********************************************* 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. ********************************************* March 21, 2022 Study Session... >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: Now we have everyone. Thank you for joining. Welcome to the Pima Community College study session on 21 March 2022. I call this session to order, and I will turn it over to Mr. Silvyn. >> MR. JEFF SILVYN: Thank you. The first item we wanted to talk about with the board or have the board talk about is for the April and upcoming meetings, what is the board's preference regarding meeting format? As you know, we have gone back and forth between in-person, hybrid, and virtual. Given current conditions, we were thinking that hybrid might make the most sense so that people who are not comfortable being in person would still have the ability to attend in person, but by having hybrid, we would offer the most opportunities for the most people to participate in the way they were the most comfortable, but we wanted to discuss that with the board. >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: Board members, do you have any comments? Yes, Board Member Garcia? >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: I'm in favor of the hybrid, but I think that certain people, they need to make it mandatory for them to be at the District Office. So I don't know. Because I think it gives a lot more people an opportunity to observe the board meetings, but I think like presenters and stuff should be required to be at the meeting at the District Office, and board members. That's it. >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: Thank you. Any other discussion? I, for one, will be there in person if I can at all possible make it. I think your suggestion would call for further discussion as far as who would have to be mandatory while adhering to personal safety. Any other discussions from board members? Go ahead, Board Member Gonzales. >> MR. LUIS GONZALES: I would, in my opinion, I think it would be good for the face-to-face, I think, as I mentioned the last meeting. I think since everything is pretty much opening, as well, too. But I do recognize the hesitancy of some employees, as well, too. But in my opinion, I think we should have the face-to-face board meeting. >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: Just to be clear, not the hybrid, just total, full-on, face-to-face? >> MR. LUIS GONZALES: Yes. >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: Any other discussion? Board Member Hay? >> DR. MEREDITH HAY: I support the hybrid option. I plan on being there, but I think people should have a choice. >> MR. DEMION CLINCO: I also support the hybrid option. >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: Mr. Silvyn, any other comments or discussion from anyone else actually? >> DR. LEE LAMBERT: Just to clarify, Board Member Garcia raised a question of requiring certain people to be there in person. If we go to a hybrid option, and then we are going to require certain people to come, I think that starts to put into question why are you even doing hybrid. So keeping that in mind. But also I know from a staff standpoint, we still have a number of staff who are not comfortable coming into a face-to-face environment. Some of them have very good, legitimate, medical reasons to not to come into a face-to-face environment. Some of them are going to be important to some of our presentations. And so I'd hate for us, the board not get the most well-informed perspectives because of having, you know, less flexibility from the staff perspective. >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: Yeah, my only comment to that, as well, thank you, Chancellor, is that in the spirit of maintaining continuity, as long as the school is still hybrid, because we are still teaching hybrid, we are still teaching online, for the most part, or synchronous online, I would recommend that once the entire school is face-to-face, and that day will come someday, until that day happens, I think it's the fair thing to do is have that option for hybrid. I think for the most part, most of the board members would probably agree that we are ready to go in person, but speak, I would hate to limit speakers, and like you said, Chancellor, and prevent from hearing their points of view because they can't make it in person. >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: The one thing that I want to say is that if you look at the screen as to how many people are participating outside of the people that are required on Zoom, there is not too many people outside of here that are participating. We used to have a lot more people attend the board meetings when it was open, you know, face-to-face. Anyway, that's my view. >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: And I'm just trying to understand. Thank you for that view. But based on that line of thinking, I would think that more people will come face-to-face then, and that's fine. We don't have to make them mandatory. They are going to want to come face-to-face. That still leaves the people on this Zoom that don't feel comfortable yet the option to at least attend virtually. Does that make sense, everybody? >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Well, I think, Chairperson Ripley, I think we should go ahead and try the hybrid and then relook at how people are participating. >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: Yeah, like ease into it, you mean? >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Yeah. >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: Yeah, I think that was the intent of doing the hybrid first is having that option, ease into it, and then see where the community at large is doing. The community at large right now is kind of in a hybrid situation. Like I said, most of the key players are going to want to come in person. Yes, Former Chair Clinco? >> MR. DEMION CLINCO: Thank you. Again, as a point of just reminder, we have always sort of had different types of hybrid meetings along the way. We have always filmed and live-streamed all of our meetings so that anyone in the community can watch them at any time. We have also had different consultants and presentations remote. I mean, they just weren't as smooth as they are now because we all weren't comfortable with this type of technology. I think back to a lot of the consultants who did the work on our educational facilities master plan, all of those presentations were presented in sort of a hybrid format. In fact, I think as we move out of this, there will be opportunities -- I always wondered how effective it is having all of the senior leadership of the institution spending five hours once a month in a room together listening to us versus being a more effective use of time being able to participate sometimes in these type of virtual environments to be able to answer questions but not necessarily all be together all the time. I wonder if this type of hybrid tool may be something that becomes actually a real benefit to the institution over time. But to Ms. Garcia's point, I think, Ms. Garcia, if I'm interpreting you correctly, you're talking about the call to the audience and the actual public participation as opposed to the participation of the staff and the administrators and everybody who is on the Zoom? >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Right. >> MR. DEMION CLINCO: So, you know, I don't know why that's happened but it has. Maybe everybody's priorities are elsewhere and people are less concerned with coming to a Pima board meeting than other insane things that are happening in our world currently. I agree. I think finding a more happy medium is good. But I think having this hybrid version could effectively enhance (indiscernible) meetings exist into the future >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: Yeah, and I think we are all kind of saying the same thing, because really, up until now, audience members and call to the audience, people that are not on the panel are only attending via YouTube anyway. It's a one-way thing. But once we open it to hybrid, that opens it up to the community at large and they can attend. You see what I'm saying? The only thing that the hybrid actually does is give the panelists an option who may not feel safe coming in person or are on travel or whatever. It's kind of a nice, happy medium. So I think we are all kind of on the same page, from what I'm hearing. >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: I would like to ask Mr. Gonzales how he feels about that again. Board Member Gonzales? >> MR. LUIS GONZALES: Yes. About continuing the hybrid? >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Yeah. We still against that? >> MR. LUIS GONZALES: I'm not totally against it. We have had it, and it seems like we are getting the hang of it, but still, I would personally, in my opinion, I think we should go back to -- in fact, the schools are opening, University's opening and the school boards, they are having face-to-face. But I think we, as elected board members, I think we need to be there. That's my opinion. But I'm not against the hybrid. >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: Okay. Thank you, everyone, for your input. This was very thoughtful discussion. At this point, Jeff, is this something we have to -- do we vote on? >> MR. JEFF SILVYN: Well, it is noted for an action item. If someone would like to make a motion that we conduct the next board meetings as hybrid, that would certainly be an appropriate course of action. I think it's already been mentioned, but just to make sure everyone understands, this is not a permanent decision. Circumstances will change or when we have tried this, we can certainly revisit it and adapt either because the public health situation continues to improve or unfortunately if it goes back the other way or just based on how the experience is for everyone, we can certainly make further adjustments. So it's not a permanent decision, is the short version of that. >> MR. DEMION CLINCO: I will go ahead and make a motion, but I do want to, before I do, I want to have one more question answered. Really what we are talking about is the hybrid version we were in before where it's really the board in the room with the chancellor and team? It's really not the public coming? They would still be on -- okay. >> MR. JEFF SILVYN: Well, sorry, what I meant by hybrid was that the District Office would be open. If members of the public wanted to come and attend in person, they could, but the hybrid option would also be available for individuals who wanted to attend and participate in the meeting in some way but for whatever reason were not going to come in person. >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Wait. That's not what I expected. >> MR. DEMION CLINCO: I will be clear. I would be comfortable with the board and the panelists presenting. If there is 150 people in the room, I'm not sure that I would feel comfortable attending, just because I have a family member who is very high risk. So I would then want to participate -- if it's the board and the leadership of the institution and specific presenters, I would definitely feel comfortable. I'm happy to make a motion for that, but if that's not what the rest of the board -- I mean, that may change, but if that's not what everybody else is comfortable with -- we also have variants coming. Hong Kong is in closure. There's other things happening out there that could affect this in a month or two. I will make a motion and see if there is a second. I would move we go back into the hybrid version that we were in before where the board would be together and that the presentations would be in person with our top leadership and could be on Zoom, as we sort of discussed. >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Yes. >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: Thank you. One thing I want to do is commend the staff and the faculty and employees throughout COVID. This is before I even joined the board. The one thing we have done right is we have very painstakingly and carefully done the safe and the smart and the logical thing every step of the way during this pandemic. I think that this is a nice first step to get out of the total Zoom era, and going hybrid in this increment and then, like Mr. Silvyn said, the next step is re-evaluate, one way or the other, either revert or go forward, is the wisest, it's the smartest, wisest and just most responsible way to go forward. Yeah, I would concur with that. Thanks. >> MR. DEMION CLINCO: I believe we need a second? >> MR. JEFF SILVYN: Right. >> MR. DEMION CLINCO: And then a vote. >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: Okay. >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: I second. >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: We've got a second. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. (Ayes.) >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: Opposed? The motion passes. We will go to the hybrid method at the next board meeting, which is I believe April 9th. Next item on the agenda, the second and last item. Mr. Silvyn? >> MR. JEFF SILVYN: Thank you. As you all know, the college retained consultants through the Association of Governing Boards to conduct an assessment, provide information that hopefully would be helpful for the board related to its effectiveness in preparing for the upcoming HLC visit. We wanted to provide an opportunity for the board to discuss that, and in particular, are there suggestions, steps, that in particular that board members would like to suggest in particular for consideration about what the board might do going forward to improve board governance and effectiveness? >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Do you want to start, Chairperson? >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: Yes, I'm going to start by saying thank you. Yes, we did have the meeting with AGB. This was a meeting or visit that we had asked for as a board to be responsible board members and the board as a whole for self-improvement. It was in an effort to identify any of our weaknesses, as well as our strengths, as we go forward, especially in light of the upcoming HLC visit. As board members, I think this was the responsible thing to do in getting outside help, outside assistance, outside input, and advice from a higher authority. So with that, I would like to open it up for any kind of discussion. Yes, Board Member Garcia? >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Okay. So first of all, you know, as you all know, I decided not to participate. So one of the things that I'd like to add is that I will reserve my comments for the HLC visit. For one thing, you know, I didn't agree with the assessment. The HLC report to me is meaningless. The report is incomplete since two members decided not to participate in the meeting with the AGB. I felt that due to the HLC scheduled visit being so close that the AGB meeting was unwarranted and should have never been authorized at this time. It was a waste of $68,000. I feel that this visit was intent to subvert and influence the visit of the HLC. Now, I did read the report. There were some good areas that I can agree with. But a couple of things that I saw was that there was a mention there about us, about me -- I'm just going to speak for myself -- that I did not, that I publicly stated that I was not, that I did not approve the, what's it called, the expenditure limitation bond. That's not true. I did vote for it. The fact that I didn't rise down, I did not want it on the pamphlet, does not mean that I did not support it. So I did not appreciate that. Now, we have our differences, I understand. You know, like some of the differences were identified. But it's not that we are -- the other part is that it stated that, you know, that the minority against a majority, that we don't accept the decisions that are made. Well, in my view, all of that is going to come out when the HLC is here to visit, okay? So I will just leave it at that. I hope that our working relationship will be better in the future. I'm hoping that the HLC will come and identify areas of improvement. I don't think we needed the AGB to come out here. We have had the ACCT, we have had HLC -- I mean, my goodness, you know. Anyway, I'm done. Thank you. >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: Thank you, Board Member Garcia. Just to be clear, the AGB was invited to come help us not to report -- the HLC is coming because they have to, and it is to assess and report on us. The AGB's purpose was just to assist us and to make us better board members. The report, they are not reporting on us. No one is on report, it's not going anywhere. It's basically to help us improve, like where can we improve as board members. As the chair now, it's my responsibility to help get any kind of professional outside assistance, and how can we do and be better? How can we keep in mind the greater good of the college? And if five people can't agree on how, then we need outside people that are arguably more experienced with community college as we are as a group. So this is why AGB was invited. The report isn't an "I gotcha" or an assessment. It's basically just how can we improve, tell us what we need to do. That's all it was. Yeah, that's all it was. >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: But the other thing too is that it was misleading, because what was reported and what we approved in our board meeting was preparation for the HLC. That's not the same thing as an assessment, okay? That was -- and then of course Meredith Hay later on mentioned, well, it's for board development. Well, like what is it, okay? >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: It was all of those things. It's preparation, it's development. I mean, if we are going to be put -- the worst-case scenario, because this is public knowledge, when HLC does a visit like this, the very worst-case scenario is we lose our accreditation. That is serious. So in order to prepare for that, we need to make sure we have done everything we can to make ourselves better as board members. That in and of itself was preparation. They didn't come here to report on us. They came here to help us is all. Mr. Clinco? >> MR. DEMION CLINCO: Thank you so much. Again, I was disappointed that all of the board members didn't participate. You know, I think to Ms. Garcia's point, that there was a sense that it doesn't fairly articulate her perspective, that could be a result of the nonparticipation. But there were I thought really good recommendations that came out of this. I took away a number of things. First and foremost there were some small recommendations that I would move as part of this discussion that we should adopt, including just even like the naming of our subcommittees. But I thought that the bigger takeaway was that we, as a board, need to continue to have professional education and that the ultimate assessment was that the board still needs opportunities to better understand what the board's role is, what individual board member roles are, what fiduciary responsibility really means. As part of this, as we began our engagement with AGB, I spent a good part of a weekend on one of their online tools just going through one of their, not an assessment, but sort of a class on board effectiveness. I took away, I learned some things, took away some very positive aspects of that. So I would suggest that as part of this, this board make a recommitment to investing in opportunities for that professional development about board roles and responsibilities and direct the staff and Chancellor Lambert to come back with maybe an action plan for the board to be able to take advantage of different programs around the country, whether it's AGB or AACC, and what other educational opportunities are there that we could go to quickly to help get up to speed. Those were my two giant takeaways that I would support. I could certainly put it in the form of a motion, but I'd like to let the conversation continue. >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: Thank you so much for those comments. Any other comments from fellow board members? >> MR. LUIS GONZALES: I'd like to make a comment, Ms. Ripley. >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: Yes, Board Member Gonzales. >> MR. LUIS GONZALES: As mentioned before, I think when AGB was initially invited to come, and my participation was not there, but I think one of the operative words is "development." That's one thing that I have always said, there is always room for improvement. I have been saying this since day one. For all of us, there is always room for improvement. I think that's one of the things we all need to really look at as the operative word for us, for the board members, because I did read the report, but my feeling is, as I mentioned earlier by Ms. Garcia, is it's not a complete report. One of the main concerns that I have right now, I'm going to reserve my comments when HLC comes, and I'll be truthful with whatever needs to be said or whatever needs to be shared, my opinions, my perspective, my observations of what we have been dealing with as a board. One of the things that I just want to make a statement is that with HLC coming in very soon, as I mentioned, we can always do better. One of the things that I do not want for anybody to be intimidating our employees, our staff, or any administrator out there, because I think we are in the middle of this HLC visit, but more important, we are in the middle of a litigation, as well, too. So that's one of the emphasis I want to share right now and make it very clear, I do not want to hear any intimidations to any employees or staff or personnel prior to the HLC visit. That's it. That's my opinion. As I said before and will always say, there is always room for improvement. Most definitely, as I read the report and one of the closing statements is it said it's a dysfunctional board. But we can make it better. Thank you. >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: Thank you. Dr. Hay, did you have any inputs? >> DR. MEREDITH HAY: No, I'm fine. >> MR. DEMION CLINCO: Again, Mr. Gonzales, one of the things that you just said was you sort of outlined a concern about intimidation, so of course that makes me worried that, one, that you would say that, because it would suggest that that's happening. Are you aware of intimidation of any sort? >> MR. LUIS GONZALES: I'm not aware of anything right now, but that's my feeling. >> MR. DEMION CLINCO: Just for clarification. >> MR. LUIS GONZALES: That's my opinion. Like I mentioned, I'm not aware of anything, to be honest with you. >> MR. DEMION CLINCO: I appreciate that. I just wanted some clarification, because the way that that was stated, I just wanted to be sure that you're not aware or there isn't something going on like that. Thank you very much. >> MR. LUIS GONZALES: Thank you. >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: Thanks. That is an important point, thank you, before I go to you, Chancellor, it's an important point to make. Again, I want to reiterate that the AGB came here to help us. It was in fact professional development, and their document wasn't a report. It was their observations. So if it wasn't complete, it's because two board members weren't there. They only gave us a document with their observations of what they discovered in interviewing three board members. And again, I have to reiterate, it was professional development. They are not reporting on us. It was to help us. It was to help me personally as chair to see how I could be a better chair and how I can help to unify this board. So that's professional development. And again, I also attended several AGB and ACCT online learnings, spent many weekends to try and find out over the last year what is required of me as a board member, as an elected official, as well. It always came back to the fact that there are systems in place for reasons. We have to act as a board and we have to help each other, and the only way, because HLC and AGB, or ACCT is not going to make any decisions when it comes to, quote unquote, dysfunctionality. That's up to us to fix. Now that responsibility lies on me, as the chair, to help this board to somehow unify so that the greater goal and the greater good of the college is the only thing at the forefront of our minds. As far as intimidation of employees, we shouldn't even be talking to employees about any kind of decision-making or policy, because our only employee is the chancellor. I'm glad that you said that you didn't see any intimidation, because that would be alarming if that did happen from any board member. Thank you for stating that. With that, Chancellor, you had your hand up. >> DR. LEE LAMBERT: Thank you, Board Chair Ripley. I just want to reinforce this notion of the professional development. In order to grow, one needs to understand what is working well and where there is room for growth and improvement. So having an external group come in and take a look, because sometimes it's very hard, right, to know how am I doing unless someone else is the window to how I'm doing? This report really carefully laid out but with the focus on the board itself, because that is what the focus from the HLC is going to be, is on 2.C. They carefully went through each one of the elements of 2.C, and overall, it's a reaffirmation, in spite of what they said in their last sentence, the dysfunction, the college is getting the day-to-day work that it needs to be done done. They said in a very remarkable way in many ways, right? I want us not to lose sight of that. In spite of all the challenges, we are still getting the work of the college done. That's something that we all should take solace in. But it also means that, they point out, there are things we need to work on. If we do not, as a board, address some of these things, they fear some of these worsened scenarios. An example of that, they point out this could lead to many staff members leaving the college, and it could be talented people that we have at the college have other options. I don't think that's what any board member would want to have as a side effect occur. I think we need to be mindful of that. But I think overall, this was a good start, but also remember, as the HLC folks come in, the HLC works from facts and evidence. So we have to be able to show the facts that you can back up your factual assertions. It's not about your opinions. It's about the facts and the evidence that support those facts. So I think this report is a reminder of that, as well. So that's all I wanted to let everybody know. I think it sets up as a nice primer for the visit coming up. It's not telling people what to say. It's just simply saying based on an independent review, college, you're getting things done, but there is danger ahead if you can't work through the dysfunction. >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: Thank you for those comments, Chancellor. Any other comments or questions from the group? I would also like to add, then, that, yeah, I mean, at the end of the day, keeping the greater good of the college in mind is really what we are about. And as elected officials, the board is on each of us as individuals to do our own research, to do our own homework, to come prepared, to get professional development, and then bring our best selves to each meeting and each executive session as well as public session. I know in my heart that we all want that. I really do. And so I think that this is a positive step with the HLC coming, contrary to what it may appear, but I think it's a good way forward in possibly resetting. Because again, at the end of the day, we have to put personal whatever aside, and we have to think about the school, we have to think about the college, and think about why we are here and the fact that we are elected officials and have that responsibility. Board Member Clinco has your hand up. >> MR. DEMION CLINCO: If I may, I can offer a motion, if I may. So first I would move that per the AGB advisory recommendations that we strike the term "advisory" from your committees and we just call them committees to be clear they're part of the decision-making of the institution. That we ask Chancellor Lambert to come back with a menu of additional professional development opportunities for the board to focus on fiduciary responsibility, board governance, and all of the components that we have talked about, both internally and are mentioned in this report. And that we also ask Chancellor Lambert to bring forward a plan to help celebrate the successes that we are having along the way. I know we do that, but I think per the recommendation from the report, being more intentional about that. >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: Do I hear a second to that motion? Anyone seconding? >> DR. MEREDITH HAY: I can second it, and then we can have more discussion? >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: Yes. So the motion has been seconded. Now I open it up for discussion, please. >> DR. MEREDITH HAY: So I want to go back. Committees are always advisory to the board, though. They don't make decisions. >> MR. DEMION CLINCO: I think it's just the term that we call them advisory committees versus board committees. I think that was what they were getting at, because it sort of implies that they're intended to be part of the formal component of the board's decision-making as opposed to just sort of -- again, this was just from their report, so... >> DR. MEREDITH HAY: And that doesn't change the charge of the committee, doesn't give them any authority other than still -- >> MR. DEMION CLINCO: No. I think it just provides clarification to the public and to the board. That was what the report suggested. >> DR. MEREDITH HAY: Okay. I'm fine with that. I just wanted that clarification. Thank you. >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: Discussion? Board Member Garcia? >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: I think we should hold off on implementing any of these items until after the HLC is here. Because I think more things are going to come out that we are going to have to address. >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: So I just wanted to restate the motion. The motion was to just change the terminology to our committees -- >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: I agree with that one. >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: -- just because they are more palatable. Tagged onto that was to get more professional development for the board. >> MR. DEMION CLINCO: That was two things. One is the more professional development for the board, to come up with a plan that gives us opportunities, which I think is always a good thing. And 2 would be to come up with a plan to help celebrate the successes which also was called out in the plan. >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: Okay. Got it. Any other discussion? >> MR. LUIS GONZALES: One more discussion, a clarification in reference to what Board Member Clinco mentioned about the, what do you call it, advisory. Explain, or maybe our counsel can explain exactly what the transition is going to be if we eliminate "advisor" on that. >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: Committees. >> MR. JEFF SILVYN: So the answer is there isn't going to be any change. The board committees meet the statutory definition of what the law considers an advisory committee. I think the recommendation in the report was to eliminate the word "advisory" because some people might think that that gives a lesser significance to the work of that committee. It's not intended to change in any way the actual work or charter of those committees. Does that help clarify, or do you still have a question we should address? >> MR. LUIS GONZALES: Well, in reference to the committees, I feel like we have the role as an advisory. I think it should be maintained at that. >> MR. JEFF SILVYN: So, I mean, I guess what I would say is the changing the name does not in any way change the role of the committee. Like I said, as I understood the report, it was the perception of the AGB reviewers that at some institutions, when a committee is labeled as "advisory," people don't take the work or the recommendations of that committee seriously because of the label "advisory" being attached to what they do. But as a practical matter at Pima, whether we call them advisory committees or not, they are making recommendations to the board. They are not making decisions. The board retains its role as the decision-maker, and the role of the committee and the actual work would not change by changing the name. It's just a question of whether the board agrees that it might improve the perception or stature of the committee by changing the name. >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: And also, I would add that these are standing committees, and board members are merely members of those committees. So we aren't in charge of those committees. We just happen to be members of a few of the committees. Correct, Jeff? >> MR. JEFF SILVYN: Right. So again, it wouldn't change anything about how the committees operate. Again, I just want to -- does that, Mr. Gonzales, I just want to make sure I'm answering your question. I hope I have addressed the question. >> MR. LUIS GONZALES: It seems like you're answering it, Mr. Silvyn. >> MR. JEFF SILVYN: Okay, good. Thank you. >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: Anyone else want to discuss this? We are still in discussion. So now that we are out of discussion, so the vote is to change the name or strike the word "advisory" to make it much more powerful, as well, and to ask for more professional development and come up with a plan for professional development, as well. So with that -- >> MR. JEFF SILVYN: Excuse me, if I might interject. There is one other element to Mr. Clinco's motion, and that would also be a plan for recognizing and celebrating achievements of the college. So it's actually two plans. >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: Right, recognizing achievements, celebrating our achievements and our accomplishments, as well as a way forward for professional development planning, and striking the word "advisory" also to add more credibility and power to the committees. >> MR. DEMION CLINCO: I would just add that of course there were a few other recommendations, but I think that those are happening in other ways that don't need us to take action. Just to be clear, I mean, I think we have had other study sessions around the implications of what's going on, we continue to have discussions on the professional development, hopefully continue to help with the dysfunction. Just for -- I mean, it is not that we are excluding any of the recommendations. It's just I think they are being addressed in other ways. These are the ones that I think the board needs to actually take, to take action on. >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: Thank you for that clarification. Again, just to summarize, we asked for some support and some assistance and some advice, and Board Member Clinco's motion was to enact a few of those pieces of advice to improve the board and board functionality. So with that, I would like to call for a vote. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. (Ayes.) >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: Those opposed? >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: I abstain. >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: We have four ayes and one abstain. So the motion passes. Any other items to discuss, Mr. Silvyn? >> MR. JEFF SILVYN: There are no other items on the agenda. >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: Any other comments or questions before we adjourn this study session? Board Member Garcia? >> MS. MARIA GARCIA: No. >> MS. CATHERINE RIPLEY: Any other comments? Chancellor? Great. Thank you. Then with that, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much. (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. *********************************************