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

                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.

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




         August 13, 2021 Faculty Senate...



         >> MR. SETH SHIPPEE:  So -- sorry, I just got a little

    interruption that the meeting is being recorded.  If you'd like me to

    start over, I'm happy to do so.  Otherwise I will just plow ahead.

         This is where there is some ambiguity, because it doesn't contain

    the word "employees."  It just talks about training.

         Ultimately, though, although the governor and the legislature

    have said things that this is about employees and they haven't stated

    it's about anybody else, the statute says what it says.  So we are

    sort of left in this predicament of we have to comply with the

    statute regardless of what the state officials have said about it.

         So we sort of have to regard this as though it probably could

    apply beyond just any training that we might extend to our employees.

         Again, that definitely does not mean it's academic classroom

    instruction.  This would be maybe extracurricular type of training

    that we might present in some circumstances, if it applies at all.

         So what is in fact prohibited?  So what the state actors can't do

    is they can't require an employee to engage in certain kinds of

    training or to use, and the state can't use public money to present

    certain kinds of training or orientation or therapy, is how they

    phrase it, that presents any form of blame or judgment on the basis

    of race, ethnicity, or sex.

         Well, what does training, orientation, and therapy mean?  It's

    not defined.  So we are kind of left guessing.  Training, as I said,





    since we know we can sort of reduce this down, since we know it

    doesn't apply to academic instruction, it would be extracurricular

    type of training, certainty things we have to go through or we go

    through with HR, for onboarding, or other kinds of trainings.

         In terms of therapy, that probably means like corrective action,

    so if there has been a discrimination incident at the college,

    certain individuals might be required to go through some sensitivity

    training.  That's probably what this applies to.

         There is a list of specific concepts that cannot be presented.  I

    put those in quotes, because that's how it's phrased.  Concepts can't

    be presented in these trainings, which we will go through in a

    moment.  But it does specifically exclude sexual harassment training.

    None of this is applicable to sexual harassment training.

         So what are these concepts that can't be presented in terms of

    what is defined as blame or judgment on the basis of race, ethnicity,

    or sex?  This is what the list is.  It's somewhat paraphrased, but

    otherwise it's straight out of the statute.

         I won't go through all of these.  You can take a look at them

    here, but I will say that these are pretty narrow and probably not

    something that we would be doing.  These are not concepts that we

    would be presenting at the college anyway.  So I'd say it's probably

    a fair bet that we don't have any kind of training where we are

    presenting a concept that any particular race, ethnicity, or sex is

    morally or intellectually superior to somebody else.

         That being said, when I did this presentation for HR folks and





    others, they did mention, I'm circling down here at the bottom, that

    this might actually be something that does come up, that we do talk

    about how concepts such as meritocracy and a hard work ethic have

    racist or sexist overtones to them or were created to oppress.  Maybe

    that's not literally how we talk about, but that may be something

    that does come up in certain kinds of training that we present.  If

    so, that's something that we should reflect on as to are there ways

    we can maybe rephrase that so it's more in line with, you know, a

    message that we want to promote and doesn't run afoul of this legal

    requirement.

         So what does HB 2906 not do?  It really, as I said, doesn't

    substantially affect our training or our other operations.  The

    concepts that we are not supposed to present are pretty narrow, and

    it's unlikely we are doing that anyway.

         It also doesn't really prohibit discussion of critical race

    theory to the extent that we wanted to have an open discussion or

    debate about it, that there is nothing in the statute that says that

    that's prohibited.  That is very much how it's been presented, but

    again, it's not in the actual language of the statute.

         We can still talk about racism and sexism and power and analysis

    and privilege and biases and all that, and it might upset a certain

    group or groups of listeners, but that's not something that we are

    prohibited from discussing.

         It doesn't prohibit implicit bias training.  I think that

    question came up.  It does not.  I mean, what it would prohibit is to





    say that somebody is biased because they are in certain immutable

    characteristics here.

         It doesn't prohibit us from presenting implicit bias training in

    the sense that we do, at least as I recall, being that we all carry

    biases with us that, whether we know it or not, that influence our

    choices and our decision-making and it's something that we should be

    mindful of.  It doesn't prohibit us from having an intelligent

    discussion about implicit bias in that way.

         Also, as I said, it doesn't impose substantive penalties on

    employees or the college, but just be aware that the employee code of

    conduct still requires all employees to comply with state law,

    whether they agree with it or not, and technically, just so that

    you're aware, certain criminal penalties, specifically a class 2

    misdemeanor, may still apply to any public employee who knowingly

    violates a duty imposed on them by state law.  I don't think it's

    going to come to that, but I would be remiss if I didn't point it

    out.

         So why is limited to just training?  Well, some of you who have

    probably participated in our previous discussions about academic

    freedom and the First Amendment can probably guess that there are

    clear implications for First Amendment and free speech in this,

    particularly as it applies to higher education.

         Now, with training, however, the government can't condition

    public employment or access to public services on somebody agreeing

    with a particular viewpoint.  So in that sense, a law that is





    restricting certain kinds of content from public employee training in

    terms of imposing that on employees who are required to participate

    in that training, those arguably are permitted by the First

    Amendment.

         However, limiting discussions in higher education, especially

    like in a course classroom setting, would likely violate academic

    freedom in both the legal and professional senses of those terms.

    And remember, this bill, the statute that applies to, is broad.  It's

    not just higher education.  It sort of sweeps us in with everybody

    else who is a public entity, so the repercussions for, like, Pima

    County's government versus Pima Community College are different,

    because we are an educational institution, and particularly a higher

    educational institution.

         If you're wondering why that's not the case, why HB 2898 can be

    more restrictive, well, that is because academic freedom standards

    differ between K12 and higher ed, so legally speaking, under the

    First Amendment, restrictions on K12 can be tighter.

         So speaking of the First Amendment, is this even legal?  Well,

    that's an excellent question.  Is this a First Amendment violation?

    Maybe.  We don't know.  It's certainly worthy of discussion and

    analysis.

         Under the First Amendment, could this be construed as viewpoint

    discrimination?  Something is not -- under the First Amendment, you

    can present certain ideas.  You can't promote them in terms of like

    what the government speech can be.





         Here it specifically says you can't present these concepts.

    Doesn't say you can't promote them.  It just says present.  Maybe

    there is an argument there that this is viewpoint discrimination.

         There is possibly a chilling effect, as I said, on academic

    freedom and free expression.  Another thing to consider is that the

    college itself has a right to free expression, that it can express

    its own institutional values.  So there is some question as to

    whether or not restricting our ability to put certain kinds of

    content into our training materials that say this is what Pima stands

    for, this is who we are, whether that violates the college's own

    institutional right to free speech under the First Amendment.

         There is also a question of does this violate the Fourteenth

    Amendment?  Not to get too lawyerly about this, but there are

    different clauses under the Fourteenth Amendment.  There's the due

    process clause, which basically says a law has to be comprehensible.

    You can't just make somebody -- you can't give somebody a law and

    expect them to comply with it if it's so vague that no one can

    possibly understand what they are supposed to do to act in accordance

    with it.

         At the same time, there is also the equal protection clause,

    which just means you can't treat different classes of people

    differently for arbitrary reasons or for discriminatory reasons.

         So the question here is regardless of what the statute says on

    its face, was this motivated by a discriminatory intent?  You might

    think back to the discussion that was had about the travel ban a





    while ago where they talked about it on its face it says one thing,

    but the motivating factor there was the discussion of like was this

    motivated by something illegal, which was the discriminatory intent

    behind it?

         Unfortunately, I can't answer any of these questions.  I can only

    speculate about them.  We won't know unless and until it's challenged

    in court.  But I think back on a recent case, Tucson here, TUSD,

    there was the case about the Mexican-American studies program, and in

    that case, after a lot of litigation, the Ninth Circuit Court of

    Appeals finally said that the state law that effectively banned the

    Mexican-American studies program violated not the teachers' rights,

    not the institution's rights, but the students' rights to free

    speech, in a sense that it violated their right to receive

    information and ideas.

         It also found that there were issues of fact that were worthy of

    going to trial on whether or not that law was also motivated by

    discriminatory intent.  It's interesting, and I'm sure there is going

    to be more discussion about it on the legal side of things.

         So what should you do?  What should PCC faculty do with this

    information?  Well, I'd say, first and foremost, just keep in mind it

    does not apply to academic instruction, but that doesn't mean a lot

    of people, based on things they have read in the paper, that they

    have heard the governor say, they don't think that it does.  So be

    prepared for, again, incorrect but possibly very vehement claims that

    you are illegally teaching banned critical race theory.





         But otherwise try not to worry about it.  This is not K12, this

    is not something where there is potentially monetary fines or

    discipline, at least not specifically prescribed in the statute to

    worry about.

         When you're having extracurricular academic discussions, maybe

    try to avoid using terms like calling it training, orientation, or

    therapy.  Maybe couch it as something else.  It's a group discussion,

    symposium, whatever it might be.  Don't use the buzzwords that are

    included in the statute if you can avoid it.

         Review -- again, we are not talking about your syllabi, we are

    not talking about your course content.  We're just talking about if

    you're going to have an extracurricular academic discussion that

    might fit this sort of like training model.  Review your handouts,

    look at your agendas.  Is there something in there that somebody is

    going to look at and say, oh, you're saying something that is

    inherently racist or inherently sexist, or whatever that might be.  I

    don't think you are, but again, you're looking to see like is there a

    way maybe I could rephrase this so it's not as open to somebody

    making that spurious claim?

         Maybe also look for words that somebody who is trying to find

    fault with something that you're doing might take exception to,

    language like about White male privilege, fragility, toxic

    masculinity or femininity, that kind of thing.  Not saying you can't

    discuss it.  I'm just saying be mindful that those are words that

    might prompt somebody to be critical of that particular topic.





         Also, again, this talks about trainings that public money are

    spent on, so consider alternatives where public money isn't involved.

    Could these be after hours or off campus, or could it be sponsored by

    somebody who is paying for it that is not spending college money on

    it, it's private money that's involved.  And of course, when in

    doubt, you can always check with legal, and we will try to answer

    questions as best that we can.

         I know that's a lot of information.  I have included citations to

    the stuff that I have put in here today if you'd like to look at it

    on your own, and I'm happy to take questions.  Jeff is here, too, by

    the way.

         >> TAL SUTTON:  Thank you, Seth.  That was great.  I feel like I

    just took a five-week crash course in legal and I want to go and

    lawyer somebody.

         I do see that there is a question in chat.  Does this apply to

    training offered to faculty?

         >> MR. SETH SHIPPEE:  Yeah, it would.  It would apply to any kind

    of training that's part of what the college is presenting to

    employees.  So it wouldn't just be staff.  It would also be faculty,

    yes.

         >> TAL SUTTON:  I think, if it's okay with you, I'll just open it

    up to both questions about specifically this as well as I think there

    might be some legal questions around the COVID mask mandate and

    things like that.  Since you're here, kind of kill two birds with one

    stone.





         I know Kimlisa had expressed interest in asking a question

    earlier.  If she's still hanging about, lurking in the 69

    participants somewhere?

         >> KIMLISA DUCHICELA:  I am still lurking about.  Sorry.

         I just want to be absolutely sure, because I have gotten

    questions from adjunct faculty that at the intersection of presenting

    a curriculum in class, and keep in mind we are talking about

    sociology and history courses and things like that that really gel

    with these topics, at the intersection of that law that you

    mentioned, and of course I was on the academic freedom committee, the

    intersection of this with those two policies and the policy that we

    have to follow, you know, state law, that there is no repercussion

    that could come back on a faculty that could cost them a great deal

    of money, especially our adjunct faculty.

         I just want to be absolutely sure of that.  Or should I just

    refer them to you?

         >> MR. SETH SHIPPEE:  Well, probably what would be better, just

    in terms of work flow, if they have questions, especially if you're

    getting the same kind of question from multiple individuals, that if

    you contact legal, we can discuss it with you and make sure you have

    the information to share, or if you'd like us to do a similar

    presentation at some point, that could probably be arranged.

         So I can't guarantee you that nobody is going to face any kind of

    litigation because of this.  So like I said, there is still, you

    know, one admonishment that we have given to folks here at the





    college about the mask mandates and things, is any time that there is

    a law involved and someone is claiming that a public actor, a public

    employee is violating it, that could be the basis for a lawsuit.

    Likewise, there are laws that say if you are a public employee and

    you're violating a particular law knowingly, in dereliction of your

    duty, that you could have a criminal charge brought against you.

         That's extremely unlikely, and in the event, that would have to

    be approved by the county attorney or the attorney general, again,

    extremely unlikely that would happen.  So if somebody were to say,

    hey, you're violating this law, I'm going to make sure you get

    prosecuted for this, it just doesn't work that way.

         So I can say that as long as somebody is acting in accordance

    with the law, or acting in accordance with the college directives,

    that means if there is any question, you consult with administration,

    you consult with legal, and if somebody does unfortunately bring some

    kind of action, first of all, it's probably going to be against Pima,

    not against an individual employee or instructor, but let's say that

    does happen, we do have insurance for that that covers the cost of

    litigation.

         As long as somebody is acting in accordance with the college's

    direction, assuming the college hasn't itself done something that's

    in violation of its insurance coverage, that's not an expense that

    individual employees have to bear.  That would be something that the

    college would provide representation on.

         >> KIMLISA DUCHICELA:  Thank you very much.  I will send their





    questions, I will amass them and send them in an e-mail to you and I

    guess Jeff.

         >> MR. JEFF SILVYN:  Just one other thought about that.  What we

    ought to do when we collect those is we can think about are there

    deans and department heads to share it with?  Just because the same

    and similar concerns may come from a number of areas, and perhaps we

    can consolidate information, and having FAQs or some way to

    distribute the consistent information to whoever is feeling uncertain

    about a particular aspect of this.

         >> KIMLISA DUCHICELA:  Okay.  Thank you.

         >> TAL SUTTON:  Maybe a few more questions.  I see one more in

    chat.  Where does Arizona stand on SLAPPs?

         >> MR. SETH SHIPPEE:  I don't know.  Jeff, are you familiar with

    that?

         >> MR. JEFF SILVYN:  Right, I was going to say, so SLAPPs or

    lawsuits specifically designed to stop someone from engaging in a

    particular activity by burying them in the burden and expense of

    litigation, not sure specifically, but I guess it's not something I

    think Pima employees should worry about, as Seth mentioned.

         So Pima is part of a cooperative with all of the K12 school

    districts and most of the community colleges, so we have a big

    cooperative insurance essentially program.  The defense coverage is

    quite comprehensive.  So if Pima or a Pima employee got sued related

    to something that was part of their employment activity, we have

    quite extensive defense coverage.  So it's not an expense or burden





    that an individual or even the college would have to bear by itself.

         >> MR. SETH SHIPPEE:  Looks like I have a direct message.  I'm

    not sure if it's something everybody can see.

         The question is if an instructor has a student who refuses to

    wear a mask, can the instructor ask the student to leave?  Jeff is

    more familiar with what our current guidance is on that than I am, so

    I will defer to him on this one.

         >> MR. JEFF SILVYN:  So the short answer is yes.  The group

    that's been working on these issues is going to send out some much

    more detailed guidance probably Monday is what we're trying to

    -- it's going to talk about that, what do you do if there is a

    student in your class who is not wearing a mask, what if they refuse,

    et cetera, it will walk through suggested steps.

         I guess just keep in mind the goal of all of this of course is

    going to be get people to comply, and if not, perhaps there is an

    alternative educational modality they could engage with in Pima so

    they could have their education goals met but not be doing that in a

    way that violates the rule, and ultimately, if they are really not

    going to comply or pick another option, then they will be removed.

         >> TAL SUTTON:  I see Sarah Jansen has her hand up, and that

    might be our last question before we have to move on.

         >> SARAH JANSEN:  Thank you so much for this, Seth.  This is

    tremendously helpful.

         I just had a thought, concern.  Would this law cover things like

    say there is a faculty training and it's like a condition of that





    training to not behave in sexist or racist ways or to not commit

    microaggressions or something like that, would that be illegal?

    Would that be captured under this law?  Because that seemed like a

    little gray there.

         >> MR. SETH SHIPPEE:  That's a good question.   You know, those

    kinds of concepts, microaggressions and things that are somewhat -- I

    wouldn't say they are ill-defined but that maybe they are somewhat

    subjective probably aren't what this has in mind.

         So if we are sort of setting the ground rules to say that

    everyone needs to behave, civility, and with respect towards each

    other and refrain from whatever kinds of conduct we want to include

    in it as a condition but setting expectations for conduct, I don't

    really think that's really what this is getting at.

         What this would be getting at is basically including in the

    course content the presentation of these concepts more so than we're

    talking about setting expectations for behavior of the people who are

    there to listen to the presentation of the concepts.

         But certainly if we were to talk during that training about

    microaggressions, that could be something that would draw the ire of

    people who are presenting this as some sort of way to defeat what

    they perceive as the wrongfulness of diversity, equity, and

    inclusion, something along those lines, that that might be something

    that would draw the attention -- that might be like terms like White

    privilege and stuff might be, microaggressions might be one of those

    phrases that draws the attention of people who are critical of this





    type of thing.

         >> MR. JEFF SILVYN:  Just one other thought.  It might draw the

    attention, but I think if you look at the specific concepts that are

    not permitted, if you had a training where it talked about

    microaggression, and then it went on to say, and, you know, people in

    category X are the ones that commit all the microaggressions, and

    says nobody else does, it's only in that category, that starts to

    look like an issue under the statute as opposed to just saying this

    is what a microaggression is, and many types of people can experience

    it.  This is ways to respond, et cetera.

         If it's not targeted toward, well, those are the people who do

    microaggressions, if you avoid that, I don't think you have a

    problem.  But I think the language of this appears to be when you try

    and ascribe either particularly bad behavior or really good behavior

    to a group because of an inherent characteristic like race, gender,

    et cetera, that's when someone is going to get excited.

         >> TAL SUTTON:  Thanks again for presenting.  This was incredibly

    useful and informative.  Thank you for the PowerPoint with the links

    to it.  I'm sure that will get shared around.

         I am going to move on to the next item, because I think people,

    we have had a very long day, so I will report on the election

    results.  So I will show you my results that I have.

         Out of 27 responses, of which there is one proxy vote, which I

    went in and checked to see where they were, out of essentially 28

    votes because of the proxy, 26 of them are for Rita becoming





    president.  Rita Lennon, you are now Faculty Senate president for a

    semester, yay.  And also from 27 out of 28, Denise Reilly is our new

    Governing Board representative.

         Thank you very much for stepping up and taking this on.  So we do

    have an officership, yay.  As the vice president, I am very thankful

    for this (smiling).  So, yes, let's all thank them for stepping up,

    and thank you for running and carrying the torch for Faculty Senate.

    Thank you, thank you, thank you.

         We do have three remaining standing items.  I don't know how much

    -- we normally just give 10-minute allotments.  I don't know how much

    time they need.  This might be another opportunity to ask those

    last-minute mask mandate questions we have floating around today.

         I will hand things over to -- who did I randomly list first?  It

    looks like the provost was listed at the beginning.  I think we're

    supposed to rotate who is listed first for these reports.  I will

    hand it over to Dolores and then Brooke and then Matej.

         >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA:  Thank you, Tal.

         Welcome back, everyone.  It's great to see you.  Welcome to the

    new senators, and thank you to Josie and to Brooke for their roles.

    Welcome to the new officers, Rita and Denise.  Congratulations.

         I will be really, really brief, because I know it's past time.  I

    just wanted to let you know that I do have a provost's report.  It

    will be coming out on Monday.  You'll be seeing.  It's Pima All.

    Unfortunately I didn't have time to share it with Tal until today, so

    you all didn't get it.  You'll be getting it on Monday.





         I'd rather spend the couple of minutes answering any other

    questions you may have regarding the masks and any other related

    questions with this new mandate.

         As you know, we're working on all of the details and guidance for

    you that will be sent on Monday, but we are receiving questions, you

    know, how to handle this or that.  If you do have questions that

    maybe come up over the weekend, please send me an e-mail, and either

    I can answer them or I can pass them on to the pandemic advisory

    group that meets regularly.  I think we are meeting again next week

    before classes start, too.

         >> MAKYLA:  Thank you.  I was in another meeting and there were a

    lot of questions regarding what to do if a student notifies you that

    they are sick or that they got sick?  What about if they have to

    quarantine, do the people around them have to quarantine?  Who is

    responsible for reporting, all of those other things which I'm sure

    you have on your radar, but people are asking those questions so I

    thought I'd pass those along.

         Then also the question of what to do if they don't want to wear a

    mask, and what about a clear mask or a face shield for the instructor

    who is teaching to make sure people can hear them and read their lips

    and everything.

         There was a lot of questions involved, but I think those were the

    main ones that they had, is what are the responsibilities of the

    faculty member within the classroom?  How can we make sure that they

    feel backed by the college, especially the adjuncts.





         >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA:  Right, absolutely.  So the

    information is coming out on Monday.  We will give you step by step

    and walk you through the process for all faculty as to what to do

    about the masks.

         Then also we are finalizing a chart, kind of a diagram, of if a

    student tells you that they have been, that they think they are

    exposed, they have been exposed or if an employee thinks they have

    been exposed, what the process is of self-reporting.  We have a

    diagram of vaccinated, unvaccinated.  So that will be shared

    hopefully on Monday if not Tuesday.  So I think those will be

    covered.

         The thing about the face shields, somebody told me too that they

    were in a breakout room and that came up.  I need to look more into

    that as well as the pandemic advisory group.  My impression was that

    the face shield was not enough, that you need to wear a mask and a

    face shield if you want to, but I don't know that for sure.  So we

    will look into that and let everybody know.

         >> DR. DOR�:  Dolores, if I may?  There are also special masks,

    to Makyla's point, about reading the lips.  So there are special

    masks that are clear around the lips, just so you know.  And we have

    been passing those out in terms of students that may need to be able

    to read their instructor's lips.

         >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA:  Thank you, David.  So does that

    help, Makyla?

         >> MAKYLA:  Sounds like it will.  I will wait until Monday and





    see how it goes and let you know if I have more questions.

         >> DR. DOR�:  I want you to know too that many of your

    colleagues, the faculty who have been on campus, have been teaching

    all last year, they are used to a lot of these protocols.  Again, we

    are going to get the new protocols out to all of the faculty on

    Monday.

         >> MAKYLA:  Awesome.  Thank you.

         >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA:  If you don't know, Brandy Wright is

    a faculty member.  He's on the pandemic advisory group.  We do have

    faculty representation, we have staff, and administrators.

         >> DR. DOR�:  Brandy has a really cute dog, too.

         >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA:  Multiple dogs.

         >> BRANDY WRIGHT:  Mom just got home, so they went a little

    crazy.  There you go.  (Dogs barking.)

         >> TAL SUTTON:  We have a question from Robert about availability

    of clear masks, will they be available for any instructor or

    specifically to address ADR requirements?

         >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA:  David, do you know?

         >> DR. DOR�:  Yeah.  So we are going to have plenty of masks

    available on campus.  For example, if a student shows up without a

    mask, we will be able to give masks to students.  But also, we will

    work with ADR to make sure that, you know, if you have a student that

    needs to read lips, we will get the appropriate mask to the faculty,

    as well.

         >> TAL SUTTON:  Great.  Thank you.  I think everyone is going to





    be waiting for that report on Monday.  I appreciate that.

         I'm going to hand over this, if you're okay, I will move things

    along to -- I think this might be Brooke's signing off, passing the

    torch.

         >> BROOKE ANDERSON:  Thank you, Tal.  I am.  You are all in good

    hands with Denise and Rita.  Congratulations again.  Thank you so

    much for stepping up and taking over for Josie and myself.

         I love this role.  I really enjoyed serving in this role.

    Unfortunately, I just have a Wednesday night conflict that makes it

    impossible for me to attend the board meetings.  It just didn't seem

    right to try and hold on to this position when I cannot attend and

    deliver the oral reports.

         But I'm here, Denise.  If you want any sort of support, guidance,

    mentoring, I'm happy to share my experience and everything I learned.

    I'm sure that she's going to be a fantastic representative for us.

         Of course this is August, you know, and so we don't really have

    any items to report yet for the board report since faculty have not

    been attending board meetings yet since we have been off contract,

    and the next board meeting that we will be attending is in September

    where we can have updates for them on our August agenda and, yeah,

    see what's coming in September.

         So, yes, thank you everyone.  It's been fantastic, and of course

    I'm still around as a communications representative here on the

    Faculty Senate.  That's it for me.  Thank you.

         >> TAL SUTTON:  Thank you, Brooke.





         Then the last item on the agenda is the PCCEA report.  I think

    Matej is going to take that, or Makyla, I'm not sure which.

         >> MATEJ BOGUSZAK:  I can take it unless Makyla wanted to.

         Right.  Hey, everybody.  Really great to see you.  I hope you had

    an awesome summer.  I always find myself a little more energetic and

    happy to see you after such a long break.

         I pasted a little bit of a written report into the agenda, and

    I'm not going to go through all of it but just hit some of the

    highlights here.

         It has the information on the compensation increases that were

    approved by the board.  Feel free to take a look at that.  The 2%

    COLA is intended to stay.  The other things are more temporary, so

    they were approved for this year only.

         You know, we had this breakout session tomorrow, and we talked

    about the kinds of things we'd be grateful for.  Some of us said,

    well, we're grateful just to have jobs and have been able to work

    through this difficult time.  I certainly share that sentiment.  So

    we're grateful for our jobs.

         We're grateful to have these modest increases.  But I have been

    talking about the history and the context here for a long time.  In

    May I sent out some more information, you will find a link to the

    slides there, with the concerns that PCCEA has raised, some of the

    trends we have observed in the budget.

         Unfortunately, there was some back-and-forth, and I forwarded

    that communication on e-mail to you as well in May, but I don't think





    that we have really been able to agree on even just what is going on

    and on the basic facts here.

         So I again would just like to extend my hand here to the provost,

    Dr. Dor�, or I think Dr. Phillips is here, as well, and PCCEA is

    ready to have a discussion about some of these trends and some of the

    direction that we are going in as a college.

         I think we all perhaps at the September Faculty Senate meeting

    should really have an honest discussion about what we are going to do

    about all of this, because just speaking for myself, I hear calls for

    equity and social justice, and that is just really difficult to

    reconcile with the kinds of patterns we have been seeing here at

    Pima.

         So there is unfortunately little news on the classification and

    compensation study.  That's a link to MyPima or Employee Center, My

    Career Center link, so you have to log in there.  It has a little

    more info.  Really there is very little concrete still, no news

    there.  PCCEA will make sure to keep you informed as soon as we have

    some proposal or some more information to talk about about what the

    next steps are.

         Some of you might have seen over the summer the community group

    C-FAIRR has published a report.  I have browsed through it.  I'm not

    familiar with the particulars there or the situation.  I haven't been

    really involved there.  But there has been kind of silence about this

    report and about some of the high-level separations we have had at

    the college, which usually there is an e-mail going out, thank you





    for your service, we appreciate this person, blah, blah, blah.  And

    I'm not even sure some of these people are gone, but it seems like

    it.  It would be really, I think, helpful to have some communication

    or explanation about what's going on, who is the boss of whom and so

    on.

         We conducted an evaluation of administration in the spring.

    There were 104 replies.  Unfortunately we had hoped for a better

    response rate, but it is what we've got.  PCCEA will share the

    results in September.

         Congratulations to Makyla.  She was elected president of PCCEA.

    I will be stepping down September 1st.  I will continue to be

    involved in various ways and advocating for the faculty.

         Any questions?  All right.  Happy Friday, everybody.

         >> TAL SUTTON:  Thank you, Matej.  I guess I also just want to

    sort of take the 30 seconds to sort of say that I absolutely really

    appreciated working with Josie and Brooke in the officerships.  It's

    been great with meeting them, and hopefully, maybe I'm naively hoping

    that we can get the gang back together in the future in some other

    committee and keep working together, because I feel like they did

    great things for Faculty Senate.  I just want to thank them.

         I'm totally looking forward to working with Rita and Denise.

    Congratulations to them.  Thank you so much, Josie and Brooke.  I

    just want to sort of say that as a personal note.  I just really had

    fun for a while working with them and it's been great.

         I think I will slowly wonder if a motion might get put forward?





         >> MATEJ BOGUSZAK:  Move to adjourn.

         >> TAL SUTTON:  There is a motion to adjourn.  And it's been

    seconded multiple times.  All right.  Plenty of ayes.  All right.

    Being thirded.

         Thank you so much, guys.  Have a great weekend, and have a great

    start to your semester.

         (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.

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