October 21, 2002
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:08 p.m.
Holden, Jeffries, Patterson, Pelleran, Rasmusson
Additions/Deletions to the Agenda
There were no additions or deletions to the
Limited Public Comment Regarding Agenda
Sean Kosofsky - Good evening, thank you for
the opportunity to speak tonight.
name is Sean Kosofsky.
the Director of Policy for Triangle Foundation.
Some of you may be familiar with Triangle Foundation.
we're the state?s largest civil rights advocacy and
anti-violence organization for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender
It is my
understanding tonight there will be a vote on whether to extend domestic
partner benefits to those employees of LCC not currently allowed to, for
example, get the same basic coverage by getting married.
I have some handouts for the entire Board, I'll pass them out
right now (Mr. Kosofsky distributed two documents.
They are on file with the official Board materials).
These handouts are two separate things.
The one on the back of the other.
The first of which are a number of talking points, which can
actually explain the issue.
think it's actually a simple issue.
The second handout is a list of all other employers based in the
state of Michigan that offer domestic partner benefits including
corporations as large as General Motors to as small as, you?ll see on
this whole list, a small newspaper such as the Bay City Times.
There are a number of employers there.
I think you?ll find a lot of them very interesting including
many of the state?s universities offer these benefits also.
I'll quickly just say that the issue of domestic partner
benefits is important because many of the people living in the United
States of America are not able to get married in this country since the
federal government and the state of Michigan in 1996 banned gay
opportunity for same sex couples in this country to extend healthcare
benefits to their partner for needed medicine and needed therapy, needed
healthcare is domestic partner benefits.
We are doing a disservice to those people, their families, their
loved ones, and their entire community if we do not extend domestic
it would be a wise move, a very courageous move for this school to
become, to join the list of employers in the state of Michigan that
extend domestic partner benefits.
and foremost, it's a commitment to equal pay for equal work.
You are and you do employ gay, lesbian and bisexual people at
this school and they need the same benefits that other people are able
to get by getting married.
protection under the law guaranteed by the 14th amendment
would bring this, would help this, the employer, LCC, get closer to that
promise by offering true equal protection by giving people those
is the ability to attract and retain the best possible workers.
I can't tell you how important it is when a gay or lesbian
person decides to go to work somewhere, to go to school somewhere, when
they decide whether or not they are welcome there, whether their partner
will be able to be healthy should something go wrong.
I really want to encourage LCC to extend these benefits.
I encourage you all to review the list I provided for you.
There are a number of rather talking points that I think are very
importantly, is the last one on the list which is the costs are low.
A dramatically, a dramatic number.
You?ll find that sometimes 1% or less of all those eligible
actually apply for domestic partner benefits.
For a number of reasons.
partner benefits are taxable as income unlike marriage benefits.
So many opt to not apply for them.
But also applying for them for many people means coming out of
Which for most
people, and they understand this, in the city of Lansing and in the
state of Michigan, it is still legal to discriminate against gay,
lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.
I think you?ll find that those courageous enough to ask for
healthcare, will ask, but many will not.
Costs will be lower than expected.
Thank you very much for your time tonight and I hope that we will
vote on the entire healthcare issue, including the domestic partner
benefits as one vote.
we will hopefully enjoy all of your support.
Thank you very much.
Lynn Savage - good evening, my name is Lynn
I'm president of
LCC's administrative association and I have for you tonight a slightly
different bend on the healthcare issue written by one of my members who
is a part-time administrator here at LCC.
So, I'll read to you verbatim from an email that she forwarded
me this afternoon.
name is Ruthi Bloomfield and for the past six years I have worked 30
hours per week as a part-time administrator in the Women?s Resource
In this position I
meet with perspective students particularly re-entry women, provide
ongoing support for current students, and administer the child care
award program, which thanks to your generosity, has a budget of
I am grateful to
work with a dedicated staff of the WRC to provide the academic,
emotional, and financial support students need to ensure their success.
I applaud the Board of Trustees for taking the lead in offering
same sex benefits to full-time employees.
I believe that equal benefits should be available to
I agree with Trustee Heywood?s statement in the Lansing State Journal
that offering these benefits sends a message to full-time employees that
LCC values them.
ask the Trustees to demonstrate that you also value part-time employees
by extending to us the same basic benefits that our full-time colleagues
know, part-time employees receive no benefits at all.
We are entitled to 56 paid hours per year to cover everything
from caring for a sick child, bereavement time, jury duty, and our own
sick and vacation time.
inadequacy of this benefit is particularly apparent to me now as I
recover from surgery.
57 hours cover less than two weeks of my expected six week recovery
period and I therefore face more than four weeks of unpaid time.
Our union has for years requested that LCC's 15 to 25 part-time
administrative employees receive at the very least pro-rated health
I urge you
tonight to show that you value LCC's part-time administrative staff as
much as you?ve already demonstrated your value for full-time staff by
extending benefits to this dedicated group of employees.
Thank you for your consideration.?
Barry Stearns - my name is Barry Stearns, I
am the acting president of the faculty association.
I?d like to talk about the personnel report.
The HR report.
note in there are a number of new hires and I checked with Dave
Davidson, the HR director, earlier today and he shared with me that the
faculty positions being brought to you this evening are permanent
positions as opposed to temporary.
My purpose for talking to you this evening is we often hear about
new positions that are being added to our staff - faculty, support
I?d like you to be aware that, indeed many of these are new
positions, however, they are filling vacancies from some other area
within the institution.
example, the number of full-time faculty members has not significantly
increased or changed in the last three years.
Even though there have been a number of new hires within the
There have been many people who have retired or have left for
So, when we
talk about new positions that's sometimes a misleading statement.
Also, I?d like to point out that currently approximately 20% of
all of our full-time faculty are on terminal contracts, temporary
They have no
guarantees that they?ll be here after that temporary contract is up.
And in effect are working as at-will employees at this
something I?d like to bring to the HR program to discuss this semester
while I'm the acting president and see if we can do some things to
identify switching those temporary positions to permanent positions.
So, I'll be meeting with HR and discussing those options.
Paul Downey - my name is Paul Downey and I
began teaching at Lansing Community College in what was then the
Humanities Department alone - 27 - years ago and despite a stroke a 1
- year ago, I was only off the job two weeks.
I am also a priest in the Episcopal Church.
Have been for nearly 43 years and in my dual role I'm
especially sensitive to church state issues.
And a passionate supporter of what Thomas Jefferson in about 1801
or 1802 described as the necessary wall of separation.
And because I hear many outside of LCC attempting to make this
kind of issue, benefits for gay and straight, gay and lesbian people a
religious and moral issue.
simply would say at this point that that should be given no
is simply an issue of justice and equity.
I am not gay and, therefore, I have nothing to gain no matter
what you do on this tonight.
I urge you to pass the domestic partner health benefits.
Trevor Wagenmaker - my name is Trevor
Wagenmaker, I live in Alraeidon Township.
I'm a taxpayer helping to support the institution and just to
voice my opinion that I am opposed to the institution extending benefits
to partners of homosexuals.
for economic reasons, I don't see how trying to keep an affordable
institution here, an affordable education to people fits in with that as
an unnecessary expenditure.
also on moral grounds.
setting an example for the community, for the students and I don't
think that represents the majority of the constituents of the people
that support the institution.
just to voice my opinion in opposition to that.
Queen Foreman McMiller, letter read by Norma
Mendez (the letter is on file with the official Board materials.) - My
name is Queen Foreman McMiller and I serve as the Director of Equal
Opportunity and Diversity Programs at Lansing Community College.
I would like to be with you in person but unfortunately illness
keeps me away.
I would like
to comment on the Board's consideration of offering same sex benefits
for full-time employees.
issue has been a concern for a number of years.
As early as 1999, LCC employees came to me in confidence to
express their interest in this issue and their concern about
repercussions facing them if they were to openly advocate for this
I applaud the
Lansing Community College Board of Trustees for adding same sex benefits
to this health care agreement.
doing so, you have put the interests of LCC employees above the give and
take of the negotiating table.
same sex benefits in the health care agreement for LCC's full-time
employees is consistent with our value for each individual and our
willingness to examine our most deeply held beliefs of equality and
demonstrate the courage to act on them.
Chairperson Jeffries stated that the Board
received emails supporting and opposing the same sex benefits. He asked
for them to be part of the record.
(The emails are on file with the official Board materials)
Chairperson Jeffries stated that at its
meeting on August 26, 2002, the Board of Trustees reviewed a
recommendation from College staff that the Board invoke its powers under
PA 281 of 1998 to empower the College's Police and Public Safety
Department officers to act as law enforcement and peace officers.
The recommendation proposed would not change the operation of
LCC's Police and Public Safety Department or the responsibilities of
Nor would the College incur additional liability.
Prior to taking action on this recommendation, the Board of
Trustees must hold two public hearings on the matter.
Chairperson Jeffries opened the floor for
There were no comments from the public.
Chairperson Jeffries closed the public
Chairperson Jeffries stated that it had been
requested that agenda item B, 2, a Healthcare, Bargaining Tentative
Agreement be moved to the top of the agenda.
Bargaining Tentative Agreement
President Cunningham thanked members of the
Coalition and the Board's bargaining team for their hard work
throughout the last nine months.
President presented the tentative agreement to the Board.
Trustee Canady stated that the agreement does
not impose an obligation nor does it contain an affirmation that this
board is extending same sex benefits.
What the agreement states is that the Coalition agrees to accept
coverage for same sex domestic partners of full-time employees, if
approved by the Board of Trustees during the course of this agreement.
Trustee Canady stated that it requires a separate resolution.
Trustee Rasmusson disagreed with Trustee
Trustee Canady felt that the issue of same sex
domestic partner relationships needs to be segregated from this
He said that he
is in favor of the tentative collective bargaining agreement, however,
that issue was not bargained.
language that appears from the Coalition makes it clear that it was not
He moved for
separation of same sex domestic relations and for the Board to first
deal with the tentative agreement without that provision and then move
on to the issue at hand.
Chairperson Jeffries asked for a roll call
vote on the separation of same sex domestic partner benefits from the
Roll call vote:
Request failed due to lack of support.
Trustee Canady felt that a legal
interpretation is needed because the agreement does not affirmatively
state that the Board is offering these benefits.
He didn?t believe this was collectively bargained and the
unions never asked for it.
the language that appears in the tentative agreement it has never been
stated that he would be voting against the agreement because criteria
has not been established.
would propose that a criteria be established that states that the
parties are of a legal age to enter into contracts, and then the fact
they have a contract that is in place and is legal and enforceable that
requires a division of their assets or their jointly acquired assets
upon dissolution of their relationship.
He believes the Board should not give benefits for those people
who just want to shack up.
Canady stated that he supports the Coalition with respect to what it is
they have bargained for.
Same sex domestic partner benefits is something members of
this Board wanted to give away and Trustee Canady felt that it is
inappropriate and irresponsible with respect to their fiduciary duty to
He felt that
it is irresponsible from a collective bargaining standpoint.
Trustee Canady felt that the healthcare package being offered is
good, but the way the Board has circumvented the Open Meetings Act, the
way the Board has circumvented public debate on this issue is
this issue is part of collective bargaining, therefore, it is only
discussed in closed session.
has been the first time this evening that this has been discussed in
Canady stated that tonight is the first time the Board was furnished
with proposed criteria, which was distributed 15 minutes prior to the
He said that the
administration stated at the outset of the negotiations process that the
Board should wait until the unions ask for this benefit and some decided
Trustee Canady felt
that the Board shunned their responsibility; it is a disservice to the
taxpayers and he will not be supporting it if that is the position the
Board is going to take this evening.
Trustee Heywood stated that he appreciated
Trustee Canady?s position and opinion.
He said that if he thought that this agreement was violating the
Open Meetings Act, he would not be supporting it.
Trustee Heywood felt that the Board had not violated the Open
Meetings Act or have done anything inappropriate.
He addressed the Board's fiduciary responsibility.
With the agreement there may be a .1 % to .02% increase in
overall healthcare costs.
is such a miniscule amount of money, but it creates openness and it says
to the community that the Board respects and values them.
He would be voting for the agreement.
Trustee Holden stated that there has been
precedent for this Board to have given monies that were not negotiated.
One occasion was to set aside $500,000 each time for faculty
equity, which was not a negotiated item and was initiated by the Board.
The second occasion was to give tuition reimbursement for
permanent part-time employees, which was also not negotiated.
Trustee Rasmusson wanted to state for the
record that this has been part of the collective bargaining process.
The Board has been discussing this for months and he has
received calls from the union regarding this issue.
Trustee Canady responded to Trustee Rasmusson
that this was not placed on the table as part of formal negotiations and
it is clear in the language that appears in the tentative agreement.
It doesn?t read that the Coalition has accepted it.
The agreement reads that if it is approved by the Board, then it
will be accepted by the Coalition.
He disagrees with the assumption that the costs will be miniscule
at this point in time underscores the ill advisedness of what's
happening this evening.
are no standards and the Board has not adopted a single criteria.
Trustee Canady stated that the Board is discussing this issue for
the first time publicly is a crime.
Trustee Pelleran stated that she hoped the
Board would have separated the two issues so that an open dialogue could
She agreed with
Trustee Canady that an open debate has not occurred and the Board should
not operate that way.
Pelleran stated that she supports the human rights of those in the GLBT
Trustee Patterson thanked everyone in the
audience for being at the meeting and for being interested in this issue
and the College.
that everyone on the Board agrees on the premise of offering benefits to
the College's employees.
the process by which the Board has entered into this issue is an
He agreed with
Trustee Canady 100%.
Patterson stated that the Board has not had a regularly scheduled
The Board does not
Their meetings are
canceled, they have single issue, closed meetings.
He felt that the Board doesn?t debate anything or discuss
said that this Board has not done its homework on this.
He addressed Trustee Heywood and stated that he is an advocate
for this issue.
that Trustee Heywood has criticized him for being an advocate when he
himself is advocating for this.
Patterson requested that the Board be given time to discuss this issue,
and to say that it is going to cost $30,000 to $40,000 based on what.
There is no criteria and how can an estimate be given.
He said that he would not be voting for the tentative agreement.
The criteria was given to the Board 15 minutes prior to the
meeting, which does not allow ample time to make a decision and some
guidelines listed are unmanageable.
He read #8 from that document (it is on file with the official
the partners are jointly responsible to each other for the
necessities of life.?
asked how the College could manage this.
Trustee Patterson stated this was not bargained for, it was
brought to the union and does not agree with it.
He said that this could be easily solved if more time was given
for the Board to reach a consensus and discuss this in public.
Trustee Pelleran shared what the Board was
sent on the 15th and it said in the materials ?the same sex
domestic partner benefits proposal is still being researched and will be
sent in your Board packets.?
said that the Board did not receive anything in the Board packet except
the statement in the tentative agreement, which does not offer same sex
She said that the note she just read was then omitted in the
information that she was given, and she read it for the record,
?Michigan State University has approximately .6% of their employees
take advantage of same sex benefits.
Marsh, Inc., (the healthcare consultants that have been hired by
the College to help with healthcare benefits) forecasts a 1% increase in
the overall cost of healthcare to the College.
If these numbers hold true,? and she emphasized ?if these
numbers hold true?, she said that there is nothing that says these
numbers will hold true.
continued reading, ?we estimate a cost ranging from $30,000 to
will be made available to both bargaining and non-bargaining
Pelleran stated that nothing has been provided to the Board in order to
make a solid, sound, fiscal decision.
She said that she supports the human rights of everyone and
everyone should have health benefits.
But the process by which the Board has followed has not been open
and has not been well researched.
Board has not heard from the insurance carriers on this issue.
Trustee Pelleran would like to have a presentation to see what
the costs may be and what the experience is.
President Cunningham stated she felt it was
important to remind the Board what it is they have said to her and to
the negotiating team regarding same sex benefits.
Queen Foreman McMiller?s statement that was read into the
record indicated that since 1999 presentations have been made regarding
same sex benefits.
Board also discussed this issue one and a half years ago.
The Board asked for a report regarding which entities were
providing same sex benefits and this report was provided to the Board.
In addition, it is difficult to know the number of people that
would participate in same sex benefits as the College does not ask, upon
employment, of their sexual preference.
It is illegal and the College does not and will not ask that.
Therefore, there will never be a way to inform the Board exactly
about the number of people who will take advantage of same sex benefits
until that is asked of employees.
that the administration has to go on is what other entities have
experienced and the advice of the consultants, Marsh, Inc., who the
College has hired to assist with healthcare benefits.
President Cunningham responded to the comments
made by several Trustees regarding having just received the criteria.
She said that there was conflicting information as to whether or
not the Board actually needs to adopt the procedures.
The Board did not adopt the procedures for the Family Medical
Leave Act, Critical Family Illness, or other types of healthcare related
Cunningham reminded the Board that when they discussed healthcare with
Marsh, Inc., every question regarding healthcare was asked, including
same sex benefits.
administration has responded to all of the Board's questions and
No one asked
specific questions regarding same sex benefits, although overwhelmingly
the majority of the Board requested to give it to the unions whether
they ask for it or not.
was not the administration?s understanding that the Board would treat
same sex domestic partner benefits differently than the way they?ve
treated other types of healthcare benefits in the past in terms of
Cunningham stated that whatever the Board wishes in terms of looking at
this procedure, the administration would be happy to provide that.
She asked the Board to not blame the negotiation team or the
administration if questions have not been asked.
Trustee Patterson stated he is not being
critical of the administration.
said that the administration has been very clear on this issue.
Trustee Patterson asked the president of the bargaining unit
how same sex benefits got back on the table.
Ms. Lynn Savage stated that it was placed on
the table by the Board.
Mr. Barry Stearns stated that criteria had not
been discussed with the Coalition at this point.
Trustee Patterson asked how did this get on
the table without being negotiated.
President Cunningham asked Mr. Tim Zeller to
respond to Trustee Patterson?s question.
Mr. Zeller stated he wanted to speak to the
The criteria is
not developed by the Board or the employees.
The criteria is developed by the health insurance carriers and
they define what a domestic partner is, the same sex partner, what it
means to be supporting each other in the necessities of life and what it
takes to prove that.
criteria must be met before coverage is given.
Trustee Canady stated that he has no
complaints about the administration whatsoever.
He felt the administration gave the Board good advice, but
members of the Board did not want to follow it.
With respect to the criteria, he does not look at it as
implementing the benefits, but rather defining who will these benefits
be offered to, which is in the providence of the Board.
Trustee Canady feels that the criteria does not go far enough and
the Board has created what is essentially a discriminatory system
against heterosexual couples because the standard is higher.
Primarily because of the legally mandated or consensually agreed
to division of assets upon termination of the relationship.
If this was added, he would not have a problem with it.
Chairperson Jeffries asked if there was
support to Trustee Canady?s suggestion.
There was no support for his suggestion.
Trustee Pelleran referred to what the Board
received last week.
questions when she is told that the domestic partner benefits proposal
is still being researched and will be sent in the Board packet.
She asked if the paragraph she read before is the essence of the
President Cunningham responded that there were
two days difference between what the Trustees received regarding
healthcare negotiations and when the Board received their packets.
The administration was looking at costs, which was a question
Trustee Patterson had asked, other employers who offer these benefits
was being reviewed, that was part of what was being researched and this
information was not available when the benefits information was sent out
regarding the costs for MESSA and benefits for other employees.
If there was a question about the packet or wanting more
information, the Trustees could have called the administration.
President Cunningham stated the first time she heard that
Trustee Pelleran was unhappy about this was this evening.
Trustee Holden stated that she would be
supporting same sex benefits and the healthcare contract.
However, she is opposed, along with the LCC administration, about
the recommendation of going with MESSA Tri-Med for the bargaining
gave the following reasons why she is opposed to MESSA as the healthcare
The reluctance of
this carrier to coexist with other health care providers within a
defined group, limiting options for our employees; refusal of MESSA to
consider plan design changes; and refusal to share experience data with
realizes that this is the choice of the bargaining employees, but she
wanted it on the record her reasons for opposing MESSA.
Trustee Heywood stated that it has always been
the activity of this Board to adopt a policy and allow the
administration to enforce it and develop an implementation plan.
The Board is creating a policy that ensures benefits to same sex
partners, which is a standard, legal definition at this point after 20
years of offering this around the country.
People know what you mean when you say a same sex partner.
He said that it does not refer to a roommate, it refers to two
people of the same sex who are in a committed, sexual-based
relationship, that's the definition, and that's the reality.
Trustee Heywood stated that it is the purview of the
administration to implement it and it is the Board's job to create the
Trustee Pelleran stated that there is a
process issue that some Trustees are concerned with.
It is a process issue on how the Board conducts business in an
open forum or choose not to do so.
She supports having domestic partner benefits for the employees.
Trustee Pelleran stated the debate should happen in a public
Chairperson Jeffries asked for clarification
that if the Board adopts the tentative agreement, will same sex benefits
be offered to the employees.
President Cunningham responded, yes, that it
was the intent that passing this would also allow same sex partner
benefits, if that is what the Board wants to do.
Chairperson Jeffries asked Mr. Stearns if that
was his understanding if the Board, adopts the tentative agreement, as
written, his members would have same sex partner benefits.
Mr. Stearns responded that was correct.
Trustee Canady pointed out that the first rule
of government is language of a document adopted speaks for itself.
He pointed out that the tentative agreement does not do that.
Trustee Canady said that there is a legal loophole and a separate
resolution is needed.
There was discussion regarding the criteria
and the difference some carriers have in regards to the length of time
of a domestic partner relationship.
Chairperson Jeffries asked Mr. Stearns if
there would be a problem in delaying the ratification of the agreement.
Mr. Stearns responded that there would be a
problem because the implementation date is set for December 1.
Trustee Canady asked if the provision for same
sex partner benefits was separated and the rest of the agreement was
ratified tonight, would that cause a problem.
Mr. Stearns responded that in his opinion that
would not be a problem.
the Board wished to separate the agreement, it would allow time for the
Trustees to review this and verify how many people would apply for this
IT WAS MOVED by Trustee Rasmusson and
supported by Trustee Heywood to ratify the healthcare tentative
Roll call vote:
Jeffries, Pelleran, Rasmusson
Trustee Pelleran stated that it would have
been nice to have had a real solid resolution and a real solid level of
It would have been
nice to have had a 7-0 vote on that.
She would have postponed the portion on the same sex partner
benefits for at least two weeks to have reached a consensus.
She thinks this will be a real benefit to the College's
employees and their families.
The Board took a short recess at 7:00 p.m.
The Board returned at 7:15 p.m.
President Cunningham thanked the Board for
their support of the negotiating team.
This Board has done a lot in the past two or three years that
others have not done including settling seven labor agreements in record
time, an M-TEC proposal, a Facilities Master Plan, a strategic plan, and
She said that there will always be debate, but thanked the
Board for the work they have done.
President Cunningham presented the non-bargaining healthcare
proposal to the Board.
said that there are approximately 107 individuals who are not part of
the bargaining unit and being consistent with previous practice, the
College also looks at benefits for them anytime there are negotiations
with bargaining employees.
asked Mr. Tim Zeller or Mr. David Davidson to address this agenda item.
Mr. Davidson stated that the administration is
recommending that non-bargaining employees stay with the current
carriers of Community Blues and PHP with changes in plan design.
In addition, non-bargaining employees will receive $200
reimbursable for uninsured health care.
Chairperson Jeffries asked the Board if there
were any questions or comments from the Board.
The Board did not have any questions or
Chairperson Jeffries asked for a roll call
Roll call vote:
Jeffries, Pelleran, Rasmusson
The non-bargaining health care proposal was
Chairperson and Board Member Reports
Calendar of Meetings for 2002-2003 and
Chairperson Jeffries presented the 2002-2003,
2003-2004 schedule of Board meetings.
Trustee Pelleran stated that there was a typo
in May 17, 2004.
read public hearing on the 2004-2005 budget.
Trustee Patterson asked if the dates through
2003 were secure at this point.
Chairperson Jeffries stated that it is always
at the will at the Board.
the September meeting, the Board was polled and it was the will of the
Board to not have the meeting.
reminded the Board that when a request for a purchase of over $100,000
is received and it is outside of the regular meetings, then a special
meeting would be held.
Trustee Patterson stated that the meeting
dates on the schedule conflict with the Lansing City Council meeting and
asked how would that be handled.
Chairperson Jeffries stated that it would be
dealt with when that situation arises.
Board Member Reports
Trustee Olga Holden - Foundation Board
Trustee Holden reported that Dan McCormick was
hired to develop a strategic plan.
He recently presented an implementation plan to the Foundation
Board, and it was unanimously supported.
Trustee Holden reminded everyone of Lip Sync on November 10 and
tickets are $25.
reported that there is a tentative meeting of the LCC Board and
Foundation Board on November 13 at 7:30 a.m.
The need for communication between both boards has been
asked President Cunningham and Mr. Chris Laverty if there was any
additional information to be shared.
Mr. Laverty stated that on October 22 the
finalists for the Executive Director position of the Foundation are
interviews will be conducted on November 8 and hopefully a
recommendation would then be made to President Cunningham.
Trustee Holden reported that she attended the
MCCA Board of Directors on October 4, 2002.
MCCA is officially supporting changing election dates from June
they are discussing having good procedures for transferring credits for
the on-line consortium.
acknowledged that LCC is ahead of the other colleges in the state.
The concern that has arisen is who grants the credits and how do
they get transferred.
Holden stated that the next MCCA Board of Directors would be held at
Lansing Community College.
Trustee Todd Heywood - Smoking Policy
Trustee Heywood reported that he attended the
Smoking Policy Forum held prior to the implementation of the policy.
There were approximately 8 people in attendance.
It was an interesting experience.
Having spoken with President Cunningham, faculty, students who
have been affected by the policy new information is being reviewed.
President Cunningham stated that they are
reviewing information that Trustees Heywood and Rasmusson submitted in
terms of taking another look at the implementation and enforceability of
the language that currently exists and what needs to be changed, if
anything, within the existing policy.
Police and Public Safety has been asked to not enforce any type
of punitive consequences for those that violate the policy, but ask
violators to step to a public arena so they are not by the door wells.
President Cunningham reported that up to now there were
approximately two incidents where individuals refused to move and they
have been handled very professionally.
However, the Trustees? concerns are being reviewed along with
investigating the costs of acquiring smoking shanties, and a
recommendation will be made to the Board's policy committee.
Director, Assessment Center, Assessment Center
Student and Academic Support Division
Finance Officer, Executive Office, Business Office
Program Director, Information Technology and
Office Systems, Business and Media Careers
Production Coordinator, Humanities and Performing Arts,
Brian Bishop, Faculty
Member - Fine Arts Foundation, Visual Arts and Media,
Art, Design and Multi-Media
Brian Jordon, Faculty
Member - Biology, Science Department, Liberal
Trustee Holden requested a report that lists
how many faculty members have been added. She stated that she is always
pleased to see part-time employees obtaining full-time employment
President Cunningham presented the course fees
information to the Board for their consideration and discussion.
This item will be brought forward for Board action at next
Trustee Holden asked if the Long-term Care
Nurse Intern Program was a certificate program.
Mr. Jim Predko responded that this course is a
bridge course for LPN?s who wish to go into practice in a long-term
also allow students who complete the first year of the program to go
into this employer sponsored training.
Mr. Predko stated that it is additional training for those that
desire to specialize in long-term care.
Trustee Holden asked what is the duration of
Mr. Predko responded that it is an eight-week
Trustee Holden stated that in reviewing the
course fee it seems this would lead to a license or something similar.
Mr. Predko stated that this is a requirement
that the health care providers have for any employee that they would
hire as an LPN.
Trustee Heywood stated that he is tired of
nickel and diming students to death with course fee costs.
Looking at the personnel costs, particularly with the costs
associated with the Long-term Care Nurse program, is $375, $250 of which
goes over the instructional personnel costs to the College of 16 lecture
hours per credit with 32 lab hours per credit.
He asked why is the College not making this a higher credit class
and charging students for the actual number of credits instead of
charging them with fees.
Heywood said that when the Board takes action on this item, he would be
voting against it.
President Cunningham reminded the Board that
staff would be submitting a proposal regarding tuition based on contact
hours versus credit hours, which will come forward with the regular
She stated that
these are new programs and it is common throughout the state that
students who enroll in these courses pay for the courses versus
distributing the costs amongst all students, and throughout the entire
institution, which are not enrolled in these high-demand,
President Cunningham presented the Eaton
Intermediate School District (EISD) contract.
She stated that this is a contract between Lansing Community
College and Eaton Intermediate School District.
Approximately 800 students from EISD enroll in courses at the
Last year the cost
was $964,000 for the services the College provides to EISD students.
This year it is almost $1 million and costs are continuously
being reviewed to ensure this is a cost recovery program.
President Cunningham stated that the language has been revised
after a number of years of having the same contract language in place.
The College's attorneys have reviewed the contract and the
legal counsel of EISD is currently reviewing it.
This will be brought forward for Board action
at the November Board meeting.
Facilities Master Plan
President Cunningham stated that what was
before the Board are changes being submitted to the State.
The Board at prior meetings has approved all the changes.
She said that it is required by the State?s budget office that
the College renew the facilities master plan on an annual basis in order
to be considered for capitol outlay dollars.
This plan use to be due to the State in November and it is now
due in October.
Approval of Minutes - August 26, 2002
Special Meeting, September 6, 2002, October 2, 2002 Special Meeting
President Cunningham presented the August 26,
2002; September 6, 2000; and the October 2, 2002 meeting minutes for the
Board's review and/or approval.
Trustee Pelleran submitted two changes in the
August 26, 2002 meeting minutes.
page 9 at the end of the second paragraph she would like added,
?Pelleran stated ?No there wasn't, I wrote it myself.??
She referred to page 12 where Chairperson Jeffries stated emails
were to be distributed.
Pelleran stated the Board did not receive copies of those documents.
There was discussion regarding the $500,000
figure on page 18 of the August 26, 2002 Board meeting minutes and
whether it was the accurate figure.
Chief Information Officer Cerny clarified that it was the
accurate figure based on the analysis conducted.
IT WAS MOVED by Trustee Heywood and supported
by Trustee Rasmusson to approve the August 26, 2002; September 6, 2002;
and the October 2, 2002 meeting minutes including the amendments made.
Heywood, Holden, Jeffries, Patterson, Pelleran, Rasmusson
President Cunningham reported that Officer
John Imeson has worked very diligently to control the traffic problem on
There are now
two lanes entering into the parking ramp versus one lane.
She thanked Officer Imeson and staff for working together to
solve this problem, which did not incur any costs to the College.
The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.