*********************************************

                DISCLAIMER: THIS CART FILE WAS PRODUCED FOR COMMUNICATION

    ACCESS AS AN ADA ACCOMMODATION AND MAY NOT BE 100% VERBATIM. THIS IS

    A DRAFT FILE AND HAS NOT BEEN PROOFREAD. IT IS SCAN-EDITED ONLY, AS

    PER CART INDUSTRY STANDARDS, AND MAY CONTAIN SOME PHONETICALLY

    REPRESENTED WORDS, INCORRECT SPELLINGS, TRANSMISSION ERRORS, AND

    STENOTYPE SYMBOLS OR NONSENSICAL WORDS. THIS IS NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT

    AND MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED, PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.

             THIS FILE SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED IN ANY FORM (WRITTEN OR

    ELECTRONIC) AS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OR POSTED TO ANY WEBSITE OR

    PUBLIC FORUM OR SHARED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE

    HIRING PARTY AND/OR THE CART PROVIDER. THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL

    TRANSCRIPT AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON FOR PURPOSES OF VERBATIM

    CITATION.

                     *********************************************





         February 21, 2022 Study Session...



         >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY:  Welcome, everyone, to this amazing

    study session for the Pima Community College Governing Board.  We

    have two great topics that we will be discussing.  I'm looking

    forward to hearing from our subject matter experts at the college.

    Those two topics are finance and diversity, equity, and inclusion.

         Before we begin, Chancellor Lambert, do you have anything you

    would like to kick off?

         >> DR. LEE LAMBERT:  Yes.  Chairwoman Ripley, it's my pleasure to

    introduce our first topic, the fiscal year 2023 budget discussion.

    Then I'll come back when this one is done and introduce the DEI

    discussion.

         First, I want to thank Dr. Dave Bea and his team for putting this

    together.  I also want to thank each board member for meeting with

    us.  I appreciate each and every one of you took the time to have

    premeetings with us.  That really helps in formulating the

    presentation you're going to be seeing here shortly.

         With that, Dave, I'll turn it over to you.

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Good afternoon, Chairperson Ripley, members of

    the board, Chancellor Lambert, colleagues and guests.

         As Lee just mentioned, this is an opportunity for us to continue

    the conversation that we started in the late fall about the lead-in

    to the fiscal year 2023 budget.

         What we are going to be tackling today, and really we want to





    have this, I will provide some information, but really give the board

    an opportunity to have some interactive discussion related to the

    expenditure priorities that we have been discussing.

         I'm going to have some updated information on revenue and the

    projections of that.  Some conversation about the future and how to

    plan for our new enrollment reality.  That's going to be part of the

    information we are going to talk about today.

         With the ultimate goal that, one, we have a proposal related to

    tuition that we can take to the board at the meeting in March.  And

    then more comprehensively the total budget for a presentation to the

    community that we will be showing to the board at the May meeting.

         At that point, we will also be talking about sort of developing

    this three-year plan.  This will be the first of the three years.  We

    are going to talk a little bit about what we are looking to do with

    that.  We welcome and encourage the board to give us feedback if

    they'd like to see anything different from sort of how we are

    planning and how it's coming together.

         So with that, let's go ahead and start a little bit with what our

    expenditure priorities are.  First and foremost, as we have been

    discussing with the board, and again, to reinforce what Chancellor

    Lambert just mentioned, thank you, being able to discuss class comp

    with individual board members and get into a little bit more detail

    about how important that work is, and how important it is for our

    employees, it was welcomed discussion and clearly is the biggest

    priority of the budget this coming year.





         It's been challenging going through a number of years of budget

    reductions, starting with state budget reductions that happened

    during the fiscal crisis, and then the challenges related to

    expenditure limitation, and then with enrollment decline.  We have

    been going through sort of a myriad of challenges from a financial

    standpoint over the last ten years.

         The passage of Prop 481 and Prop 207 which adds some additional

    revenues coming into the college gives us some flexibility to I think

    go back and make some significant improvements to our compensation

    for employees.  We will talk a bit more in detail about that as we go

    through today.

         The second priority that we want to do is there are a number of

    initiatives that the federal funding enabled us to kick off and that

    we want to continue.  Primarily this is related to the laptops,

    hotspots, enabling students from more disadvantaged backgrounds to

    have the technology so they would be successful.

         What we are talking about is potentially something along the

    lines of a $2 tuition increase which will enable us to continue that

    program, continue to have online proctoring services for the growth

    in our online programs, but again, first and foremost, enabling us to

    continue what we have done in terms of having laptops, having

    tablets, and having hotspots available for students and having some

    staff available to help with that program.

         Those are really, the board at the previous study session had

    talked about any tuition increase should be tied directly to student





    benefit.  I think we have worked a good program together where the $2

    tuition increase we will be talking about is specifically tied to

    benefits those students would be getting through those programs.  The

    federal funding will be going away, so this will enable us to

    continue that going.

         We will be talking later in the spring more in detail about

    giving you an update where we are at with the revenue bond projects

    and the other capital projects along with the proposal for the

    capital budget.

         We won't talk too much about that today.  That's mostly funded

    out of college reserves and what is already operationalized within

    the budget.  But just to put that as a reminder, something we will be

    talking about as we go forward with the budget development.

         And later during this session we will talk about reallocating

    resources, and really one of the key elements of what we are trying

    to do is as the college transitions to new ways of doing education

    that we need to shift resources in different ways throughout the

    college, think about how to provide services in a different way

    without just everything being added in.

         Because we are not in a situation with our enrollment being where

    it's at, not in a situation where we should be adding additional

    costs for what we really need to do is figure out how to spend our

    money, the money we are currently getting, more wisely.

         In the upcoming March session, we are going to be talking about

    what we have done for two years now is the student success courses at





    no charge.  We have really good information that that's a very

    successful initiative.  What we will be looking to do is make a

    proposal that we just continue that on an ongoing basis rather than

    renewing each year, which is what we've done the last two years.

         So we have started it as a pilot, see how it goes.  The second

    year we renewed it again.  But the idea now would be so that we don't

    have to keep going back every year that the idea is the college will

    be providing student support courses at no charge to students, that

    it leads clearly to student success and we will be talking with the

    board at the March board meeting about that.

         Lastly, the other two initiatives, and as we are able within the

    budget, is to continue to increase student scholarships and the

    funding to help enable students to come to the college and then

    enhancing marketing in this increasingly competitive arena.

         So the priority order for these things is really focused on class

    comp, and then as we are able, with the resources and with the way

    the budget comes together, we will be working towards some of those

    latter initiatives, but really it's focusing on class and

    compensation.

         To give an overarching perspective, again, a $1 tuition increase

    represents an additional $350,000 of revenue for the college.  So

    when I mention the $2 tuition increase idea for laptops and to

    continue that program, that would generate about $700,000, and that

    offsets the costs of continuing that program on an annual basis, both

    in terms of the equipment and a little bit of staff support that is





    involved in getting machines up and ready, and then lending them out

    and tracking them.

         Property taxes, and we talked with the board about the fact that

    we assume, and I will have more details, the idea is talk about a

    range or different options related to property tax.

         Because we have not done a levy max the last couple of years, we

    have the capacity still to grow all the way to increase to the levy

    max which would entail an increase of 6% to tax -- I will show you

    where that is, and we are going to recommend doing that and phasing

    that over time, and that came about from a conversation with the

    board in the fall.  I will walk you through some of the details.

         We also have some good news related to state budget.  The

    governor's budget has some additional allocation for STEM, continuing

    what they did last year.  We think that will happen in the

    legislative budget.  And then a conversation related to 207 money.

         I will give you some of the information related to what the

    increased revenues look like from that standpoint.  The revenue

    picture from those key revenue sources, we have flexibility and we

    have some potential revenue growth there.

         In terms of what does tuition look like right now, so currently

    we are at $87 for instate tuition.  We're in with the majority, in

    the same realm of other peer institutions, other community colleges.

    We are slightly on the higher end, but it's sort of like Coconino is

    high and then the next six institutions are really clustered within a

    couple or few dollars of tuition per credit hour.





         This shows what the impact would be for a $1, $2, $3 credit hour

    impact in terms of the instate rate, what it means for nonresident

    students, as well, the online, and the differential tuition what that

    looks like.

         Again, what we are talking about with the tuition increase and

    the proposal that we want to take to March would be something in the

    neighborhood of a $2 increase, and again, that would be to support

    the ongoing effort with the laptop initiative and support what was

    federally funded and some student proctoring.

         In the property taxes, a little bit of a busy spreadsheet, but

    basically if you look at where we are at in fiscal year '22, our tax

    levy right now, our current year tax levy is $123 million and change.

         Levy neutral for next year, that means we don't increase the

    taxes.  That's just adding growth from new property that comes onto

    the tax rolls.  That's going to generate another $2 million.  Then if

    we shoot all the way to the far right, this is what our levy max

    capacity is.

         So we are able to levy all the way up to $133 million.  We can

    spend the money because Prop 481 passed.  What that means is that if

    we went all the way to that tax levy and increased it all the way to

    the $133 million, that would be a 6% increase to the taxpayers.  Then

    you can see what the tax rate change would be.

         Demion, do you have a question?

         >> MR. DEMION CLINCO:  Thank you very much.  I really appreciate

    the graph.





         Could you just tell us -- you don't have the 4%.  If we did 4%

    this year, we would be doing then 4% next year, sort of two

    year-over-year same amounts versus this three-year thing which would

    sort of push us out 3% a year for three years?  I mean, this is the

    problem with not increasing it to keep pace with inflation, right?

         Now we see with sort of the more significant inflation that's

    occurring, we are not even, this year we wouldn't even be able to

    keep pace with that even if we were to increase probably the 6%,

    certainly not over the last, accumulation of inflation over the last

    three years.

         Could you just provide a little bit of insight what that would

    look like if we did it this year and another 4% next year, what your

    thoughts are?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Yeah, so just to clarify a little bit, so to

    go to max would be a 6% increase of the taxes.  That's the

    accumulation of two years of -- it isn't 2 plus 2 and it's been

    cumulative.  It's a 6% now from where we are at to where we would be.

    So doing a 3% is halfway to the max.

         So what it would mean is it's phasing it in over two years,

    getting to the levy max in two years.

         >> MR. DEMION CLINCO:  But then next year we'd be at 5%?  Because

    we still wouldn't be -- because we are adding another 2% to the 3%

    that we haven't done.  That's --

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Yes.

         >> MR. DEMION CLINCO:  So really we are looking at --





         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Well, it would be probably more like a 3% and

    a 4%, I think.  There is a compounding effect that's happening here.

         But, yeah, so it wouldn't be quite as big a jump in the next

    year, because there is growth in new property and some other things

    that would have an effect on it.

         But, yes, what we would be doing is deliberately leaving some

    money on the table, or off the table, whatever the right phrase is,

    and at a time when we are talking about we are absorbing some pretty

    significant inflation.  And again, what we are talking about trying

    to do as best we can for compensation and for our employees, they are

    all feeling the effects of inflation.

         So next year, just to give some insight, next year's levy max

    will be probably 136 million.  I know, because of the compounding

    effect and how things change year over year, it's not a linear effect

    that you're describing.  I'm trying to make that clearer, but I'm not

    doing a great job of it.

         >> MR. DEMION CLINCO:  But in terms of the accumulative

    percentage, I mean, if we do a percent, right, we could do a total of

    6% this year, if we do 3% this year, that leaves 3% for next year

    plus the 2% that would naturally organically occur next year, so that

    takes us to 5%, right, so that doesn't really -- or is it better to

    do 4 now, 4 then for next year, so that it's sort of the same year

    over year as opposed to trying to spread it out for multiple years

    and other economic uncertainty, we don't know what's coming in the

    future, right?





         So if there was a bad financial year and we didn't want to do the

    levy to its full capacity, it would just continue the compounding

    effect?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Yeah.  Agree.  I think that's something that's

    a worthwhile conversation with the board that right now, just to get

    some context, so if you take a typical property, I think the average

    property right now, the assessment valuation for residential is

    around 150, 000, but let's just use $200,000 just as a ballpark.

         The 3% increase that we are talking about here would be an

    increase, all things considered, an actual tax increase for a

    $200,000 property of about, a little bit less than $8.  It would be

    $7.50.

         So because this increase gets spread out so much it actually has

    a fairly small impact on individual properties.  However, for the

    college it makes a big difference.  So the question I think for the

    board to really think about is do we want to shoot for 3%, something

    less than 3%, or go a little bit higher, closer to the levy max I

    think is a good question.

         You can see where, if we go up to the levy max, you have -- to do

    the 3% adds over the growth number, so growth is 2 million, so the 3%

    increase generates about 3.8 million.  Then on top of that, if we

    went all the way to the levy max, it adds another almost 4 million.

         Chair Ripley?

         >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY:  Hi, yeah.  I think just adding to Board

    Member Clinco's comments, it would be good to see the 4%, because I





    think that the board and perhaps not the greater public sort of saw

    this coming, because we did try to consider and be considerate of the

    pandemic in not raising the tax levy.  So I think that if we see all

    the numbers and if we shape this narrative to direct all of us to all

    of the things you just said, I think it would really help.

         Because at some point, as Board Member Clinco suggested, we need

    to catch up.  Because it's just going to keep accumulating, and we

    are just always going to be in catchup mode unless we do something.

         I don't think 4% is that drastic when you look at it, and it

    might get us back.  But we do need to see the numbers, and I think

    that would really help all of us make a better decision maybe.

         Thanks.

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  So just to give a little bit of info, I can't

    give you the exact number but I will give you roughly what the number

    is.  So a 3% increase is an increase for a $200,000 property at

    $7.50, so it's about $2.50 for every 1% increase that you're talking

    about.  Again, it's a fairly small increase for a residential

    property.  With commercial, it gets to be more significant.

         But the other thing to consider is what the other taxing entities

    may do and what kind of an impact that would have.  Again, for us, it

    actually would be fairly moderate and wouldn't be that noticeable for

    the typical residential property.

         >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY:  Thank you.

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Any other tax-related questions?

         >> MR. DEMION CLINCO:  I would just say I would support the 4%,





    just for the record.

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Any other discussion with other board members?

         Ms. Garcia, you're muted.

         >> MS. MARIA GARCIA:  I do not support any increase, primarily

    because I think that we could do well with the new homes that are

    coming onboard.

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Demion?

         >> MR. DEMION CLINCO:  Could you tell us, if we were to do zero,

    the impact to the budget if we did zero percent, if we didn't

    increase the levy and we allowed it to continue to accumulate, that

    would create -- could you tell us exactly how much of an impact that

    would be on the budget and really where we would see those cuts and

    what we would have to do?

         Because you have really built this around the expectation there

    would be some increase based on our initial conversations, am I

    right?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Right.  So there is going to be levy neutral

    generates an additional $2 million.  That's this figure right here.

    The Prop 207 money, just to jump ahead here, so 207 is another 2.6

    million.  So we are talking about additional revenue about maybe $5

    million if we go -- well, this is the levy neutral scenario.

         Exclude tuition, just for the sake of this conversation, because

    again, we are sort of thinking about tuition as supporting this, the

    federal initiatives and continuing that.  But you're talking about $6

    million of additional revenue coming to the college.





         What the challenge is is that with the class comp priorities,

    having a significant amount of money so that we can adjust to this

    new class comp reality without coming out and having a class comp

    study say, okay, we are going to have this new structure, the market

    identified that we want to make these adjustments, and, oh, by the

    way, the college doesn't have sufficient budget to get you there, and

    we have to do cuts at the same time, and/or we would have to do some

    cuts at the same time.

         So what the idea is that because we have the revenue accessible,

    because the community supported 481 and we can actually access and

    spend that money, we can actually do I think a really good job

    adjusting and folding the class comp study and the results of the

    class comp study into the budget.  Otherwise there are some concerns

    about whether we can do all that without having some other reductions

    go along with it.

         >> MR. DEMION CLINCO:  So just to reflect back to make sure I

    understand, if we don't do this, a minimum of 3% with the potential

    increase to the credit tuition hour, we would struggle to implement

    the class comp study and increase pay to be competitive and in fact

    would have to --

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Yes.

         >> MR. DEMION CLINCO:  -- potentially make cuts into our employee

    base?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Yes.

         >> MR. DEMION CLINCO:  Okay.  Thank you.





         >> DR. MEREDITH HAY:  Thank you, Dr. Bea.  I just wanted to fully

    support your process and your evaluation.  I think the community has

    told us loud and clear that they support a strong community college,

    and the students expect our faculty and staff to be compensated as

    well.

         So I fully support certainly the 3% and maybe another 3% next

    year.  Of course the community is under inflation too, so I don't

    think we want to raise it too high, but I'm certainly supportive of

    finding the revenue for our faculty and staff.  Thank you.

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Okay.  One of the critical things we are

    talking about also that we want to sort of phase into is the idea of

    scenario planning and developing a three-year plan going forward.

         This is not news to the board.  We talked at length about the

    challenges of where enrollment is now, the fact that where the

    college is in terms of its infrastructure, staffing size, that sort

    of thing related to where our enrollment currently is.

         What we are looking to do is really be realistic and be good

    stewards of public funds and sort of developing a longer-range plan

    that addresses this change in enrollment, if enrollment stays at this

    level, how are we going to right-size the institution.

         I wanted to talk a little bit about where we're at with that, the

    challenges that we have, additional revenue sources other than the

    ones that we just talked about.  207 looks like it's going to

    continue to grow some amount.  It's not clear how much it will grow

    past what we were just talking about.





         But we have had significant reductions in other revenues,

    particularly auxiliary revenues, as enrollment goes down, and the

    viability of having the textbook contract being the structure it has

    been historically, those are revenues, contract revenues down and

    investment revenues are down.

         So we have lost revenues in other areas, and again, we are sort

    of shifting a reliance over to the tax side.  That has a couple of

    implications long term.  One, it's clear that the community supports

    that idea, because they passed 481 to give us the ability and the

    flexibility to tap into what is our tax base.

         However, looking forward, if our enrollment doesn't grow, that in

    a number of years we are going to be coming back and having more

    conversations about expenditure limitation again.

         It won't be the same exact conversation with expenditure

    limitation, because we won't be talking about a cliff where there

    were new statutes passed that led to a dramatic reduction, a dramatic

    one-time reduction in expenditure limitation, it will be gradual.

         But what will happen is if our enrollment stays static, the only

    thing that grows from expenditure limitation standpoint is you get a

    little bit of inflation money each year.  And the college expenses

    will probably grow probably faster and historically they have grown

    faster than the inflation measure that's in expenditure limitation.

    So at some point you really have to make sure that you're calibrating

    the size of the institution and the size of the budget with the size

    of students.  It's good stewardship and fiscal responsibility.





         So what we are looking to do is to continue to develop mechanisms

    and actually reduce the size of the institution over time.  So this

    would be mostly fiscal year '24/'25, through technology, being more

    efficient with what we do, and then reallocating resources we have

    talked about, shifting resources to provide services in a way that

    might be different or might be more efficient than how we currently

    do, and then thereby reducing some of the staff, the size of the

    staff going forward.

         I wanted to give you some information.  This is enrollment

    information, how things have changed recently.  The board has been

    through this a number of times.  I don't really want to talk too much

    about it.  But COVID has resulted in pretty dramatic reductions in

    enrollment after we already had sort of sustained reductions

    following the fiscal crisis.  We sort of stabilized and then had a

    big dropoff when the COVID pandemic occurred.

         And so the idea is we are now a size institution in terms of

    enrollment that we were built up and staffed up for a size that's

    significantly bigger than where we are currently at.

         So what we want to do is gradually realign the college's

    resources to be aligned with the size of the student body to continue

    to do that, because again, that's what we were doing when we reduced

    for expenditure limitation.

         So what we want to do is build a three-year plan where we plan

    for that, should enrollment not turn around, it will gradually reduce

    our overall size, as well.





         So one of the ways we look to do it and we shared with the board

    comparisons with peer institutions in terms of staff size, so we know

    we are a large institution compared to, large in terms of staff per

    student, compared to peer institutions.  There are a couple of

    reasons for that.

         One is that what I have just talked about.  Another is that in

    different states, particularly when we look outside of the state,

    that other institutions have different structures.  The state may

    provide information technology or human resources structures so that

    those wouldn't be on those colleges' IPEDS information, the colleges'

    data.

         However, we are on the high side.  We want to look at, okay,

    based on the measures we have looked at with peer institutions, we

    know we're pretty high, not surprising.  Then what we did is we

    looked at where has the college historically been in terms of the

    staff size per student.

         What this shows is between 2012 and 2014, the average FTSE per

    staff, full-time staff, regular staff position, was 20.  From 2015 to

    2019, that's following some of that work we did with expenditure

    limitation to reduce our staff size, it dropped down to about 15 per

    staff.  And then, because of COVID and the big drop that we

    experienced, it's now about 12.

         So what we are looking to do is sort of build some scenarios, and

    this is where we want the board feedback, is do we want to build

    something that's more aggressive than this or build scenarios that





    are along the lines, continuing the 50 to 1 ratio for faculty that's

    been in place for some time now, and then for the overarching staff

    number to target 15 to 1.

         Just to give you an idea what that looks like, it looks like

    right now it would be a reduction of about 150 positions.  That would

    not be particularly easy to do.  That's after having reductions

    already -- we have added some positions back but not that many from

    the expenditure limitation reduction, so it would be a pretty

    significant reduction for the college to move in that direction again

    to phase that in over the course of three years, or should we drop

    down and do something that might be more in the realm of 90.

         Those would be sort of the scenarios we are talking about for

    May.  Looking at one scenario is, okay, we will try and reduce by 150

    over three years or something probably more realistic would be in the

    realm of 90, about 30 positions a year to reduce.

         It's a lot easier to reduce through attrition if you're talking

    about a number that's in the realm of 30 than it would be if it's

    about 50.  That's a lot harder to do.

         The college also has to come up with, I think, and this is where

    I'd also welcome some board feedback, about so what would be the

    plan?  How would we go about doing that?  I think that would be

    something that the board could task us with, is come up with a plan,

    how would you reduce that number of positions over the next three

    years.  We could get that feedback back to you, how we can approach

    that.





         To give some context of what does that mean in the scope of the

    college, this is how positions are allocated roughly by location.  It

    varies a little bit because it's a matrix organization now.  So now

    you have positions that are technically district positions that might

    be located at a campus, but this gives you rough size that 150

    positions, somewhat analogous to closing down an entire campus in

    terms of position.

         Now, that's not what we are saying we would do.  That's what the

    idea is, and we have been talking about this for some period of time

    now, the idea is having the five campuses in a couple of locations is

    not the structure you would have with the size of our enrollment

    ordinarily.

         However, we have what we have.  It's important for us to be able

    to provide services to the community at the different locations, and

    I think there are reasons why we might want to keep those locations.

    There are grants at those different locations, et cetera.

         What this is really saying is, okay, it would be the equivalent

    of about closing down a Northwest Campus, not that we are saying we'd

    close down Northwest, just to be clear in what I'm trying to say.

         What it would be then is we find cuts throughout the college,

    shift resources around, reallocate, provide different types of

    service, particularly at the smaller campuses, and utilize technology

    to provide better service so that we are continuing to provide good

    service but we're able to reduce the amount of people we have on

    staff.





         >> MR. DEMION CLINCO:  Again, thank you for the presenting, as

    always, sort of an unfiltered reality where our situation is.  I

    think it really helps the institution prepare and certainly this

    board prepare for the coming realities if enrollment doesn't

    significantly shift.

         I know, for me, I think it would be helpful to sort of see maybe

    two or three different model scenarios.  I hate to call it like a

    Goldilocks Model, but if we could look at what sort of if we took a

    very conservative approach, if we took sort of middle-of-the-road

    approach, and a much more aggressive approach and really look at what

    that, how that plays out in terms of both our facilities and the

    long-range trajectory of our physical plant and staffing levels.

         Because as we have talked about over the years, we know there has

    been redundancy in the system.  We have done a lot in terms of

    implementation of changes and new modeling, especially around how we

    are delivering services just to try to address some of that, the old

    model of providing everything everywhere and now moving to more of

    this hybrid, online, and certainly the pandemic has exceedingly sped

    that up, significantly sped that up.

         So I think it would be helpful to really look at those various

    scenarios so that we could make a more informed decision and really

    understand what the implication of that really was going to be.

         You know, I think that the board in the past has not been, as

    long as we have the real information of what we are looking at, we

    have been able to make strategic decisions that have really helped





    prepare us as an institution for significant changes economically,

    culturally, enrollment issues.

         So for me, that would be very, very helpful.  I would ask that

    that come back to the board with a more in-depth conversation around

    that.

         >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY:  I'd like to also add, thank you, Dr.

    Bea, for that.  It's a stark reality that we all have to face.

         We barely recovered, we haven't recovered, from the great

    recession.  As soon as ten years went by, we got stripped of our

    state funding across Arizona, and then the pandemic hit.  So all of

    this has come to a head.

         I think the reality of resizing or right-sizing is a really

    important, hard conversation that we all have to have.  I think

    holistically, I would like to see some scenarios and some proposals

    that if, for lack of a better word, looked at it holistically and

    looked at right-sizing enrollment and the resources that we commit to

    increasing enrollment and increasing retention as opposed to just

    looking at the worst-case scenario, which is an increasing basically

    students fleeing higher education.

         So I think that if we looked at it holistically, that would

    really help give a little bit of more of an optimistic view of the

    next three to five years.  So we do need to continue this.

         Thank you.

         >> DR. LEE LAMBERT:  So let me add to all of this.

         Dave is talking about it from the fiscal standpoint.  What we





    have been working on is developing where we think that puck is going,

    so developing that overarching strategy for how we want to position

    the college and then align the fiscal resources to that reality.

         Instead of looking at -- a lot of places like to do

    across-the-board-type reductions.  I think our approach will be more

    strategic and really look at, again, where the opportunities lie.

         That's going to mean some restructuring of how we do internal

    business, which is not always a bad thing.  It's just a reflection of

    the new reality but in a way that allows us to maximize and optimize

    what we have and try to keep as many people employed as feasible.

         I always start from I don't want to lay anybody off.  I want to

    look at how we can reallocate, leverage who we have, but we need to

    be open to that.

         I will give you an example so people have a concrete sense of

    this.  So we know that we're growing dual enrollment.  That is so

    critical for us to be able to serve a greater number of high school

    students.  We know our high school going rate is very low in the

    State of Arizona.

         Through dual enrollment, we can expand that high school going

    rate.  One of the barriers to that expansion is faculty with the

    qualifications to teach college-level courses unless Pima starts to

    deploy its own resources that faculty, in this case, into those

    environments, which would allow us to expand.

         Now, what that means is we may be getting more of those high

    school students getting college education, but they may get their





    Associate's degree, therefore they don't need to come directly to us.

         And so is that a good thing or is that a bad thing or is that a

    neutral thing?  That's part of what I mean by starting to think more

    strategically as opportunities for us.  But it does change the

    equation.  We do get FTE, by the way, for those dual enrollment

    students.

         >> MS. MARIA GARCIA:  Chancellor, going off of what you said

    about dual enrollment and reallocating the teachers, would you

    consider, or maybe you already have, since the schools don't have,

    like TUSD doesn't have enough teachers, there's a shortage of

    teachers, is there some way that maybe perhaps you could try to

    negotiate positions with TUSD with our faculty?

         >> DR. LEE LAMBERT:  I think that -- so that would be part of the

    dynamic.  I think there is opportunities to explore that.

         Remember, our teachers are not certified to teach at the K12

    level, and so there is some realities around classroom management

    that we'd have to work through.

         >> MS. MARIA GARCIA:  We can do that.

         >> DR. LEE LAMBERT:  But we can do that, that's right.

         But our faculty have to be willing to go down this path, and they

    have to be willing to go down this path, but I think it could create

    a win-win for everybody if all sides are open to it.

         I mean, it's not going to solve the larger challenges, but it's

    one piece of an overall solution.

         >> MS. MARIA GARCIA:  And then the other part where we are





    talking about providing services, the same at all campuses, I really

    do think we need to relook at that.

         My point is with the centers of excellence being the main focus

    right now, okay, so we really need to look at that.  Are we

    considering just having that as a main campus?  Do we really need

    five buildings?  Do we reallocate our resources?

         I just don't think that we have looked at everything as openly as

    we should.

         >> DR. LEE LAMBERT:  I always start -- so let's step back for a

    moment, right?  I mean, great question.

         So right now, because we are designated as campuses, we receive

    quite a few federal grants as a result of that.  So if we moved away

    from a campus model, one or two locations as an example, we would be

    walking away from those grants.  We are talking millions.  So we have

    to understand that as part of the larger consideration.  So we want

    to do a piece around that for the board.  I want you to understand

    those considerations.

         Another thing is if you look at our enrollment patterns

    currently, we are growing in some areas of the college.  It happens

    to be aligned with the centers of excellence.  So we need to also

    weigh that into the mindset.

         Now, I will pick on East Campus as an example.  I will pick on

    our public safety program.  Right now we know that we can grow that

    program and its enrollment if we expanded the physical footprint of

    it.  But because of our limited current footprint, we can't expand





    enrollments there.  There is demand for that program.  We just don't

    have the physical capability to meet that.

         So looking at it from those strategic lenses, there is

    opportunity for us.  Now, I will dial it back out.  I mean, you have

    heard me say this many, many times, and again, this is all about the

    data.  If you go and look at our zip codes, the classification of

    instructional programs, at a national level, especially during the

    pandemic, the zip codes that have taken the largest reductions in

    enrollment in community colleges have been primarily in the liberal

    arts program areas and in the physical sciences.

         If you look at over the decades where the enrollments have been

    declining, it's been in the liberal arts.  So if you bring all of

    that together, that's the reality we're going to have to confront.

         But I believe if we modernize the liberal arts, bring more of the

    digital tools into the classroom, that that may help to reverse some

    of that decline.

         In talking to some other universities who have done what I just

    described, their enrollments are going back up in their liberal arts

    side because they've digitized the liberal arts.

         The faculty are essential to this.  It's not less faculty.  It's

    faculty now approaching their work in a different way with digital

    tools.

         So we are looking at all of those pieces, right, because I

    believe that students have got to have that experience.  By the way,

    those are the pieces that transfer to the U of A, to ASU, NAU, and





    the like.  So we have to figure out how we balance all of that out.

         >> MS. MARIA GARCIA:  Okay.  I get what you're saying,

    Chancellor, but the other part I guess that maybe some people don't

    understand is that even when you do like the vocational training or

    skills training, normally when you get people into those jobs, those

    areas, they then grow and want to do the liberal arts.  They will

    aspire to learn something else.  They will go for business degrees or

    something else.

         I don't think that you start -- I mean, that's where I think the

    centers of excellence is a good idea, but you can also grow that with

    the liberal arts.

         >> DR. LEE LAMBERT:  And that's what we are hoping to do.  But

    again, it's not the way we have been doing it.  It's got to be

    recast, integrated -- because the other data that we are learning,

    right, is the best experience for a learner is not one versus the

    other.  It's the infusion of the two.  So let's not forget that.

         Now, what we are learning is that learners don't come to us

    necessarily wanting one piece.  They want the skill piece, the

    technical skill piece, and they don't want to sit in the class for

    two years, three years, four years.  They want to come in and get it

    and then get to work or do it while they are working.

         So if we can integrate this in a better way, then I think we have

    an opportunity to strengthen or bolster the liberal arts as well as

    bolster our CTE side of the equation.  But it's going to be a

    challenge.





         We are talking about this in the context of the metaphor of the

    second curve.  The second curve represents the digital age.  We are

    transitioning out of the industrial age.  Our model of higher

    education is really a model that aligns more with an industrial age

    model.  We have got to get to that digital age model.

         That's part of what you're hearing us talking about at Pima.

         >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY:  I don't know who came first, Mr. Clinco

    or Dr. Duran-Cerda?  You both have your hands up.

         >> MR. DEMION CLINCO:  Well, my question is just an actualization

    question, which is, Chancellor Lambert, and then I'm sure our provost

    will have some insight into all of this.

         But I just wonder, could you tell us what is the plan to actually

    bring forward a pathway to do this?  We have sort of been talking

    about this for a while, and I think we have seen some outstanding

    examples of sort of the implementation of digital tools into the

    classroom impacting -- it's really about the skills, building the

    skills embedded into the program.

         So I think about the drawing class where then things were

    actualized into 3D printing as sort of the model or the example.

         So could you tell us really what -- when would we expect to see

    this type of fully integrated programming in place?  Is that a

    one-year horizon, a two-year horizon, a five-year horizon?

         It's not just in the arts.  It's in the liberal arts.  So really

    this is a transformational way of thinking about how we are

    delivering and how we have traditionally delivered classes, and I





    guess my follow-up question is how does that really dovetail into

    ensuring that we still have clear pathways to the universities for

    transfer?  So we are not creating, programming things that won't

    transfer and then we are back in the same problem that we were in

    four years ago where credits weren't transferring and they were

    costing students.

         >> DR. LEE LAMBERT:  Right.  So as you know, we have been looking

    at different technology platforms, if you will, one of which was the

    Apple platform.

         So we, just a group of us, just got off a call earlier today

    where another community college integrating those digital tools into

    their classrooms, both on the liberal arts side or the gen ed side as

    well as in the CTE side, are seeing great results.  So they call it

    their 1:1 Initiative where every student gets an iPad.  The faculty

    are supported in integrating that iPad into the learning environment.

         Again, they are seeing great results.  Maryville University is

    another one who has done a similar thing.  And Penn State, one of the

    colleges in the Penn State University system has done this.

         So we are starting to see colleges who are starting to integrate

    these digital things into the context of gen ed courses or liberal

    arts courses, starting to see some better enrollment, better

    retention, and the like.

         So remember, we have already been moving down this path.  Now

    it's just a question of when do we say, "This is the model"?

         I can have Dolores talk about this, because she's leading that





    conversation with our goal to fully get to something come the fall.

    So that's one piece.

         Now, on David's side of the house, they have been working on the

    what we call Pima FastTracks, the micropathways.  Micropathways are

    the integration of a 21st Century skill, which you typically get in

    the liberal arts, along with the technical skills you get on the CTE

    side, into a short-term programming of maybe eight weeks, maybe a

    little longer, so we have already launched that.

         We have launched a handful of those.  So as those take root, we

    may be able to scale that quicker and quicker to other areas of the

    college.  So you have those two big pieces starting to come together

    as part of, jumping on to that second curve, if you will.

         It's just a question of getting our buy-in internally to just say

    we embrace this and let's get moving.  It does mean changing of

    contracts and how we look at contracts for employees and the like.

    But at the other end, I think it will provide employment

    opportunities that are going to become harder and harder to maintain

    if we stay on that first curve or that more industrial age model.

         These are all coming together now.  As we have learned from these

    other institutions, these are multi-year approaches, but it's that

    patience but also recognizing that that is the right path to where we

    are moving.

         >> MR. DEMION CLINCO:  As a follow-up, what could the board do to

    help support this?  I think we all know this is critical.  What can

    we do to help accelerate this in terms of budgeting, in terms of





    policy support?  What can we bring forward to help articulate that

    this is an institutional priority?

         >> DR. LEE LAMBERT:  I think you have already done that.

         Like we have learned from the other two institutions we have

    talked to, you take a buy-in approach, dictated from above, and that

    over time it becomes your standard, and recognizing it's just a

    multi-year approach, but you have been clear -- I think the board

    just continuing to be clear, we expect you to get on that second

    curve and that you continue to lead down that path.

         We will support important policy changes that need to be made to

    align to that.  So you'll see us bringing some of that forward as we

    go along.  But I think we are well-positioned because we are in a

    good financial position to do this.

         But we also have to accept the other realities, right?  The U.S.

    is not growing population-wise.  The fertility rates, as you know,

    are well below replacement levels.  So there's a reality coming

    through the K12 side.

         We have a big bulge in terms of the working learner population.

    So that means we have to do things differently, because they are

    working.  They don't have time to come at 8:00 in the morning to 2:00

    in the afternoon, right?  In some cases they may not even want to

    come on campus at all.  So those things.

         I think the board is doing that now.  It's just us continuing

    this long march, because that's what it is.  It's a long march.  It's

    not going to happen overnight.





         We are not in a drastic need to do it right now, either, because

    we have been working on it

         >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY:  Thank you.  We have about four minutes.

         Provost, would you like to add to that?

         >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA:  Yes, I will be quick.  Thank you.

         I wanted to first answer Board Member Garcia's question and then

    Board Member Clinco's question.

         Board Member Garcia, a few months ago, last semester,

    cybersecurity, center of excellence for IT, cybersecurity had a group

    of specialists, panelists, on cybersecurity and hacking, all of that,

    and students were a part of that.  Others were live-streaming, but

    the students who were there present had a chance to talk them and ask

    questions.

         One of the students raised, it was a male, his hand, and he said,

    I'm a liberal arts student and I'm really interested in

    cybersecurity.  What can I do?  Is it too late for me?

         And one of the specialists said, no, in fact, communication,

    psychology comes first, and then technology when it comes to

    cybersecurity.  So there is a support for working together regarding

    the liberal arts and then technology.  So that was, I thought, very

    eye-opening if we collaborate on that.

         Because of COVID, faculty were forced to use technology, whether

    they were used to it or liked it or not, but they really have stepped

    up and are so innovative.

         We had division meetings where they shared, everything they're





    creating and sharing with each other, working with the TLC, they are

    onboard.  There may be some pockets, but they are bringing along the

    others who maybe are a little bit unsure.

         One more thing.  B of A work we are doing, and NCII, we're having

    this curriculum subgroup that came out of the Breaking Student

    Barriers task force, now working with B of A and their consultants,

    focusing on the liberal arts, putting in technology, embedding DEI,

    climate action, 21st Century skills.  And so we are, we have for two

    semesters, we have been working on that.  So it's coming to fruition,

    but it does take time.

         It's a total different mind shift from how things were in the

    past.  But we are getting there, and we are progressing fast.  I just

    wanted to reassure you that.  Thank you.

         >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY:  Thank you so much.

         Dr. Bea, do you want to conclude?  I just wanted to say thank you

    for this.  It's pretty much a broad brush, but in a study session,

    this is precisely why we are here.  It's a lot of food for thought.

         We, as board members, are going to have to do our own homework

    and research and reach back out to Dr. Bea, to the chancellor, to

    myself, and we need to have this discussion and have a really serious

    look at the holistic view of retention and enrollment, right-sizing,

    what is this budget going to look like in comparison to the recent

    class comp study, as well.

         There is a lot of pieces to this giant puzzle, and it's not easy.

    It ain't easy.  It's extremely difficult.





         I appreciate all the comments about liberal arts, because the

    beauty of a community college is that we are not a Voc Tech.  We do

    have liberal arts and it's extremely important to humanity.

         Final words, Dr. Bea, before we go on to the next topic.

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Again, really appreciate the conversation

    today.  Then the next conversation we will be having will be tied

    more to more directly to the tuition and what I discussed earlier in

    terms of the proposal to fold in what was funded by the federal

    dollars with the fairly moderate $2 tuition increase is what we are

    looking to bring in March.

         We will also be taking benefits, which I have talked with the

    board a bit about, the good news on the benefits side is there is not

    a big increase and that the college will fold in the additional

    moderate cost increase for medical in terms of not pushing the costs

    to the employee.

         And then as we go through the spring, we will have more

    conversations again about class comp with more detail, more

    information as the steering committees work through that and come up

    with recommendations.  We will have a discussion with the board

    related to that and related to capital.

         Then the last thing in March we will be talking about the student

    success courses and looking to formalize that those will be ongoing

    at no tuition going in the future.

         So that will be our next conversation, and really appreciate the

    conversations we had here today.





         >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY:  Thank you so much for that.  I think we

    need to go on to the next topic.  It's 5:01.  We're on schedule.

         Another extremely important topic:  diversity, equity, and

    inclusion.  I could speak I think for the board on behalf of the

    board, we all take this very seriously.  It's a topic near and dear

    to our hearts.

         So I will hand it over to you, Chancellor, to introduce the

    speakers.

         >> DR. LEE LAMBERT:  Thank you, Chairwoman Ripley.  It's my

    pleasure to introduce our diversity, equity, and inclusion

    conversation around the high-level strategic planning we have been

    doing as well as an overview of our climate assessment with specific

    emphasis around the recent Pride Index work and the path forward.

         I'm very pleased to have Hilda Ladner here.  Under her leadership

    all these pieces are coming together.  I want to thank Hilda and her

    team for that.  Also we have Carleen Thompson here from HR who has

    been heading up our affirmative action work.  As you know, we can't

    set quotas, but we can set goals.

         I know we don't have time to go through all of the specifics, but

    I really wanted Hilda to lead us through this and really get to some

    of the inclusion pieces.  I think diversity, equity, and inclusion

    can also be seen as KPIs, and if you look at those big KPIs, there

    are certain pieces we need to get better at and that sense of

    inclusion.  Especially with our LGBTQ+ employees and students, we

    have to do better.





         And so with said, I will turn it over to Hilda.

         >> HILDA LADNER:  Thank you so much, Chancellor.  Thank you,

    Chair Ripley and board members for inviting me to provide this update

    for you.  Let me share my screen.

         I don't think this is sharing the right thing with you.  One

    moment.

         Are you seeing diversity, equity, and inclusion?

         >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA:  Yes.

         >> HILDA LADNER:  Okay.  I'm on two screens, and it's looking a

    little bit different for me.

         Anyway, so thank you so much for the invitation to join you

    today.  I will just give you a really brief overview of some of the

    work as Chancellor Lambert said on where we are with the planning

    process and then some of the recent work we have been doing around

    climate assessment, so looking at belonging.

         There is a lot here.  I'm going to go through it rather quickly,

    so please let me know if you have questions and we can discuss.

         As you know, one of the chancellor goals for this year is to

    develop a diversity, equity, and inclusion strategic plan, and I'm

    leading that effort.  There is a group of about 25 of us that have

    been working on this new strategic plan for the college.

         Last fall we reviewed a lot of data from the college related to

    employee demographics, retention, completion, student information,

    and also recent climate surveys that were completed through Hanover

    Research and the Campus Pride Index.





         During the spring we've already started drafting what some of the

    priorities will be and we will be seeking input from different

    constituents internally and externally around what those priorities

    should be.  We will finalize that and align them with the college's

    strategic plan and bring it back to you all for feedback and

    approval.

         As the chancellor already said, the three areas of diversity,

    equity, and inclusion, when we looked at diversity, it's really about

    representation, the composition of the college, who is here.

         As a community college, we are really very diverse.  We are

    aligned with the demographics of Tucson as far as the student

    representation of the college as well as our employee demographics.

    We compare really similarly to other similar institutions as it

    relates to our employee demographics.

         Equity has really been about access and what our system looks

    likes so that students and learners can access the institution, not

    just coming through the doors, an open access institution, but

    through our different programs and through their goals for their

    lives.

         There has been a lot of work happening in this area over the last

    year, including our equity and student retention working group, which

    went through the Gardner Academy on student retention and equity.

    Over this next year, we are really looking at the experiences of

    part-time students, and then breaking it down from there for

    different demographic groups so that we know what the experience of





    students are and how we can be more friendly to students.  Especially

    as we see that 70% of our students attend part time, we need to be

    thinking about the part-time student.

         Pathways work is also related to system and access, the

    FastTracks certificate programs that the chancellor mentioned in

    adult education, our IBEST programs, and dual enrollment so that you

    can see that across the life span of students here at the college, we

    are thinking about equity.

         The final piece then is inclusion, and this is really about

    belonging, thinking about everyone's experience at the college, both

    around sense of belonging, safety, being seen and represented at the

    college.

         So we have done some climate assessment work.  We have reviewed

    some of our resources and policies and practices and disaggregated

    data in a lot of different ways so that we know what different

    experiences are and we will be sharing that with you as part of this

    today.

         So first, we were provided with some information from our human

    resources colleagues around the affirmative action plan.  That's

    included in your board documents with more extensive information that

    is provided here on this slide.

         What I will pull out from here is both that we have an

    affirmative action plan and are looking at it in different ways than

    we maybe have in the past, and that again, goals and percentages

    around goals are not quotas.  We want to make sure that we are





    recruiting really diverse pools so that we have options and can

    improve the diversity in our different job categories.  But again,

    not quotas.

         Then the other piece is that we do have equal opportunity,

    employment opportunity clause as part of all of our contracts for

    purchasing and other things.

         I will just leave it there, and we can talk more about that if

    you have questions.

         And this is -- again, you have seen this before, just some

    demographics about our faculty.  This is probably where we are not

    quite as diverse as the demographics of Tucson and somewhere where we

    need to work, but again, doing well as compared to others.  This

    chart shows you just the different race and ethnicities and

    male/female demographics for the college.

         When we look over at our full-time staff, you can see that is a

    lot more aligned with our student demographics and the demographics

    of Tucson.  We employ more women than men, and we also are well

    aligned with the percentage of Hispanic/Latinx employees, similar to

    our students, and again, all of the demographics are a lot more

    aligned.

         Now I will turn over to our work around assessing the climate for

    diversity, equity, and inclusion, and I will start with some work we

    did over the last year.  A team of about 15 of us worked over the

    last year to review more data for the college, looking at

    representation, retention, completion.





         We studied best practices from across the nation, including

    participating in some different virtual conferences and webinars and

    events to help the team understand what DEI climate is, what some

    good models are across the nation, and what we should be striving

    for.

         We also worked with Hanover Research to conduct a climate survey

    and an employee focus group, and separately a group of us completed

    the Campus Pride Index.

         First, the Hanover Research did a climate survey.  This was

    conducted last May.  We sent out a large number of e-mails, as you

    can see, to faculty, staff, students, everyone that had a Pima.edu

    e-mail, and now you see that around 34,000 e-mails to students went

    out.  Not all of those were necessarily taking classes with us at

    that point in time.  The return rate is hard to really know what

    exactly that was.

         We received 1,100 responses to the survey.  Faculty, staff,

    students responded.  Hanover Research provided us with a portal where

    we can look at all of our different results and also with a report

    regarding their highlights of what they thought about our climate for

    diversity, equity, and inclusion.

         Some of the key findings from that include that most people do

    agree or strongly agree that Pima leaders consider diversity, equity,

    and inclusion to be important.  For staff and administrators, that

    was 67%.  Students and faculty were at 77%.

         Also, that more than three-quarters of respondents somewhat or





    strongly agreed that it is a priority to narrow success gaps.  So

    good findings.

         They also looked at sense of belonging.  You can see on this

    graph that we looked at feeling valued, respected, a sense of

    community, the blue is students, orange is faculty, and the gray is

    staff.  You can see that students had a greater sense of feeling

    valued and respected at the college.  All of those numbers are pretty

    high.

         Another interesting finding is that 60% of respondents said they

    had never participated in a diversity, equity, and inclusion event at

    the college.  When we looked at specifically for students, that

    number went up to 80%.  So something for us to really think about and

    consider.

         Some of the key findings around faculty and staff, again, most of

    these were rather high, but I wanted to pull some that maybe weren't

    as high on the different rankings.

         The first one here is feeling confident that reporting harassment

    and discrimination would not have a negative professional impact, for

    faculty, only 52% agreed or strongly agreed.  For staff, that was at

    60%.  Feeling comfortable reporting incidents of harassment and

    discrimination was a little bit higher, as well as how supportive is

    Pima fostering a culture of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

         The bottom one there where gives you a little bit of pause about

    this is that Pima promotes equity in promotion decisions, both

    faculty and staff were closer to the 50%.





         We did ask for disaggregated information, and we weren't able to

    do this for all the different race and ethnicity groups.  Hanover

    wasn't able to provide that.  But they pull out the experiences for

    Hispanics and Latinx respondents and for Black and African American

    respondents.

         The numbers for the Hispanic and Latinx respondents was really

    similar to the overall experience, so I didn't pull that out, but I

    did want to share with you what it looked like for our Black and

    African American members of our community.

         So you can see in these different areas, the blue are Black and

    African American respondents and the orange are those that do not

    identify as Black or African American.  There is a difference in

    perceptions around that diverse faculty and staff are engaged and

    involved at the college, 78% to 64.

         Diversity and inclusion are prominent in coursework, there is a

    number difference there.  Diverse students are engaged and involved.

    And that Pima fosters a culture of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

    You can see these slight drops there.

         The other piece where I thought it would be important to pull out

    information is around the experiences of our LGBTQIA2S+ community.

    For those that may be watching and wondering what the different

    letters are, that's lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, intersex,

    asexual or aromantic, and two-spirit.  Those are some of the letters

    around LGBTQ identity.

         The chart on your left looks at sense of safety.  We pulled out,





    the gray is respondents that identify as nonbinary or gender

    nonconforming.  Orange is not straight or heterosexual.  Blue is

    straight and heterosexual.

         You can see these numbers are still high, but when compared to

    respondents that identify as straight or heterosexual, there is a

    significant difference going from over 90% feeling safe during class,

    going to and from campus, and safe at campus events.  The number goes

    down when you look at especially nonbinary and gender nonconforming

    respondents.

         The other graph is around feeling isolated or alienated and then

    feeling like you need to hide some aspect of your identity in order

    to fit in at Pima.  The lower number there are those that identify as

    straight or heterosexual.  The number that it's showing us is

    respondents within the last year daily or weekly felt isolation or

    alienation or had to hide some aspect of their identity.  You can see

    how much the numbers go up when you look at respondents that identify

    as nonbinary or gender nonconforming, goes from 7% to 36% and 43%.

         Based on some of that data and information from the survey, the

    climate assessment team provided some recommendations related to what

    we should consider for the strategic plan.

         I will pause here for a second.  Ms. Garcia, you had a question?

         >> MS. MARIA GARCIA:  Yeah, I'm just wondering why, considering

    that the population at Pima College, the higher percentage is White

    and then the second is Hispanic, why you didn't include any of those

    two?





         >> HILDA LADNER:  Sure.  The reason that I didn't pull that out

    is because that number was really similar.  The percentages were

    really close together or almost the same, but I can come back and

    show you some of that information at a later time or share that with

    you, also.

         >> MS. MARIA GARCIA:  Yeah, well, I have already gotten calls

    about this data, and one of the things that, that's one of the

    comments that they made.  Considering that Tucson is a high

    percentage of Hispanics and the chart doesn't show anything about

    them, the comments I have gotten is that we are not here, we are not

    at the table.  We don't matter.

         I'm just sharing what I have been told.

         >> HILDA LADNER:  Okay.  Thank you for that.

         I didn't pull out those numbers because they weren't

    significantly different or different at all, but I can definitely

    share that back out with you.

         >> MS. MARIA GARCIA:  Okay.

         >> HILDA LADNER:  Okay.  These were the recommendations that we

    will consider as maybe including in the diversity, equity, and

    inclusion plan.  Each of these themes had a number of actions below

    it.  Those will be things we consider.

         The next piece that we did with Hanover Research was employee

    focus groups.  We decided to do that because of the timing during the

    year and because of some of the pieces that came out from the staff

    and faculty perceptions.





         So we worked with Hanover.  They sent out almost 2,000 e-mails to

    employees and groups below the director level and for faculty.

    Employees then self-selected to be part of these focus groups, so

    they conducted three focus groups, which was the plan all along, so

    they were only going to do three focus groups.  One group with female

    staff, one group with male staff, and one with faculty.

         These were small group discussions.  They were conducted in

    November with the report coming to us in January.

         Some of the findings from those focus groups focused on these

    themes.  So employees felt that recent changes in hiring practices,

    such as greater inclusion and blinded risumis, are evidence that Pima

    is changing, taking diversity, equity, and inclusion more seriously.

         Employees also felt that divided leadership throughout PCC causes

    difficult work environments for employees and that employees feel

    unheard and made to work in an environment of fear due to their lack

    of knowledge about reporting structures.

         Participants also want diversity, equity, and inclusion

    initiatives to be transparent, reflecting the voices of stakeholders

    across the college community, and with administration held

    accountable for implementation of diversity, equity, and inclusion

    initiatives.

         Staff and faculty would like a shared governance model that works

    for everyone at the college, and participants also find a

    considerable pay equity problem at PCC, particularly with adjunct

    faculty not being adequately compensated for their work.





         Those were the six themes.  Their recommendations from Hanover

    based on the focus group conversations were that we need to create a

    campus-wide inclusive DEI task force that is funded and can enact

    change, that we need to reestablish or examine our shared governance

    across the institution, and that we need to provide documented

    examples of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives to increase

    transparency across the institution, particularly around compensation

    practices.

         So these are some conversations that are happening now and that

    will be examined as part of our strategic planning process, including

    that we have conversations happening around shared governance with

    various groups.  I will just say that this isn't necessarily part of

    diversity, equity, and inclusion, but certainly part of climate and

    important for us to address.

         Ms. Garcia?

         >> MS. MARIA GARCIA:  Thank you for putting this out here.  What

    Hanover has made recommendations on and what they have addressed are

    similar things that I have been hearing that people have been calling

    me about.

         So hopefully we can do something about making these changes for

    improvement.  I'm hopeful.  Not guaranteeing it, but I'm hopeful.

         >> HILDA LADNER:  Thank you.  Yeah, this is something that we are

    considering in our discussions, right, as part of the planning

    process and our next strategic plan.

         Ms. Ripley?





         >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY:  Thank you so much.  I know you're not

    finished, but I also just wanted to interject that especially with

    this slide here and the three recommendations, they are so doable and

    these are things that we are working on behind the scenes and with

    your help and with the help of the DEI office, and really this is an

    all-hands thing.

         I mean, this is something that we all need to take responsibility

    for and lead the way, so I think that this is wonderful.  I love it.

    I love that we did a survey.  I also love that there was a Pride

    Index conducted.

         I don't think we fared that well, but this is why we are doing

    this, is to look at the hard facts, because we don't know what we

    don't know.  So this is why we are here.  Now that we know, this is a

    start.

         A lot of these things are really doable.  What is more

    challenging, and I think we have board support on this, is changing

    culture and changing mindsets, especially when it involves the LGBTQ+

    community and the -- there is a T in LGBTQ+, and I think these are

    things we are all learning and we're all going to grow and be better

    for.  So thank you so much.

         >> HILDA LADNER:  Thank you.  With that you have teed up talking

    about the Campus Pride Index.  I will move through this quickly.

         The Campus Pride Index is a national tool that colleges can use

    to assess policies, practices, and programs and how they impact the

    quality of life for LGBTQ and ally campus community.





         This was something recommended at our LGBTQ+ Town Hall last year,

    and so I worked on it with a few other individuals at the college.

         Currently, there are about 450 colleges that are listed on the

    Campus Pride Index.  Only 48 of them are community colleges.

    Colleges are scored on a scale of 1 to 5, just for context.  Of the

    community colleges listed, only five of them had four or more stars

    and 20 of them had three or more stars.  And there are six

    Hispanic-Serving Institutions listed on the Campus Pride Index.

         So for Pima, we did receive two stars out of five when we

    completed the survey.  For the sexual orientation score, it was two

    out of five stars.  Our gender identity and expression score was also

    two stars.

         There are eight sections of the Campus Pride Index.  They ask us

    a number of questions about services, resources, the way that we do

    our work, classes, all kinds of things.  So we did best in that

    policy inclusion where we received 3.5 stars.  We scored our lowest

    in supporting institutional commitment.

         That has to do somewhat with staffing.  I work on a lot of these

    issues, but it's certainly not 100% of my time, and so when you don't

    have dedicated staff to really pay attention full time to these

    issues, that takes its toll and can create less awareness about the

    work that needs to happen.

         Under academic life we received 2.5 stars.  Student Life we

    received 2.  Campus safety we were at 2.5 stars.  Counseling and

    health, 2 stars.  And then recruitment and retention we received 1.5





    stars.

         The eighth category is residential life, and we were not scored

    there because we are not a residential college.

         Some of the takeaways are that we scored similarly to other

    community colleges, we're not far off.  Certainly there is work to

    do, as you can see from our score.

         It does provide a good baseline for our work going forward, and

    as Chair Ripley said, you can't work on what you don't identify.  So

    doing this really helps us know exactly what the issues are and start

    to address them.  So you name it, and then you work on it, right, and

    start to address issues.

         Some issues to address based on our scores are around staffing.

    We need to do some additional examination of our policies and

    processes.

         In Student Life, counseling and recruitment, we need to become

    more comfortable with the vocabulary, actually thinking about the

    LGBTQ+ community, and specific, like with other groups around

    identity groups, we need to make sure that we are comfortable with

    equity and not just treating everybody the same, that we need to

    think about equity issues, what it means to really address issues for

    different communities.

         In academic affairs, making sure that we are providing more

    training for our faculty and looking at our curriculum to be more

    inclusive.

         Yes, Ms. Garcia?





         >> MS. MARIA GARCIA:  I just have a question.  This assessment

    you did for the LGBTQ, did you do the similar things for the other

    populations?

         >> HILDA LADNER:  So that was part of our climate survey, and we

    do have some pieces there that we have drawn out.  We have looked at

    that climate survey and what other colleges are doing.

         So those are places where the Breaking Student Barriers task

    force has really looked at the experiences for different groups.

    It's a lot of the work that we are doing in the -- equity and student

    retention is also really focused around both the part-time student

    and looking at the experiences for different racial and ethnic

    groups.

         >> MS. MARIA GARCIA:  Thank you.

         >> HILDA LADNER:  This is just some of the immediate next steps

    that we are looking to take.

         I have already met with our organizational effectiveness and

    development and our teaching and learning center to talk about

    drafting some different programs that we can immediately offer.

         Tina Neil in OED has outlined what a manager track could look

    like for professional development around addressing climate

    environment for members of the LGBTQ community.

         We would also have it on employee track, and out of the teaching

    and learning center this spring the focus of their equity and

    inclusivity summit will include LGBTQ+ topics and presentations

    especially as they relate to nonbinary and gender nonconforming





    experiences.

         Our human resources office has already started to examine our

    employment application process to be more inclusive, to include

    capturing chosen name and pronouns early in our employment

    application process.

         We will organize another Town Hall to provide information, more

    detail about the Pride Index, and the work that needs to happen.

    Solicit additional feedback from the community.  Then we will develop

    an action plan to address some of the climate issues that were raised

    in the Campus Pride Index.  Of course some of our progress will be

    measured by taking that survey again and seeing how we can improve

    over time.

         Finally, this is one of the areas of diversity, equity, and

    inclusion, and certainly there is a lot more across the college.  So

    looking at the Campus Pride Index and some of the steps there, we

    have already started to address restroom access, chosen name on ID

    badges.

         We need to do more professional development.  That was one of the

    recommendations of the climate assessment group is that we need

    inclusion and DEI topics at a variety of different levels so that all

    employees have an entry point to this conversation but also more

    advanced trainings for people that are further along that want to do

    more, want to make sure their classrooms are more inclusive for all

    of the learners that we serve.  Some of the long-term planning is

    really what's going into our diversity, equity, and inclusion





    strategic plan.

         So what were the recommendations out of the Breaking Student

    Barriers task force?  What are the other things we are seeing out of

    the climate assessment for Black and African American students and

    community members as well as maybe there are specific pieces around

    how do we make sure that we are a Hispanic-serving institution, for a

    Hispanic-serving institution, what's it look like to be serving?

    What's that mean for language and outreach and specific outreach to

    communities?  All of these different pieces are definitely part of

    our conversation.

         I will pause there, see what other questions you have.  I know

    that was a lot of information.

         >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY:  Any questions from our board members or

    our audience members?

         Thank you so much.  That was a lot.  I know you're taking a

    breath now.  We have one question from Board Member Clinco.

         >> MR. DEMION CLINCO:  Thank you very much, Hilda.  We really

    appreciate all of the work you are doing.  We know you're such a

    small shop, and it's a huge amount of work to really tackle.  Thank

    you so much for your work in this area.

         I really want to just sort of focus my questions on the Pride

    Indexing.  This is something I'm certainly, something I have been

    talking about, as Chancellor Lambert knows, for quite a while.  So

    I'm really glad to see this progress.

         I wanted to know what, sort of as you always know, I love to know





    timelines.  What do you see timelines being in terms of

    implementation of a number of the changes?  If we were to, let's say

    in a year, do the survey again, where would we land?  How far do you

    think we can get in terms of institutional transformation in this

    area to get to that five-star rating?

         >> HILDA LADNER:  As I said, a few things are already in progress

    and easy to do and change.  Our employee information process, that's

    already started.  So capturing and directing the information in the

    correct ways for chosen name and pronouns, I think that is going to

    move quickly.

         We have already started to address restroom access issues.  A

    group led out of our registrar's office has been working for the last

    several months around the process of inclusion for students, so

    students can have their chosen name and pronouns on rosters, on their

    MyPima, so across our system, making sure we are capturing the

    correct name.

         At this point, we are making sure we've caught everything and

    that all of our systems are communicating correctly with each other

    so that students aren't misgendered and misnamed in different places.

         Part of the challenge, as you said, I'm a small office, pretty

    much one person doing a lot of this work, and my other staff member

    really working on immigration and refugee issues for the college,

    which is also a really big job.

         So when I work as sort of in a consultant fashion project to

    project, and right now the biggest project is the strategic plan,





    it's hard to work on all of it, but certainly I think that in a year

    we will have made quite a significant amount of progress on policy

    issues and addressing classroom climate.  Our faculty are really

    excited to be part of this.

         I have already received several e-mails identifying speakers for

    our spring forum or summit that's coming out of our TLC as well as

    faculty that are eager to present on some of these topics during

    that.

         Where will we be?  I don't think we will be at 5 in a year.  It

    takes time to build, but I think we can get up there to a 3.5 and

    make some progress on a lot of these issues.

         >> MR. DEMION CLINCO:  I think, as a follow-up question, if I

    can, I certainly know the board has articulated the importance of

    this topic, not just the Pride Indexing, but our diversity, equity,

    and inclusion initiative as a top priority for the institution.

         Maybe as we talk about -- I would be curious to know, Chancellor

    Lambert, if there are other resources that could be brought to bear

    to support some of this and the implementation of this in a more

    rapid sort of deployed way to support this office in doing some of

    these things.

         A good example is the Pride Indexing.  Are there tools we can

    bring to bear and resources to really effect change in a more -- to

    move with alacrity?

         >> DR. LEE LAMBERT:  The short answer is yes.  What I like to do

    is look at reallocating some existing positions.





         As you know, as things are shifting in the larger sphere of the

    college, maybe there are some places we could move existing employees

    who have the competencies into some of these areas to help better

    support our overall DEI work.

         I'd love to see an individual, for example, who would work with

    Hilda specifically around LGBTQ+ issues in supporting our training

    efforts and creating a better sense of belonging.  So that would be

    one example.

         Another example is looking at creating a better reporting

    structure for concerns and looking to see -- we may already have an

    individual or individuals at the college who we could identify as an

    ombudsperson to be that neutral person at the college where you can

    bring your concerns forward and then have them addressed in a more

    informal way.

         We have a formal process, and that's through our ODR office.

    What we don't have is this informal piece.  So I think those are at

    least two pieces we can move on before we move into the fall.

         As long as the board is supportive of that, and I believe overall

    the board is supportive of that approach, it's just reallocating

    without having to add to our existing financial realities that we

    face.

         Then you can see the training that's going to get rolled out

    pretty soon here.  I really want us to emphasize the pronoun piece.

    I know Hilda knows that.

         Really, I think we can start to make inroads there, and then you





    will see us doing more Town Halls to keep the community up to date.

         But it's not just about LGBTQ+ issues.  It's about the whole

    range of DEI.  We know we have to do a better job around the

    inclusion part.

         As you're seeing, we are doing pretty well on the diversity piece

    in terms of representation, et cetera.  We are doing a better job

    around equity.  You saw Dolores share last month around where we are

    in terms of outcomes for students based on race and ethnicity.  We

    are getting to that equity line there.

         Now I think where our biggest gap -- I'm not saying we won't

    continue working in those other areas -- is in the inclusion, sense

    of belonging, we've got to get better at that.  This is really going

    to help us to be able to really strengthen those areas.

         >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY:  Demion, you had a comment or question?

    No?

         Provost?

         >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA:  Thank you.  I just wanted to share

    that more and more now on the campuses we are seeing more gender

    fluidity.  And we are a community college that is -- we want our

    students, we want to be ready for our students is what I want to say.

         In the past, it's been said we want students to be college ready.

    Pima Community College needs to be ready for the students.  Whatever

    background, whatever identity, who they are, we bring them in as

    inclusive as possible and make them feel comfortable, there is a

    sense of belonging, so they can reach their goals.





         I just wanted to share that.  We need to be ready for them.

         >> DR. LEE LAMBERT:  Let me build off of what Dolores is pointing

    out.

         If you look at the generation that's coming up, the Gen Z, this

    is their expectation of all organizations that we become more

    conversant and be able to understand the different dynamics around

    nonbinary, gender nonconformity, looking at nonstraight or

    heterosexual dynamics, et cetera, et cetera.  So we've got to get

    better at that, and we are going to get better at that.

         It is a continuous improvement growth process, because that is

    the expectation of that generation as they move through.  Not that

    it's not true of other generations, but I think what we are starting

    to see is more of that reality.  It's not going to lessen.  It's

    going to grow in its intensity, and we have to be prepared to create

    that welcoming environment.

         >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY:  Thank you.  I'd like to add too that

    the fact that we do these surveys and we do the indexes and we have

    strategies being written is wonderful in and of itself, but the next

    and most important step is the implementation and the how.

         The how piece is going to be where we turn to all of you to help

    us implement.  And what we do best is education.  So that's a big

    start is communicating all of what we have learned and make sure that

    it trickles down to the entire staff, faculty, administration.  It

    has to come from leadership on down.

         I heard a term today, "not about us without us."  So we do need





    to hear from the communities.  Whether they are people of color, the

    LGBTQ+ community, women, we need to create an environment where

    people aren't afraid to come forth and speak and where people can

    help us to take the next step.  Because many of us aren't necessarily

    quick to do that.

         This is truly a team effort, a community effort, it's a family

    effort, the family of the community college.

         Thank you so much.  Hilda, you have a team of one, but please,

    please, please don't ever hesitate to ask us what you need, what more

    do you need.

         The worst thing we can say is no, but the best-case scenario is,

    oh, we didn't know, thank you for asking, here you go.

         So take that leap.

         Any other comments?  This is a huge, important topic.  I think

    that no matter what community you come from, LGBTQ+ community, the

    female community, whatever minority, people of color, I think that

    it's important that we stress the beauty of community college in and

    of itself being diverse.

         I mean, we are diverse whether we like it or not.  Rather than

    just tolerate it and just create a safe place, I would like to see

    this college embrace and celebrate our diversity.

         Thank you so much.  Any other comments or questions?

         >> MS. MARIA GARCIA:  I guess what I wanted to say is that it

    needs to start with the board.  Thank you.

         >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY:  Thank you so much.





         Yes, and that's why we are here.  I'm really excited about -- I'm

    not excited about the Pride Index or the survey, but it is what it

    is, and we needed to hear that.  We needed to hear the hard facts.

         So again, we didn't know what we didn't know, and now we do so

    there is no excuse.  Let's go for it.

         I, for one, as chair of the board, commit to really dedicating

    our time to the how piece.  We have done these surveys.  How do we

    fix it?  Thank you.

         Anyone else?  I think we have finished a little bit early.

         >> HILDA LADNER:  If I can add really quickly, I want to thank

    you for that.  I think it's important when we do these Pride Index or

    the campus climate, it's really important that we are ready to act on

    our findings, that we can't just do this, identify issues, and then

    do nothing with it, because that's really disappointing to the

    community and doesn't help with our climate.

         I know that your commitment and with your support we can move

    forward on a lot of these issues that we have identified.  It's work

    that can be done.

         >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY:  Absolutely.  Thank you, yes.

         And that's the how.  We know the what.  The next step is the how.

    I'm all about the Five Ws and the H.  The H is the how.

         Thank you.  Anything else, anybody?  Chancellor?  Board members?

         Thank you so much, Dr. Bea.  Hilda, thank you so much for being

    here and educating us.  We have a lot of work to do, and I think

    people are excited to roll their sleeves up and to actually do the





    work.

         It's going to be challenging.  The budget is going to be

    challenging.  We have amazing times ahead.  But I think this is

    something that we all can get on the same page and really try to look

    at what is the greater good of the college.  That's the key thing is

    to always keep in mind.

         Thank you so much, everybody.  I think this concludes our study

    session.

         >> DR. LEE LAMBERT:  Good-bye.

         >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY:  Bye-bye.

         (Adjournment.)





                         *********************************************

                DISCLAIMER: THIS CART FILE WAS PRODUCED FOR COMMUNICATION

    ACCESS AS AN ADA ACCOMMODATION AND MAY NOT BE 100% VERBATIM. THIS IS

    A DRAFT FILE AND HAS NOT BEEN PROOFREAD. IT IS SCAN-EDITED ONLY, AS

    PER CART INDUSTRY STANDARDS, AND MAY CONTAIN SOME PHONETICALLY

    REPRESENTED WORDS, INCORRECT SPELLINGS, TRANSMISSION ERRORS, AND

    STENOTYPE SYMBOLS OR NONSENSICAL WORDS. THIS IS NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT

    AND MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED, PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.

             THIS FILE SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED IN ANY FORM (WRITTEN OR

    ELECTRONIC) AS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OR POSTED TO ANY WEBSITE OR

    PUBLIC FORUM OR SHARED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE

    HIRING PARTY AND/OR THE CART PROVIDER. THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL

    TRANSCRIPT AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON FOR PURPOSES OF VERBATIM

    CITATION.

                     *********************************************