty that really go above and beyond, and I know last year it was very competitive. There were a lot of really fantastic people that I know of that did not win. And so that just tells you the level of -- of competition there. But faculty put together portfolios and in the past, the last couple years, there was some confusion about the application, exactly what it had to -- was supposed to look like, how many pages it could be, was that front and back. And so there was a lot of changes made to sort of emphasize community engagement, professional development, responsibilities above and beyond the classroom, and also to clarify the language of like what's -- what's involved in the application. So that was something that happened in the negotiations process that I think is going to make things a lot better. We also empowered the committee to reject applications that don't follow the rules. And so I think it's going to be a lot more fair. It's a lot clearer. Less confusion, less frustration for those that weren't sure about how it works. So that was one thing we cleaned up a lot. Another thing that's going to be kind of big, figuring out, and I'm on this committee that has a lot of different people on it, but it's the calendar. We are, not this next year, but the year after, we're going to be shortening our semesters by one week to match pretty much the rest of the state. And -- and it seems like it would be simple, but it's actually more complicated than you think, you know, because where do you put the extra days exactly where they'll be most useful. How do you line up with KU, with all the different institutions in ways with their various breaks and -- and so it's a little bit tricky. But there's going to be a lot of people working on this because figuring out the best way to do it. But then, also, the faculty will be changing their classes up a little bit to make it work in a different number of -- of weeks. Labs and such will change. So it seems like a simple thing, but it's going to be really good for our students in the long run. So many of our students take classes at both here and KU, I'm just putting that out there as the main example. There are other institutions as well. But I think it's going to make things a lot better for our students. And then, finally, I did want to say just a little bit about our contract. You know, making a commitment for three years is just that, it's a commitment. And as much as it seems, you know, advantageous to say you can lock in exactly what it's going to be for the next three years, it's also -- it's a huge responsibility when you have a lot of uncertainty with how things are going economically speaking, and especially when you're living in, you know, I don't live in this county, I live in Douglas County, but my property value has been going up, too. But the property values here have been going up quite a bit, which is why the college has more tax revenue. So with the cost of living and everything, that was something that we took very seriously in our -- for our team. I think there's a temptation to oversimplify a process and a position, and I think it is definitely not simple. You know, when we stopped -- when we went to impasse, while the board's team financially was at 3, 3 ,3, you know, we were 3 and a half. And so it's not like we were at this outrageous, ridiculous amount. And I also want to just say that that -- that amount represents not a percent increase for everyone, not a percent increase to the base pay, but an average of what's -- of what's received. And so part of our reason for being at 3 and a half was because we wanted our base pay to go up by inflation, and that's where we were. There were a lot of factors that got us there, though. It wasn't just about money, as it never is. And although we -- we don't go to impasse very frequently here, it's not uncommon. I know in Lawrence they're at impasse right now. The police department is at impasse in Lawrence right now. I just read that in the paper. But it is, you know, the state statutes don't give a lot of leverage to unions, and so one of the things you do have is the ability to say I'm not ready to agree to this yet. And -- and so sometimes things along the way, too, that are not agreed upon speak volumes to people. Impasse does give us time, it gave us the gift of time, time to reflect on where the political environment might be headed, time to see what might be happening with inflation, and also an opportunity to sort of see politically what we're up against here locally. And so I'll just say that it's not -- we did not agree to the same exact contract that was on the table before mediation, although the one item that we did get was one that I was surprised we didn't get in the beginning when we originally asked for it, and that was parental leave for -- if two people both work here, then technically the minimum required by the law is that they can get up to 12 weeks off, paid only if they have the pay -- the time built up. But they can get up to 12 weeks off, and by law, the minimum is that if they're both married working for the same place, they have to share the 12 weeks, if both parents work here. But that's not to say that other places don't allow each person to have up to 12 weeks, and that's what we were asking for. And so that is an additional item that was agreed upon in this last round. And so it may not seem like much, and it probably won't be used that widely, but it still was a change. And I will say finally that I would be -- I would regret not mentioning this. You know, my -- my sister, not to get off track, but my sister went -- she's been remarried for years now, but when she -- her first marriage ended in divorce, and when she got divorced her husband took -- she gave him everything and he took everything. He's like, okay, and let her leave with nothing. And I think, you know, how you end something does speak to both parties involved. And I will say that it did send a message to our faculty that they did not get offered complete back-pay at the end of our impasse, that it was limited and that it was limited and did not involve supplemental contracts, it did not include small contributions to retirement. And that was a decision that this board made, and it was within the legal limits of the law. But it still is not -- does not go unnoticed and, you know, the only -- like I said, the only power that unions have is to not agree, and then we have the power of our vote, like every other citizen. So that's the end of my report. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Thank you, Dr. Harvey. Trustee Cross? >> Trustee Lee Cross: Yes. Dr. Harvey, over 80% of the faculty approved the Master Agreement; is that right? >> Chair Jerry Cook: No. >> Dr. Melanie Harvey: Of those that voted, yes. >> Trustee Lee Cross: Oh, voting -- >> Dr. Melanie Harvey: Yeah, we had 62% vote. Which I didn't realize, I actually learned something about state statute. We had to have at least 50% plus one participate in the vote. But we did have 62% voted. I think there were some faculty that just chose not to vote. But of -- of the 62% that voted, 80% voted yes. >> Trustee Lee Cross: If so many of them approved it, why did you wait so long to take it to a vote by the full membership? >> Dr. Melanie Harvey: They approved the contract that our team told them was the best contract we were going to be able to get. >> Trustee Lee Cross: You're telling us they supported your team? >> Dr. Melanie Harvey: Yes. We recommended the contract to them. And they voted for the -- we recommended it and we said this is the best we're going to get, and they voted yes for it. >> Trustee Lee Cross: Thank you. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Other questions or comments? Thank you, Dr. Harvey. Appreciate it. Next item? Research Triangle. Trustee Lindstrom. >> Trustee David Lindstrom: Mr. Chairman, I have a very brief report tonight. Once again, J-CERT last met on Monday, May 7th, 2018, at KU Edwards Campus. The next meeting is Monday, November 7th, at 7:30 a.m. out at the K-State Olathe campus. And sales tax revenues, although for the month of September were down slightly, 1.5%, the year-to-date sales tax revenues are up 3.23% for the year. That's my report. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Thank you. Kansas Community College Trustees. Trustee Ingram? >> Trustee Nancy Ingram: I have no report this evening. >> Chair Jerry Cook: And Foundation, Trustee Ingram? >> Trustee Nancy Ingram: Yes, I do have a report. The Foundation Executive Committee met on Tuesday, October the 2nd. During this meeting, RubinBrown presented a draft of the Foundation's audited financials for the fiscal year ending June 30th, 2018. The Foundation again received a glowing report from RubinBrown. They particularly noticed the work of Foundation CPA JoAnn Konecny and her exceptional professionalism to produce another outstanding audit. Lace Up for Learning, JCCC's annual 5K run/walk, took place on Sunday, this past Sunday. This event raised money for the college's student scholarships. The Foundation would like to thank all of the staff, students, volunteers, and community members who made the race a great success. This is the sixth year of our campus race under the leadership of Judy Riley in the Foundation office. Finally, the fundraising for Some Enchanted Evening continues to break records. Under the leadership of gala co-chairs Jon and Christi Stewart, the Foundation has nearly sold out the Overland Park Convention Center with 96 tables filled and $780,000 raised to-date. As a a reminder, the gala will be held on November 10th and will kick off our 50th Anniversary celebration. For tickets, please contact the Foundation office. And that concludes my report. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Thank you, Trustee Ingram. Next item is the Consent Agenda. It's the item where we deal with a lot of routine business. Is there any item that a trustee would like to pull off the Consent Agenda? Any item that anyone would like to pull off? If not, I'd entertain a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. >> Trustee Greg Musil: So moved. >> Trustee Nancy Ingram: Second. >> Chair Jerry Cook: We've got a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Ayes.) >> Chair Jerry Cook: Opposed? Motion carries. We have no Executive Session tonight. And I would vote for adjournment. >> Trustee Lee Cross: So moved. >> Trustee Nancy Ingram: Second. >> Chair Jerry Cook: Moved and seconded. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Ayes.) >> Chair Jerry Cook: Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. (Gavel.)

Contents

Results

District 1

This district consists of the Richmond District. Incumbent supervisor Jake McGoldrick ran for reelection.

District 1 supervisorial election, 2004[2][3]
Candidate Votes %
Jake McGoldrick (incumbent) 11,791 41.09
Lillian Sing 8,959 31.22
Matt Tuchow 2,859 9.96
David Heller 2,003 6.98
Rose Tsai 1,581 5.51
Leanna Dawydiak 1,373 4.78
Jeffrey S. Freebairn 131 0.46
Valid votes 28,697 91.59%
Invalid or blank votes 2,636 8.41%
Total votes 31,333 100.00
Voter turnout 73.63%
Ranked choice voting — Pass 4
Jake McGoldrick (incumbent) 14,011 54.01
Lillian Sing 11,929 45.99
Eligible votes 25,940 84.44%
Exhausted votes 4,781 15.56%
Total votes 30,721 100.00

Ranked-choice vote distribution

Candidate Pass 1 Pass 2 Pass 3 Pass 4
Jake McGoldrick 11,815 12,084 12,304 14,011
Lillian Sing 8,989 9,309 10,036 11,929
Matt Tuchow 2,864 3,159 3,417
David Heller 2,012 2,297 2,531
Rose Tsai 1,595 1,727
Leanna Dawydiak 1,380
Jeffrey S. Freebairn 132
Eligible ballots 28,787 28,576 28,288 25,940
Exhausted ballots 1,934 2,145 2,433 4,781
Total 30,721 30,721 30,721 30,721

District 2

District 2 consists of the Marina, Pacific Heights, the Presidio, part of Russian Hill, and Sea Cliff. Incumbent supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier was seeking her first election after being appointed by Mayor Gavin Newsom in the wake of his election as mayor.

District 2 supervisorial special election, 2004[2]
Candidate Votes %
Michela Alioto-Pier (incumbent) 21,013 61.25
Steve Braccini 5,763 16.80
David Pascal 4,207 12.26
Roger E. Schulke 1,950 5.68
Jay R. Shah 1,375 4.01
Valid votes 34,308 83.82%
Invalid or blank votes 6,623 16.18%
Total votes 40,931 100.00
Voter turnout 82.24%

District 3

District 3 consists of the northeastern corner of San Francisco, including Chinatown, the Financial District, Fisherman's Wharf, Nob Hill, North Beach, and Telegraph Hill. Incumbent supervisor Aaron Peskin was seeking reelection.

District 3 supervisorial election, 2004[2]
Candidate Votes %
Aaron Peskin (incumbent) 16,120 62.55
Brian Murphy O'Flynn 5,763 16.80
Eugene Chi-Ching Wong 3,534 13.71
Sal Busalacchi 1,536 5.96
Valid votes 26,953 91.68%
Invalid or blank votes 2,446 8.32%
Total votes 29,399 100.00
Voter turnout 74.11%

District 5

District 5 consists of the Fillmore, Haight-Ashbury, Hayes Valley, Japantown, UCSF, and the Western Addition. Incumbent supervisor Matt Gonzalez did not seek reelection.

District 5 supervisorial election, 2004[2][4]
Candidate Votes %
Ross Mirkarimi 9,928 28.40
Robert Haaland 5,096 14.58
Lisa Feldstein 3,242 9.27
Nick Waugh 3,007 8.60
Andrew Sullivan 2,474 7.08
Bill Barnes 1,659 4.75
Jim Siegel 1,537 4.40
Dan Kalb 1,393 3.99
Susan C. King 971 2.78
Michael E. O'Connor 860 2.46
Brett Wheeler 825 2.36
Joseph Blue 792 2.27
Tys Sniffen 684 1.96
Phoenix Streets 654 1.87
Julian Davis 412 1.18
Emmett Gilman 390 1.12
Francis Somsel 365 1.04
Rob Anderson 332 0.95
Vivian Wilder 129 0.37
Patrick M. Ciocca 87 0.25
Phillip House 61 0.17
H. Brown 57 0.16
Valid votes 34,955 85.93%
Invalid or blank votes 5,724 14.07%
Total votes 40,679 100.00
Voter turnout 75.25%
Ranked choice voting — Pass 19
Ross Mirkarimi 13,211 50.60
Robert Haaland 7,272 27.85
Lisa Feldstein 5,628 21.55
Eligible votes 26,111 66.52%
Exhausted votes 13,144 33.48%
Total votes 39,255 100.00

Ranked-choice vote distribution

Candidate Pass 1 Pass 2 Pass 3 Pass 4 Pass 5 Pass 6 Pass 7 Pass 8 Pass 9 Pass 10 Pass 11 Pass 12 Pass 13 Pass 14 Pass 15 Pass 16 Pass 17 Pass 18 Pass 19
Ross Mirkarimi 9,947 9,950 9,952 9,969 9,996 10,034 10,094 10,158 10,261 10,387 10,472 10,635 10,766 10,946 11,262 11,659 11,921 12,287 13,211
Robert Haaland 5,124 5,126 5,130 5,146 5,180 5,192 5,226 5,254 5,318 5,384 5,461 5,538 5,628 5,740 5,956 6,319 6,409 6,636 7,272
Lisa Feldstein 3,257 3,265 3,274 3,289 3,309 3,323 3,381 3,430 3,484 3,566 3,671 3,671 3,851 4,070 4,313 4,636 4,759 5,064 5,628
Nick Waugh 3,025 3,025 3,027 3,035 3,053 3,070 3,090 3,118 3,187 3,243 3,296 3,391 3,441 3,540 3,732 3,900 4,063 5,041
Andrew Sullivan 2,477 2,478 2,479 2,494 2,501 2,550 2,570 2,580 2,639 2,663 2,716 2,771 2,831 2,870 2,982 3,068 3,601
Jim Siegel 1,540 1,542 1,543 1,551 1,565 1,608 1,639 1,657 1,743 1,763 1,820 1,866 2,053 2,111 2,184 2,242
Bill Barnes 1,664 1,670 1,671 1,680 1,690 1,709 1,719 1,731 1,751 1,804 1,871 1,945 1,977 2,018 2,142
Dan Kalb 1,398 1,400 1,400 1,412 1,430 1,449 1,466 1,493 1,540 1,582 1,610 1,698 1,739 1,867
Susan C. King 977 980 984 1,007 1,034 1,051 1,072 1,116 1,147 1,206 1,237 1,293 1,371
Michael E. O'Connor 868 870 873 882 906 930 944 973 1,012 1,036 1,079 1,127
Brett Wheeler 832 833 835 845 871 881 896 929 951 995 1,026
Joseph Blue 802 805 807 814 819 842 851 860 876 908
Phoenix Streets 657 658 660 673 699 714 731 752 771
Tys Sniffen 686 687 688 692 707 719 730 746
Julian Davis 418 422 429 443 462 467 481
Emmett Gilman 393 394 398 405 407 423
Francis Somsel 368 341 342 379 381
Rob Anderson 336 341 342 346
Vivian Wilder 130 134 135
Patrick M. Ciocca 87 91 91
Phillip House 62 62
H. Brown 57
Eligible ballots 35,109 35,101 35,088 35,062 35,010 34,962 34,890 34,797 34,680 34,537 34,259 34,029 33,657 33,162 32,571 31,824 30,753 29,028 26,111
Exhausted ballots 4,146 4,154 4,167 4,193 4,245 4,293 4,365 4,458 4,575 4,718 4,996 5,226 5,593 6,093 6,684 7,431 8,502 10,227 13,144
Total 39,255 39,255 39,255 39,255 39,255 39,255 39,255 39,255 39,255 39,255 39,255 39,255 39,255 39,255 39,255 39,255 39,255 39,255 39,255

District 7

District 7 consists of City College, Forest Hill, Lake Merced, Mount Davidson, Parkmerced, San Francisco State University, St. Francis Wood, and Twin Peaks. Incumbent supervisor Sean Elsbernd was seeking his first election after he was appointed to the seat in the wake of his predecessor Tony Hall's resignation.

District 7 supervisorial election, 2004[2][5]
Candidate Votes %
Sean Elsbernd (incumbent) 10,475 33.23
Christine Linnenbach 6,764 21.46
Isaac Wang 2,717 8.62
Gregory Corrales 2,550 8.09
Milton "Rennie" O'Brien 2,359 7.48
Vernon C. Grigg III 2,082 6.60
Shawn Reifsteck 1,103 3.50
Michael Patrick Mallen 968 3.07
Pat Lakey 760 2.41
Svetlana Kaff 541 1.72
Art Belenson 507 1.61
Sheela Kini 349 1.11
David Parker 348 1.10
Valid votes 31,523 87.82%
Invalid or blank votes 4,373 12.18%
Total votes 35,896 100.00
Voter turnout 79.68%
Ranked choice voting — Pass 11
Sean Elsbernd (incumbent) 13,834 56.87
Christine Linnenbach 10,491 43.13
Eligible votes 24,325 69.69%
Exhausted votes 10,580 30.31%
Total votes 34,905 100.00

Ranked-choice vote distribution

Candidate Pass 1 Pass 2 Pass 3 Pass 4 Pass 5 Pass 6 Pass 7 Pass 8 Pass 9 Pass 10 Pass 11
Sean Elsbernd 10,505 10,547 10,568 10,667 10,740 10,884 11,018 11,189 11,827 12,446 13,834
Christine Linnenbach 6,784 6,817 6,865 6,962 7,078 7,231 7,452 7,782 8,490 9,160 10,491
Milton "Rennie" O'Brien 2,372 2,410 2,481 2,525 2,588 2,691 2,847 3,090 3,300 3,799
Isaac Wang 2,728 2,757 2,785 2,813 2,868 2,926 3,007 3,110 3,263 3,533
Gregory Corrales 2,560 2,589 2,618 2,658 2,721 2,767 2,878 2,946 3,110
Vernon C. Grigg III 2,091 2,104 2,114 2,151 2,186 2,252 2,323 2,451
Shawn Reifsteck 1,108 1,136 1,187 1,210 1,236 1,286 1,388
Michael Patrick Mallen 975 1,004 1,017 1,040 1,066 1,110
Pat Lakey 763 783 804 823 840
Svetlana Kaff 546 573 592 605
Art Belenson 510 517 528
Sheela Kini 349 367
David Parker 348
Eligible ballots 31,639 31,604 31,559 31,454 31,323 31,147 30,913 30,577 29,990 28,938 24,325
Exhausted ballots 3,266 3,301 3,346 3,351 3,582 3,758 3,992 4,328 4,915 5,967 10,580
Total 34,905 34,905 34,905 34,905 34,905 34,905 34,905 34,905 34,905 34,905 34,905

District 9

District 9 consists of Bernal Heights, the Inner Mission, and part of the Portola. Incumbent supervisor Tom Ammiano ran for reelection.

District 9 supervisorial election, 2004[2]
Candidate Votes %
Tom Ammiano (incumbent) 12,547 50.73
Renee Saucedo 5,460 22.08
Miguel Bustos 4,318 17.46
Lucrecia Bermudez 1,018 4.12
Steve Zeltzer 798 3.23
James Boris Perez 575 2.32
Adam Cabot (write-in) 17 0.17
Valid votes 24,733 91.62%
Invalid or blank votes 2,262 8.38%
Total votes 26,995 100.00
Voter turnout 73.83%

District 11

District 11 consists of the Excelsior District, Ingleside, Oceanview, and the Outer Mission. Incumbent supervisor Gerardo Sandoval ran for reelection.

District 11 supervisorial election, 2004[2][6]
Candidate Votes %
Gerardo Sandoval (incumbent) 7,427 32.24
Myrna Lim 4,259 18.49
Jose Medina 2,852 12.38
Anita Grier 2,787 12.10
Rolanda A. Bonilla 2,279 9.89
Rebecca Reynolds Silverberg 1,810 7.86
Tom Yuen 1,318 5.72
Fil M. Silverio 307 1.33
Valid votes 23,039 90.43%
Invalid or blank votes 2,439 9.57%
Total votes 25,478 100.00
Voter turnout 69.40%
Ranked choice voting — Pass 6
Gerardo Sandoval (incumbent) 10,679 58.33
Myrna Lim 7,629 41.67
Eligible votes 18,307 73.52%
Exhausted votes 6,595 26.48%
Total votes 24,902 100.00

Ranked-choice vote distribution

Candidate Pass 1 Pass 2 Pass 3 Pass 4 Pass 5 Pass 6
Gerardo Sandoval 7,477 7,637 7,919 8,553 9,256 10,679
Myrna Lim 4,280 4,884 5,248 5,719 6,760 7,629
Jose Medina 2,869 2,989 3,359 3,867 4,683
Anita Grier 2,806 3,080 3,522 3,829
Rolanda A. Bonilla 2,293 2,356 2,571
Rebecca Reynolds Silverberg 1,816 1,946
Tom Yuen 1,328
Fil M. Silverio) 307
Eligible ballots 23,176 22,892 22,619 21,968 20,699 18,307
Exhausted ballots 1,726 2,010 2,283 2,934 4,203 6,595
Total 24,902 24,902 24,902 24,902 24,902 24,902

References

  1. ^ "City and County of San Francisco November 2, 2004 Consolidated General Election Voter Pamphlet" (PDF). San Francisco Department of Elections. September 12, 2004. Retrieved December 24, 2010.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g "November 2, 2004 General Election Statement of Vote". San Francisco Department of Elections. Archived from the original (Excel) on April 8, 2011. Retrieved December 24, 2010.
  3. ^ "District 1 – Ranked-choice voting". San Francisco Department of Elections. November 30, 2004. Archived from the original on April 8, 2011. Retrieved December 24, 2010.
  4. ^ "District 5 – Ranked-choice voting". San Francisco Department of Elections. November 30, 2004. Archived from the original on April 8, 2011. Retrieved December 24, 2010.
  5. ^ "District 7 – Ranked-choice voting". San Francisco Department of Elections. November 30, 2004. Archived from the original on April 8, 2011. Retrieved December 24, 2010.
  6. ^ "District 11 – Ranked-choice voting". San Francisco Department of Elections. November 30, 2004. Archived from the original on April 8, 2011. Retrieved December 24, 2010.

External links

This page was last edited on 26 September 2019, at 21:11
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.