was called to order at 5:05 p.m.
Brannan, Pelleran, Proctor, Rasmusson, Smith, Laverty
Public Comment Regarding Agenda Items
PROCTOR - PRESIDENTIAL SEARCH UPDATE
Conference call from Greenwood & Associates
Greenwood, Betty Asher, Carmen Neuberger were present for the
Proctor stated that last week representatives from Greenwood &
Associates were on campus to conduct interviews with members to
accomplish the following:
become better acquainted with the Board members and to develop
an understanding of each Board member's perception of the
background, skills, qualities, and characteristics for the next
President of Lansing Community College.
develop a view of the critical issues that Lansing Community
College must address in the next 1 to 3 years and those issues
the college must address beyond those 3 years.
develop an understanding of expectations the Board has for the
identify issues that might affect the search process positively
Proctor reported that to date only four members of the Board have
been interviewed by Greenwood and Associates. He further stated that
on October 23rd and October 24th two community forums under the
direction of Greenwood & Associates were held to provide an
opportunity for stakeholders and others with an interest in Lansing
Community College to offer input on what should be included in
developing a profile for the next President of Lansing Community
Proctor also reported that on Tuesday evening Greenwood & Associates
also conducted an orientation for members of the search committee.
He stated how impressed he and other committee members were with
Greenwood & Associates.
Proctor stated that regarding the Presidential Search, he has come
to the understanding of the following:
Board needs to identify at the outset the shared values or
outcomes associated with the search.
Board needs to evaluate the college and where it needs to go.
reputation of the Board is the second most important factor
considered by candidates.
publicity regarding discord between Board members has done
serious damage to our efforts to have a successful Presidential
search within the timeframe the Board initially set.
the Board can resolve its internal disputes the Presidential
search will not be successful.
with and resolving these disputes will require a commitment to
Participating in a series of workshops designed to focus the
Board's attention on (1) their proper roles and
responsibilities, (2) the selection of the College's President
and (3) developing trust and relationships that are imperative
for us to move forward.
Proctor concluded by making the recommendation for the search
process to be delayed until the Board participates in a series of
workshops conducted by Greenwood & Associates.
thanked the Board for the opportunity to work with them. She felt
that the feedback from the search committee has been very helpful.
Ms. Greenwood stated this was a great college and that they wanted
to see the very best candidates in the country available for them to
decide from. She stated they can best serve the Board when the Board
is in agreement in terms of what the future of the next President
will hold, with what is expected, and what they must accomplished
over the next 3 to 5 years. She further stated that a seasoned
President will not accept an offer if there is a split vote on or
lack of agreement of what the assignments are. Ms. Greenwood
believed that through a workshop format they could come to an
agreement on what is the work that the next person must do and what
the position description looks like. She stated that they could work
with AGB and ACCT to put together a workshop. Ms. Greenwood
recommended that a start date for the workshops be in January. She
stated that some of the current events that have happened have
impacted the Presidential search.
Pelleran questioned why they would wait until January to conduct the
responded that they would need time to put the workshop together.
commented that a series of workshops will help to get the Board off
to a good start.
asked if this was a reasonable plan and stated that they would need
to proceed in getting the planning together for the workshops.
Rasmusson asked if the workshops would be in the evenings and less
than a two-hour time frame.
responded that she was looking at it being a 2-day workshop.
Pelleran asked if there would be a weekend opportunity to conduct
responded that they will look at some dates and offer them to the
SMITH - PERSONNEL & COMPENSATION COMMITTEE
reported that on September 25th sixteen candidates were
interviewed by phone and that on October 16, 2006 the Board
conducted face to face interviews with six candidates. Trustee Smith
asked for the Board to proceed with getting the number one selection
from each Trustee.
The floor was
opened for comment.
Pelleran stated that she was prepared to vote, and that she was not
at the interviews because of her job.
stated that she was prepared to vote.
Rasmusson stated that Bev Baligad and James Humphries were the best.
He stated that he would side on the favor of Ms. Baligad. Trustee
Rasmusson further stated that his decision was based on his review
of the materials and his having concerns about one of the jobs Mr.
Humphries left, and the narrative letter he submitted. He said that
he liked the interview questions but felt the process was too
structured and would have liked a process that was unstructured to
allow them the ability to get to know the candidate more. Trustee
Rasmusson felt that the Board should conduct a second interview in
an unstructured way, so that he would have the opportunity to ask
Mr. Humphries more questions. Trustee Rasmusson had concerns with
regards to Mr. Humphries not revealing that he was not working his
last six months on the job but that he was suspended and that a
claim was made that he was terminated.
requested to have the floor.
Laverty opened the floor to Trustee Smith.
Rasmusson requested to be allowed to finish.
Laverty stated that Mr. Humphries had not been offered the job. He
asked that nothing more be said about what Trustee Rasmusson had
read and that saying more could open the College up for possible
Proctor responded that he would like for Trustee Rasmusson to
conclude his remarks.
Rasmusson responded that he thinks the Board needs to know more
about Mr. Humphries and be given the opportunity to question him
regards to his concerns.
Proctor requested that Trustee Rasmusson disclose the items he chose
not to disclose.
Rasmusson asked if Trustee Proctor was aware of what limited
business privilege was.
Proctor responded no. He stated that to diminish someone who has
good communications skills in an interview sends up red flags for
him. He requested to hear the rest of Trustee Rasmusson's statement.
Rasmusson replied that it is sufficient for him to make a judgment
that the Board needs to hear from the top candidates in an
unstructured interview process to really have a feeling for the type
of person that they are.
responded that this was a Board approved process and the questions
in the structured interviews were questions approved by the Board.
She stated that this was not a new process and that the
Administrative Assistant was hired using the same process. Trustee
Smith said that each Trustee had the opportunity to give his input
on the questions and the process. She felt that Mr. Humphries did
well on both of his interviews and that his credentials are very
high. She further stated that he had lots of experience with Boards.
Trustee Smith asked for the Board to vote on proven and
substantiated qualifications of the successful candidate. She stated
that Mr. Humphries had not been made an offer and felt it was
inappropriate for the Board to make disparaging remarks. Trustee
Smith asked for the nature of the discussion to be why they would
want a particular candidate's name to move forward.
Pelleran stated that this position is a very important position and
that it was not just the Board Liaison but the Associate General
Counsel. She felt that this position and the process is part of the
complaint that was filed with Trustee Proctor. Trustee Pelleran
stated that the process was not open.
responded that it was an open process.
Pelleran requested not to be interrupted.
responded that it has been an open process and that Trustee Pelleran
could not make that statement.
Rasmusson requested a point of order and stated that Trustee Smith
was out of order.
Laverty replied to Trustee Smith that he would give her time to
Pelleran responded the fact of the matter is that this is a Board
hire and that it is a new thing for the Board to do. She stated that
the fact that she questioned procedure became an issue about her
right to question procedure. She further stated that with regards to
process and procedure the Board has to get it right. Trustee
Pelleran said that she would support the request for the Board to
have the opportunity to fully interview the two final candidates
that were discussed in an open meeting. She also felt that within
that discussion it is well with in the Board rights to have some
dialogue with the candidates. Trustee Pelleran stated that it is a
very important position and that the Board should not neglect its
stated the Board measured the candidate on a phone interview and the
Board measured on a face-to-face interview. She stated that she
takes issue with the fact that Trustee Pelleran did not attend the
phone interviews or the face-to-face interviews. Trustee Smith
further stated that it was not an issue of process for which Trustee
Pelleran was removed from the Personnel and Compensation Committee
but the issue was with the way in which she was conducting herself.
She felt that the notion that this had not been an approved process
or an open process is a fallacy. Trustee Smith responded that each
Trustee did not take advantage of that open process and were given
all of the information for the candidates.
Proctor suggested that the Board interview each of the six
candidates again because no decision was made by the Board with
respect to any individual and that they were here tonight to make
that decision. He stated that the only thing that took place was the
Board interviews by the four Trustees that were present and that
some assessment of the six interviews that took place were made.
Laverty responded that he disagreed because a Special Open Meeting
was called where all the Board member could have been present. He
said that the Board can do it all over again but that it does not
mean all of the Trustees will be here. He stated that they had four
of the seven Board members at that meeting and that a lot of time
was put in by the interviewers and the candidates.
Rasmusson stated that he agreed with Trustee Proctor and stated that
all the candidates were impressive and believed they could all do
the job. He further stated that in trying to choose the best
candidate the Board ought to have an unstructured process.
Pelleran stated that the Board members were polled of their
availability by the Board Administrative Assistant. She stated that
she had informed the Administrative Assistant that she was
unavailable all day for the two dates that were eventually chosen.
Trustee Pelleran felt that one could conclude that the meetings were
purposefully scheduled so that certain Board member that had
conflicts could not be there.
Laverty responded that he did not agree with that last comment and
felt it was an inaccurate statement.
Pelleran responded that there was a statement made that they were
allowed to be there and had the opportunity to be there. She felt
that she did not have the opportunity to be there because she
specifically said that she could not be there due to job conflicts.
Trustee Pelleran stated that it is how the Board conducts itself and
that in a public meeting, they are public servant and that it is an
honor to be a public servant. She further stated that with that
honor comes extreme and remarkable responsibility. It is about being
open and adhering to the public processes that are set in place by
law and by the Board Bylaws. She does not believe that the Board
approved a process and as a committee member she believed that part
of the meeting was to approve a process and that a lack of timing
and due diligence on the part of the Committee Chair then
necessitated an immediate response by the Board to get something
done before a Board meeting. She again restated that this was a very
important position and that she was not going to take it likely.
Chairman Laverty responded that her speech was wonderful and
questioned if that was why at the last meeting the media had been
notified well in advanced to blindside the Board and sabotage the
Trustee Pelleran stated that the Chairman was out of order and asked
of point of order.
responded that a lot of verbiage has taken place that this process
was poorly construction. She stated that this was a Board approved
process and was not poorly constructed but inclusive. She also
stated that she took time off from her job to conduct these
interviews and was very committed. She further commented that if the
Board stated they are committed to this process and committed to
getting to an end then you do what is necessary to do that. Trustee
Smith said that a commitment is what you do and not what you say and
that the candidates have been brought through two interviews. She
stated that she is now hearing that members of the Board had issues
with type of interview questions but that there was sufficient
enough time for each Trustee to help develop and give input on the
questions. Trustee Smith said that none of the issues that Trustee
Rasmusson is mentioning were mentioned at that time. She felt it was
now unfair to the candidates to state issues with the process when
there has been a clear path of the process. Trustee Smith felt that
the next step in the process is vote and those any member is not
ready to vote they may abstain.
Laverty asked Trustee Smith to explain the next step once the Board
responded that this would be a conditional offer and that HR would
have to find out if the candidate was still interested and they
would have to complete a background check.
Pelleran responded to Chairman Laverty that her actions did not
sabotage the Presidential Search process.
Laverty asked if the Board was ready to vote.
Brannan - Bev
Smith - James
Trustee Rasmusson and supported Pelleran to interviewed Mr.
Humphries and Ms. Baligad.
requested to redo the vote with all seven Trustees present.
Laverty stated that he did not feel this could be done because the
Board has already voted and that there was a motion on the floor. He
stated they can have a failed search or interview the two candidates
in the motion.
responded that she would not have a problem with interviewing the
Proctor stated that his second choice was someone other than the
stated that she also had a second choice.
requested a friendly amendment to offer each Trustee the opportunity
to name their second candidate of choice.
Rasmusson stated that he would not be opposed to interviewing the
second choice of Trustee Smith and Proctor and would agree to add
that to the motion.
Laverty asked Trustee Smith if she was requesting to survey the
Board for their second choice.
Smith and Pelleran responded that the friendly amendment has been
accepted by Trustee Rasmusson.
Pelleran called the question.
abstained from voting
no second choice
carried to interview Robert Norwood also.
Cardenas presented the final candidate for Board approval for the
Chief Financial Officer. President Cardenas passed out the timeline
of the search process and the recommendation for Ms. Catherine
Fisher. (These documents are on file with the official Board
Cardenas also stated that during the final interviews she was joined
by Hoa Nguyen and Bob Partrich, CFO from Grand Rapids Community
Trustee Rasmusson and supported by Trustee Smith for the
recommendation of Ms. Catherine Fisher at the Chief Financial
Brannan, Pelleran, Proctor, Rasmusson, Smith, Laverty
Cardenas publicly acknowledged Chris Strugar-Fritsch who chaired the
committee and Jan Stuart and Anita Evans who assisted with the
process. She also thanked Ms. Beckie Beard for stepping in as the
Interim Chief Financial Officer.
Cardenas reminded the Board of the Administration Building
Dedication in honor of Paula Diane Cunningham. This event will take
place on November 8, 2006. She also stated that the Trustees will be
receiving a invitation for a dinner the evening of November 28, 2006
for the accreditation committee team who will be on Lansing
Community College's campus.
Laverty opened the floor for public comments.
congratulated Anita Evans and Emily Baynes for being selected as
candidates for the Kaleidoscope leadership program.
Trustee Pelleran and supported by Trustee Smith that the Board go
into closed session for the purpose of discussing purchase of real
property and to discuss an item of attorney client privilege.
Brannan, Pelleran, Proctor, Rasmusson, Smith, Laverty
entered into closed session at 6:11 p.m.
returned to open session at 8:05 p.m.
Pelleran stated that she was sorry that Chairman Laverty felt
personally offended that she exercised her right to speak her mind
during and open meeting. She stated that she did not sabotage the
Presidential Search and apologized for acting on her personal right
to speak her mind and thanked the Board.
Trustee Proctor and supported by Trustee Smith for the meeting to
Brannan, Pelleran, Proctor, Rasmusson, Smith, Laverty
adjourned at 8:06 p.m.