The meeting was called to order at
Jeffries, Mason, Pelleran, Rasmusson
Absent: Canady, Heywood
Trustee Heywood arrived at
Trustee Canady arrived at
to the Agenda
Trustee Rasmusson asked the Board to review two
items. The first item is
regarding whether the tax increment finance plan of
violates the Hedlee Amendment. The
second item is regarding the intellectual property policy as applied
to the findings the Board saw at the
May 16, 2003
special meeting. He
indicated that these items need not be discussed at tonight?s
meeting, but would like these items part of the agenda next month.
Chairperson Jeffries indicated that these items
would be discussed by the Board next month.
Public Comment Regarding Agenda Items
Diane Waller - My name is Diane Waller and I am
the uniserve director from the Michigan Education Association (MEA).
I represent the employees who are members of MEA at
that includes the full-time faculty, part-time faculty, the full-time
support staff and the part-time clerical technical union.
In total they represent almost 1800 of the 2500 college
employees. In accordance
with article five, section eight of the current contract between the
College and the Michigan Association of Higher Education, the union
has a right to be placed on the agenda by the Board of Trustees
meetings to speak on issues of concern to the employees at LCC.
This provision requires 11 days notice.
Such a request was made on
May 2, 2003
. Although we were not
placed on the agenda we've been given an opportunity under the
limited public comment section of this agenda and we've decided to
go ahead and make some limited comments on the budget under this
section of the agenda. We
are not, however, waiving our rights to enforce the language of the
agreement by choosing to do this and make our comments under this
portion of the agenda. And
we again renew our request for position on the June 3rd
agenda. The purpose of the
union?s comments can now be addressed.
The unions here, the MEA unions, have had an opportunity to
review documents provided by the college of the 2003-2004 budget. MAHE
representatives, which is a faculty union, have also had the
opportunity to meet with administration officials and receive
information about the budget as recently as May 9th.
We have taken that information and we've looked it over.
As a result we?d like to make the following comments.
First, we found that as a result of the audit ending 2002 the
College has in its general fund an unrestricted sum of money in excess
of $23 million. This is up
from nearly $20 million in its unrestricted funds from the year 2000.
The unrestricted general fund has grown 10% in two years.
This represents a substantial increase in the last two years.
This $23 million amount is only reduced by the fact that a $17
million transfer was made taking money out of this unrestricted fund
and transferred to another fund for plant improvements, maintenance,
and replacement. This $17
million transfer is in contrast with and in addition to the previous
year?s, the 2001 transfer for the same purposes of $5.6 million.
Certainly some of this year?s $17 million transfer could have
been used to save the jobs of the individuals who were subjected to
the humiliation of layoffs recently.
Second, the total cost to the College of running the school in
2002 was $118 and a half million.
Even if with the transfer of $17 million the remaining $23
million in unrestricted funds would allow the school to operate for
almost 20% of the year without any money coming in.
Additionally, the entire budget for instructional expenses was
$32.8 million. The $23
million in unrestricted general fund would cover instructional
expenses for well over one semester, actually it represents almost 70%
of the school year. And it
would have lasted even longer if the $17 million transfer had not been
made. This is a very high
percentage in the general fund for a school who is conducting a
reduction in force. Third,
the documents that the union was provided on May 2 regarding the
2003-2004 school year budget projects an 11% decrease in funding from
the state of
. This figure is an
inaccurate prediction. The
community college budget that was introduced in the legislature only
calls for a 6.5% reduction in state spending.
Therefore, the projections being made for reduced funding from
the state of
are excessive as reflected by the legislature?s own action.
This 11% reduction needs to be adjusted to show a smaller
revenue decrease before a consideration of revenues is made.
Additionally, the 6.65% reduction, if it comes to fruition,
which hopefully it won?t, is only an approximately 1/3 of the total
revenues that come into the college.
Making it a reduction of just over 2% rather than the quoted 10
to 11% reduction in revenues. With
the College projecting a 6% increase in revenues for property taxes,
which also represents about a third of the budget, that result of the
increased revenues from the recently passed millage, the revenue
projection should show as stable not dropping.
If the Legislature increases funding from the original bill as
it was introduced, it reduces the amount of any reduction and would
result in an overall increase in revenue.
Again, such revenue change is not justified with any type of
staff reductions. Four,
the MEA has been very active in the Legislature to work to have the
higher education budget restored to its original levels.
In fact, Al Short, who probably many of you know, is MEA?s
director of government affairs, has recently testified before the
Senate Appropriations K-12 subcommittee and has carefully laid out the
financial road map needed to restore funding to all of
?s public schools. In
addition to recommending a 10% increase in the income tax dedication
for the school aid fund, for community college budget he pointed out
that the $2.2 billion college and university budget exactly matched
the amount collected in the single business tax.
The natural connection that had been made between the business
and community colleges cannot be denied especially given the
relationship between businesses and the community college here at LCC.
MEA is working tirelessly to get the Legislature to adopt a
revenue stream that will fully fund all public schools, including
. We need to work together
on these issues as we have on other revenue generating issues like the
millage in the past. The
employees cannot continue to carry the load for the College to provide
revenue streams only because the College uses its monies to build
additional buildings. Fifth,
speaking of improving revenue streams,
?s tuition is lower than average and has been for years.
In a time where state sources are uncertain at best, now is the
time to look at the tuition base as a source for increased revenue.
This needs to be addressed before evaluating decisions made in
the 2003-2004 budget. It
cannot be put off another year. And finally, as if you thought I would
forget, the college is entering into contract negotiations with many
of the unions next spring. This
is the year to set aside some money for improvements in employee
salaries and benefits. The
$17 million transfer of funds for building and capitol outlay is not
appropriate and is not necessary.
The need to attract and retain excellent employees who provide
the educational opportunities to the students of the
area and beyond cannot be overlooked.
By being aware that the salaries of employees at LCC are below
the average in the state and their benefits are below average as well,
now is the time for correcting these deficiencies.
Not the time to be committing to large scale building projects.
The unions on this campus are willing to work with Board of
Trustees on this issue now and in the future, but we cannot continue
to subsidize the infrastructure at the cost of our own livelihood.
I want to thank you again for the opportunity to speak on
behalf of the excellent staff at LCC.
Trustee Pelleran - Diane, I just wanted to
point something out to you that may have been an oversight.
In the state budget for 2002-2003 that 3.5% decrease that we
just took, was in a supplemental, it was a negative supplemental.
So the 11% is exactly from the original 2002-2003 passed budget
from the state. It truly
is an 11% that we're looking at.
And I think with the current revenue estimating conference, I
think knowing that the revenues are even down further than
anticipated, I think that we're going to see even less from the
state. So, it's not
pretty at the state level.
Diane Waller - I agree with you.
I do believe that the 3% reduction was already calculated into
the 2002 budget when the additional 11% was put out.
It was put on the budget as projected 11% over the current
Trustee Pelleran - But the current year
included the 3.5%, the current year didn?t deduct it.
The supplemental to the current year deducted the 3.5%.
Diane Waller - I have the 2003-2004 amount, it
deducted it for 2002-2003. But
they added additional 11% to the 2003-2004 on the documents that they
Trustee Pelleran - It's a total of 11%,
it's not in addition to the 3.5%.
It includes the 3.5% and that's what I see over there.
Diane Waller - Then that (inaudible) needs to
Trustee Pelleran - The Senate and House Fiscal
House agents, I mean they're all?it's (inaudible) and between.
And we do agree that we have a fine, fine staff here and the
faculty are part of what makes the students enroll at LCC and come
back to LCC as well.
and Board Member Reports
of Nominating Committee
Chairperson Jeffries reported that as consistent
with past practice he will be appointing a nominating committee.
The nominating committee will be putting together a slate of
candidates for officer positions that will be voted on in July.
Trustee Pelleran referred to bylaw 1.2.2,
Election of Officers/Term of Office/Vacancy.
She read a portion of the bylaw, which reads as follows:
?All officers of the Board shall be nominated from the floor
and elected by roll call vote at the organizational meeting of the
Board.? She said that
comes after the election.
Chairperson Jeffries responded that was correct.
He explained that what has been done in the past is that a
nominating committee will put forth a slate and then it is up to the
Board to approve that. The
nominating committee will not make that decision and it will be a
Board decision that is made at the organizational meeting in July.
He said that the future Board will make that decision.
Trustee Pelleran recommended postponing that
decision until the newly elected Trustees are serving on the Board.
Chairperson Jeffries stated that whoever serves
on the Board in July will be making that decision.
He appointed himself and Trustee Rasmusson to that committee
and the recommendation will be forwarded before the end of the fiscal
Olga Holden - Foundation Board
Trustee Holden reported on the Foundation
Scholarship Breakfast held on May 9.
There were 320 attendees and to date $176,000 has been awarded
in scholarships to 200 recipients.
Trustee Holden reported that in March 2003 the Foundation
received $51,000 in revenue. She
reported that the Alumni Committee is sponsoring a reception for all
LCC alumni on Wednesday, May 28, from
and encouraged the Trustees to attend.
The Foundation Board meets for the last time this fiscal year
on May 22 and eight new board members will be elected.
Trustee Holden reported that she will be serving on a committee
that will be updating the Foundation Board bylaws, and staff is
working on an operational plan to implement the strategic plan.
Trustee Canady wanted to address the nominating
committee agenda item. He
asked if what Trustee Pelleran pointed out precludes a creation of a
nominating committee if the nominations are to come from the floor.
Chairperson Jeffries responded that this process
has been done in the past. He said that the Board may do what it
desires in terms of when it puts together its Board next year.
Chairperson Jeffries stated that he would be more than happy to
have this reviewed to ensure the procedure is appropriate.
At this point, a nominating committee will be formed and if
there is an issue it will be brought back at the next Board meeting.
Trustee Canady stated that it may be appropriate
to ensure it is legal prior to appointing the committee.
Chairperson Jeffries responded that he would be
following up on this issue tomorrow.
Trustee Pelleran requested at the
June 16, 2003
regular Board of Trustees meeting that the following verbatim
transcript be included in the May 19, 2003 meeting minutes.
Verbatim transcript begins:
Jeffries - As is consistent with past
practice I will be appointing a nominating committee.
At this time this committee will be looking at putting together
a slate of candidates for officer positions that will be voted on in
Pelleran - Mr. President, I mean, Mr.
Jeffries - Yes.
Pelleran - The Bylaws state that that will
be done not by a nominating committee, but by the?bylaws
officers?the officers, blah, blah?they need to be members?it's
bylaw 1.2.2 election of officers, term of office, and vacancy.
And it specifically says, ?All officers of the Board shall be
nominated from the floor and elected by roll call vote at the
organizational meeting of the Board.?
So that comes after the election.
Jeffries - that's correct. that's
correct. Typically what we
have done and it's been done in the past is that a nominating
committee will put forth a slate and then it is up to the Board to
approve that. The
nominating committee will not make that decision.
It will be a Board decision that's made at the organizational
meeting in July. So, the
future Board will make that decision.
Pelleran - I?d like to postpone that
decision until we have newly elected trustees who will be seated with
those board officers.
Jeffries - The newly elected?whatever the
Board is in July will be making that decision.
I would appoint myself and Tom Rasmusson to that committee and
will have the information back before the end of the year or the end
of this term. Board Member
Holden - I?d like to do a Foundation
update. The scholarship
breakfast on May 9 and it was most the highest number of attendees.
There were 320 that attended.
And to date $176,000 has been awarded in scholarships; 200
recipients. And a lot of
delighted?many delighted recipients at that breakfast.
They were very appreciative.
March 2003 was a very good month for revenue for the
Pelleran - that's great.
Holden - So, that's very good.
April was not quite that?I wanted talk about the really good
one. The alumni committee
is sponsoring a reception for all LCC alumni.
And I saw my invitation in the mail just a little bit ago.
I will assume that all of us are being invited.
that's Wednesday, May 28 from 4 to 7.
I would urge many of the board members who are able to attend
that. that's May 28,
Wednesday, from 4 to 7. The
Foundation board meets for the last time this year on May 22nd
they will be electing 8 new board members to the Foundation; they have
a lot of openings. And I
understand some very, very good board members that are coming on board
to that board. And I am
going to be working?there's a committee that Chris Laverty has put
together; I'll be joining that committee and working on it on
updating the bylaws and I think we meet tomorrow?tomorrow afternoon.
Then in addition to that the?importantly I think?the staff
led by Joan Bauer is working on an operational plan to implement the
strategic plan. That is
the main focus there is to grow the Foundation something that we as
the Board have wanted. So
I would ask Joan or Chris if you?d like to add anything to that
Laverty - I?d say that was pretty
Holden - Thank you.
Canady - Mr. Chairman.
Jeffries - Yes, Mark.
Canady - I'm sorry I was chewing a cookie
and you went through it so quickly with respect to the nominating
committee. What Trustee
Pelleran pointed out, doesn?t that preclude the creation of a
nominating committee, the nominations are to come from the floor?
Jeffries - This is how we've done it and
this Board can simply do whatever it wants to do in terms of when it
gets together as a Board next year.
But this is what we've done?I?d be more than happy to
check it out to make sure that the procedure is proper, but at this
point we?ll go ahead and form the committee; I don't want to delay
that. If there is an
issue, we?ll bring it back and deal with it at the next meeting.
Canady - Forming it may create an issue, I
guess is the point. It
seems to me that we find out whether it's legal before we did it.
Jeffries - Well, I'll make the call
tomorrow, but I?d like to get the?you know?
Pelleran - We?d hate to see you go out
violating our bylaws Mr. Chairman.
Several people speaking at once.)
Jeffries - Thank you.
I always appreciate your support and concern.
Pelleran - Yeah.
(several board members talking at once.)
Rasmusson - Who wants to be the tallest
building (inaudible)?who even wants one of those jobs?
Heywood - Mr. Chair, you could (inaudible)
(Canady speaking at the same time - unclear)
Jeffries - At this point, we?ll bring it
back at the next meeting to move forward.
Go ahead, President's Report.
End of verbatim transcript.
Trudy Carpenter, Professor, Language
Skills, Student and Academic Support Division, Fall Semester
Ms. Carpenter?s sabbatical leave was changed
from spring 2003 to fall 2003 due to faculty staffing issues.
President Cunningham asked Mr.
to highlight the 2003-2004 proposed budget.
Mr. Cerny reviewed the 2003-2004 proposed budget
(which is on file with the official Board materials.)
He said that the intention tonight was to provide highlights of
the budget and at the June 3rd special meeting a formal
presentation will be made.
Trustee Pelleran had a question on page 2
regarding the recommendation for a tuition increase by 5.9%.
She asked if the Michigan Community College Association voted
to oppose the higher education budget, because of the $4 million
reduction, and if that included the tuition tax credit.
President Cunningham responded that she was not
aware of that information because she was unable to that MCCA meeting
due to the Board's strategic planning session on May 16.
Trustee Pelleran stated that if they are going to
take tuition tax credits with the $4 million and we've opposed the
higher education budget bill, then that is something that is going to
play into this also with our tuition.
She asked what the threshold is for students with an increase
in tuition to qualify for the tuition tax credit.
Mr. Cerny responded that usually the threshold is
the inflation rate and currently it is about 2.9%.
Trustee Pelleran said that the College's
recommended tuition increase would eliminate the tuition tax credit
President Cunningham responded that there is not
a community college that is going to be able to provide that this
Trustee Pelleran referred to page 4, the last
bullet under the heading, Strategic Initiatives Set Asides, the
implementation of a student payment plan.
She asked at what other colleges this exists and requested
additional history on the payment plan.
President Cunningham stated that a payment plan
has existed in the past at the College, and now an agency will be
Trustee Pelleran asked what the difference in
cost would be between turning it over to an agency and having the
College handle it.
President Cunningham stated that previously the
Board received information regarding the College turning over
collecting owed monies to a collection agency.
She said that a flexible payment plan has done that before.
Trustee Pelleran referred to page four, under
heading Attachment C, second bullet.
She asked what the other revenue was.
President Cunningham responded that other revenue
includes the Foundation, BCI, and grants.
Trustee Pelleran asked for clarification on the
14.6% for strategic initiatives and set-asides.
President Cunningham stated that the 85.4%
includes everything that is not compensation.
Without the capital revenue that would be 77%, but everything
that is not wages or compensation that is left, 14.6%, this is the
Trustee Pelleran referred to page five,
Attachment E. She asked
what the other renovations are that are intended for sites not being
affected by the Facilities Master Plan.
She said that in the packet there was a renovation for the
Physics Department. Trustee
Pelleran asked with the new
, does the College want to spend $120,000 in repairing the Physics
President Cunningham responded, yes.
The renovation of the Physics Lab includes the regular
maintenance of facilities. She
to further address Trustee Pelleran?s question.
Dean Darr stated that in the 2000 facilities
master plan the facilities were surveyed.
Historically the College would place approximately $1.5 million
a year into maintenance for all of the buildings.
As a result of that study, which was projected out for 10
years, $30 million were to be set aside and was divided into $3
million per year. He said
the Arts and Sciences building is one of the major facilities that
would be concentrated on to bring up to date.
Trustee Pelleran asked if the Physics Department
would be moving into the new health building.
Dean Darr responded that the Physics Department
would stay in the Arts and
. He said that a lot of
the science courses are the prerequisites for the health courses.
Trustee Pelleran asked for clarification
regarding the second bullet under Attachment G, on page five.
President Cunningham responded that the
restricted funds gradually increase every year.
She stated that two years ago the Board set aside dollars that
were part of a surplus.
Trustee Pelleran stated that in the packet there
are no numbers on contract positions.
She said that there is a lot of contracting that the College
does. In order to look at
the budget adequately, she requested information on the College's
contract positions and the nature of the contracts.
President Cunningham asked Trustee Pelleran to
clarify if she wanted information on all contracts, and she asked Ms.
Beckie Beard approximately how many that would be.
Trustee Pelleran responded that she particularly
is looking for information regarding strategic planning with Mr.
?s contract. Trustee
Pelleran understood from a presentation the Board had a month ago that
is still a relevant issue. The
Board has to make difficult choices whether to increase student
tuition, whether to not hire people, whether to let people go and they
need to see the big picture.
Ms. Beard responded that there are approximately
60 contracts. She asked
Trustee Pelleran if she was interested in contracts that deal with
Trustee Pelleran responded, yes.
For example, Joan Bauer is on a contract.
President Cunningham stated that Ms. Bauer is not
on a contract; she is an employee.
President Cunningham asked Trustee Pelleran what
information she is looking for to ensure she receives it.
She asked Trustee Pelleran if she was looking for information
regarding consulting services.
Trustee Pelleran responded, yes, any consultants.
She wants to know what the big picture looks like.
President Cunningham stated that staff would
provide any information Trustee Pelleran requests, but it is helpful
to know what exact information she is requesting.
Trustee Pelleran said that it is hard to figure
out what we want when we don't know where it's at.
Trustee Canady agreed with Trustee Pelleran and
felt her request was reasonable. He
said that there may be some consulting contracts that can be delayed.
Trustee Pelleran said that she would like
information on whatever the College contracts out.
She said that the number of contracts is 60 or 120; she is
willing to take the time to review the information.
Trustee Pelleran referred to the ASAP-Pie grant
funding set aside in attachment D.
She said that there is no money for this grant.
There was carry-over money that was from the last State budget
to this fiscal year, but there will not be any money for ASAP-Pie next
year. Trustee Pelleran
stated that what the State is looking at is a $3.3 million steel toe
to put in the door to keep that program open for future times when the
State has more revenues. The
other question is At-Risk funding and there was probably funding in
the K-12 budget and all of that right now is in question because
they're $100 million shy for this current fiscal year and $117
million shy for the next fiscal year.
She doesn?t see that the State will be doing any revenue
enhancements whatsoever because of elections on both the legislature
and the administration and they are some real issues with some of the
other State funding. Trustee
Pelleran emphasized that the 11% is soft and she felt that the State
will go to 12 or 13% next year in reductions.
She said that she misspoke earlier when she said that it was
the supplemental. The 3.5%
decrease in late January was by executive order of the Governor.
President Cunningham reminded the Board that she
had stated that if there was another negative appropriation, raising
tuition and fees would be proposed prior to cutting positions.
Trustee Pelleran referred to the budget
stabilization fund in attachment G.
She asked what the recommendation is for using those funds.
President Cunningham responded that there is no
recommendation for those funds. Those
are for capital outlay funds and the fund balances.
There is no recommendation to use those funds at this time.
She asked Mr. Cerny to further address Trustee Pelleran?s
Mr. Cerny responded that when issues arise like
this year where the State appropriation of $32 million is reduced by
$1.2 million, you want to build a stabilization fund as part of the
President Cunningham responded that the College
has been advised by general accounting principles to always maintain
at least 1/12 of the general fund.
Trustee Pelleran referred to attachment H and
felt that the reduction in State appropriations will be more than 11%
and it may be as high as 13%.
Mr. Cerny reviewed attachment H with the Board.
He said that the College took the $31,095,200 figure, which is
what the state appropriations currently sits at this year, and then
took 11% from that figure. Therefore,
the total impact from 2002-2003 it is a combination of 11% plus 3.5%.
Trustee Pelleran responded that was unrealistic
and what Ms. Waller commented is correct because that is what they are
basing their figures on. Instead
of taking an 11% from the $32.2 million, which would be exactly what
the State is telling us right now.
Mr. Cerny stated that the State has come in at
6.7% and the College is estimating 11%, which is a difference of 4%
and is consistent with what other community colleges in the state are
Trustee Pelleran stated that the College is
planning for more than what the State will be cutting, but it is good
that we have the buffer in there.
President Cunningham reminded the Board that she
spoke about it previously because of how challenging this year?s
budget was she did not want to have to go back and look at programs or
cut positions again. She
has communicated across campus that if there is another 4% reduction
the College will be okay; however, if there is a reduction greater
than 4%, the College would again look at all possible cost saving
Trustee Pelleran stated that it is responsible to
plan for a higher decrease. She
referred to the course fees dealing with Flight Training on attachment
J. Trustee Pelleran asked
if the students are receiving scholarships or are companies sending
their pilots to the college to be trained.
President Cunningham responded no, not in every
case, and asked Dean Darr to further address Trustee Pelleran?s
Dean Darr responded that most Airframe and Power
Plant students are on scholarships.
The majority of the students in the Flight Program pay tuition
out of their own pocket. He
said that the College's fees may appear to be high, but are very
competitive within the market.
Trustee Pelleran asked what the retention factor
Dean Darr responded that he did not have the
exact figure with him, but the college does not tend to lose students
out of the Flight Program.
Trustee Pelleran referred to the course fees
regarding Heavy Equipment. She
asked how the course fees are developed in those areas.
Dean Darr responded that the Heavy Equipment
Repair is a brand new program the College will be starting.
Trustee Pelleran asked if AIS will be conducting
the training for that.
Dean Darr responded, yes.
He said that AIS has been doing the training for some time for
the EISD and the College will probably pick up a number of those high
school students in continuing their training.
Dean Darr explained that heavy equipment is very expensive.
If you purchase just a set of gaskets, the costs would be
approximately between $1500 and $2000.
He said that they are trying to structure the program so that
there is cost recovery from the supplies that are provided for it.
Trustee Heywood asked what percentage of the
Heavy Equipment program course fees go towards instructional costs.
Dean Darr responded that he could provide that
Trustee Heywood stated that at this point if they
present these course fees to him for budget adoption, he will be
voting no on the entire budget. He
said that they have said continuously for a year and a half that this
administration would be presenting to the Board the choice to explore
the option of the contact hour fee.
Trustee Heywood felt that it is time for that to come forward.
A course fee in the amount of $1500 for a 6 credit class is
insane and abusive to him. He
said that raising course fees is a back door to raising tuition and he
will not be supporting it.
Trustee Pelleran requested more information on
the Heavy Equipment Operator and the Heavy Equipment Mechanics
programs. She realizes
that the Heavy Equipment Operator program is certified by MIOSHA and
also by LCC, but where is the national accreditation.
Trustee Pelleran asked if the College is having students get
training from a local vendor and we are promoting that, what other
options or partnerships the College has reviewed.
She requested more information on those areas before she votes
on the budget.
President Cunningham asked for clarification
regarding what exact information she is requesting.
She asked Trustee Pelleran if she was requesting information
regarding the course fee breakdown and the certification.
Trustee Pelleran responded, yes, and she would
like to know why there is not a national certification with these
programs. She said that
she wants the students to have jobs and opportunities.
Trustee Holden asked if most of the students
enrolled in those programs are supported or subsidized by the
Dean Darr responded he doesn?t believe so.
He said that many of the students have borrowed the money.
Dean Darr stated that out of the 8 students that graduated, six
President Cunningham stated that before the
program began, it was brought to the Board for their approval.
Trustee Pelleran responded that the program was
not brought to the Board for their approval because they were told
that the approval for the program was a done deal and it was only
informational in nature.
President Cunningham highlighted the fact that
the course fees were approved by the Board and without the course fees
the program could not have began, which was discussed extensively at
Trustee Holden asked what type of salaries the
students would expect once completing the program.
Dean Darr responded that it would vary between
$12 and $18 an hour to start.
Trustee Pelleran stated that if they have their
own piece of equipment they're bringing in six figures.
If the equipment is rented, they could expect a salary of
April 21, 2003
April 29, 2003
May 6, 2003
IT WAS MOVED by Trustee Heywood and supported by
Trustee Mason to approve the minutes for the
April 21, 2003
April 29, 2003
special meeting; and the
May 6, 2003
Heywood, Holden, Jeffries, Mason, Pelleran, Rasmusson
There were no comments from the public.
Trustee Pelleran stated that everyone received an
article regarding questions they may have on the project labor
President Cunningham reminded the Board that the
groundbreaking ceremony for the Healthcare and Administration
buildings will be held on Tuesday, May 20 with a breakfast at
and the ceremony at
The meeting was adjourned at