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

                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.

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




         April 22, 2024 Study Session.



         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  Good afternoon.  We're going to call this

    special meeting to order.

         First up on our agenda is a presentation on Arizona Open Meeting

    Law.  Is it Danee?

         >> DANEE GARONE:  Yes.

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  Thank you for being here and sharing with

    us the resources you have on Open Meeting Law.

         >> DANEE GARONE:  You're welcome.  Thanks for having me.

         Are we ready to start?

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  We are.  You're on.

         >> DANEE GARONE:  Wonderful.  So I'm here to talk to you guys

    about the Open Meeting Law today.  Thanks for having me in.

         I am an attorney for the Arizona Ombudsman's Office.  What is

    that?  Real quick, we generally investigate complaints against

    Arizona state agencies.  So if you have a constituent who is upset

    with the Department of Education, DCS, DES, any of the licensing

    boards, you can send them our way.

         When it comes to local government like counties, municipalities,

    special taxing districts, school districts, universities and

    community colleges, our jurisdiction extends down to those levels for

    the most part when it comes to Public Records and Open Meeting Law

    complaints.

         As part of our responsibility, we are supposed to educate the





    public and public officials on those two areas of law, which is why

    I'm here with you today.

         What is the Open Meeting Law?  Basically it's supposed to make

    government decision-making transparent.  So public bodies, the

    discussions, the decisions they make are open to the public.  The

    public can see what they are doing and how they are getting to those

    decisions.

         Who has to comply?  Public bodies.  What's a public body?  Has a

    big long definition in the statute on this slide, but the takeaway is

    it's any multi-member governmental decision-making entities.  Your

    boards, your commissions, your councils.  So the Governing Board of a

    community college district, that's a public body subject to the Open

    Meeting Law.

         If you ever have a weird public/private hybrid or a weird

    organization where you're not sure if it's governmental, the attorney

    general has provided some guidance in the past on whether the Open

    Meeting Law would apply to such a body.

         Interestingly enough, the Open Meeting Law definitions for a

    public body also includes standing, special, advisory, and

    subcommittees.  So you have your governing body.  Any of these types

    of committees for that governing body are also going to be public

    bodies subject to the Open Meeting Law.

         Further, advisory and subcommittees are defined as any entity no

    matter what you designate it or call it that's officially established

    by your body or the presiding officer that gets together, talks about





    stuff, and makes recommendations back to the original body.

         So if your Governing Board says, hey, the three of you, get

    together and talk about this and report back, no matter what you call

    that trio, that's likely an advisory or subcommittee that every time

    it gets together is going to have to follow the Open Meeting Law.

         A common question I get is I just got put on the Governing Board

    or committee, I've heard there is this thing called the Open Meeting

    Law.  Is there some required training or something like that?

         All the Open Meeting Law requires is that you review Open Meeting

    Law materials that are approved by the attorney general's office

    before you take your position.  That usually takes the form of just

    looking at the attorney general's handbook chapter on the Open

    Meeting Law.  There is no test, there's nothing like that required by

    the Open Meeting Law.

         So you ought to this.  Will anyone know that you didn't?  Unless

    they read your mind or you tell them you didn't, no, but you should

    do it because it will keep you from violating the Open Meeting Law.

    Your body might have additional requirements, so check with your

    staff to see if you have any other required trainings or something

    along those lines.

         Who enforces the Open Meeting Law?  Really the main player in the

    state is the attorney general's office.  They take complaints, they

    investigate them.  If they think you're violating the law and you

    won't fix it or it's especially egregious, they can put legal

    pressure on you and even take you to court.  The county attorneys can





    supposedly do that, as well, but I don't know how active they are at

    that.

         And then people can sue directly.  So if you are having secret

    meetings and someone has proof, they could take you to court and have

    a judge order you to have your meetings in public.  Our office has

    broad investigative authority, but we don't have enforcement

    authority.  So I can generally look into a complaint about a public

    body and produce a public report of our findings, but we can't take

    you to court or penalize you.

         Just a quick note.  When it comes to the universities and

    community colleges, we have a little carve-out in our statutes that

    says we can't investigate them.  So if you guys ever have Open

    Meeting Law or public reference law questions, feel free to give us a

    ring and bounce them off of us, but if we ever get a complaint about

    you guys, we are going to have to decline it on jurisdictional

    grounds.

         So what do you have to do?  You're on a board.  What do you have

    to do to comply with the Open Meeting Law?  This is, in my mind, the

    most important slide.  It lays out the basics.

         You need a standing notice for where your public body's notices

    will be posted for each meeting.  You need to post notice for each

    meeting, you need to have an agenda for each meeting, you need to

    permit the public to see you, so you need to meet publicly and allow

    the public to attend, see and hear what you're doing.  All action,

    all decision-making, all legal actions need to take place at a public





    meeting.  And then you either need to create written minutes or a

    recording of all your meetings.

         What's a meeting?  We all know in regular English what a meeting

    is, but of course it has a legal definition under the Open Meeting

    Law.  Basically a meeting is a two-pronged thing.  You need a quorum

    gathered in person or through technological means, and that quorum

    discusses, proposes, deliberates, or takes legal action.  In essence,

    you need a quorum, and you need to be discussing official agency

    business.

         So anything that could reasonably and foreseeably come before

    your public body for action, that will trigger the Open Meeting Law.

    Whatever discussions you are having are subject to the Open Meeting

    Law.

         This language on this slide was added to the definition a few

    years ago.  I don't think it really changes anything.  If anything,

    it's maybe just some confirmation or clarification, but basically it

    says if you have a one-way electronic communication amongst a quorum

    where someone proposes legal action, that's a meeting subject to the

    Open Meeting Law.  Or if you have a multi-way discussion amongst a

    quorum through electronic means, that's a meeting subject to the Open

    Meeting Law.

         So if I'm on your board and I e-mail the rest of you and propose

    a legal action, that's a meeting.  If I start talking about official

    business and one you guys hits Reply All and we start talking about

    it, that's a meeting subject to the Open Meeting Law.





         What's a quorum?  Generally in government it's the minimum number

    of people you need present to officially conduct business on behalf

    of your body.  Why is that important?  It's part of the definition of

    meeting in the Open Meeting Law.  So generally you need a quorum

    present to trigger the Open Meeting Law.

         Can you meet through remote means?  Yes.  I don't think this has

    been controversial for a long time, but in the beginning of the

    pandemic, the attorney general issued an opinion saying, yes, as long

    as you comply with all the provisions of the Open Meeting Law, you

    can meet through Zoom and Google Meets and all that jazz, as long as

    you meet all those terms on the previous slide about the public being

    able to attend and hear what you're saying and so on.

         My suggestion is when you're going to meet through remote or

    hybrid means, indicate that in the agenda, notice, and minutes so

    that it's clear exactly what happened.

         The first major requirement from that earlier slide is what's

    known as an initial notice or disclosure statement or some variation

    of those terms.  What it is is you have to perpetually have something

    posted on your website that's easy to find that tells the public here

    are the locations we'll post all the notices for our meetings.  That

    needs to be perpetually posted on your website.  There are some

    exceptions for cities and towns and special taxing districts, but for

    a community college district, it must be on your website.  You can

    change it, but it always needs to be up there so people know where to

    look for meeting notices.





         Second major requirement, every time you want to have a meeting

    where you have a quorum present to discuss or vote on official

    business, you need to provide public notice.  That notice needs to be

    available to the public at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting.

    It needs to be made available to all members of your body 24 hours in

    advance of the meeting.

         A 24-hour-notice period can include Saturdays if all the places

    you post your notice are open to the public on Saturday.  Sundays and

    legal holidays do not count, so be careful of those pesky

    three-day-weekend holidays, because that will not allow you to count

    toward the 24-hour-notice requirement.  There's two kind of

    exceptions to the 24-hour-notice requirement, and I'll touch on those

    in a minute.

         What does your notice have to have?  Which body is it?  Tell them

    it's the Governing Board of your community college district, or if

    it's such-and-such committee, just be clear about that.

         Where and when are you meeting?  Be specific so people can find

    you.  Then your notice either needs to include an agenda or tell the

    public how they can get their hands on the agenda.

         I think it's become common practice to make the notice and agenda

    one document or just post them both together.  That's what I'd

    recommend, but you don't have to do it that way.

         Post your notices for every meeting in all the places you said

    you would on the disclosure statement on your website.  So if your

    website says we will post on this web page and these two physical





    locations, then every time you meet, post on that website and those

    two physical locations.

         If you don't, you are probably violating the Open Meeting Law and

    that whole meeting might be ruined, because that's probably a

    serious-enough violation to render any decisions you take at the

    meeting null and void.

         You must post your notices on your website for every meeting

    unless you're a special taxing district, and then you need to give

    whatever additional notice is reasonable and practicable.  What does

    that mean?  I think most bodies interpret that to mean posted at at

    least one physical location.

         I think that's a good best practice to follow, but could you get

    away with just online postings?  In this day and age, I think you'd

    have a good argument, but who knows what a judge would say.

         Some tips on posting notices, hopefully mostly common sense.

    Make sure they can't easily be removed.  If it's on the outside of

    the building, make sure the wind is not just going to blow it away.

    If it's in a glass display case, make sure it's not front-and-back

    text that we can't read the back of.

         Then I suggest getting into a routine business practice where

    somebody initials or signs and time- and date-stamps when they post

    it so that if someone tries to say you didn't post it early enough,

    you have some evidence to support that you did.

         I mentioned two exceptions to the 24-hour-notice requirement.

    The first one is recess and resuming your meeting.  You're halfway





    into your meeting, you had your notice, agenda, all that good stuff

    you were supposed to do, you need a break, it's taken forever.  You

    can recess the meeting, tell everybody in attendance, hey, we are

    going to resume at this time and this place.  And then at that time

    and that place, you can resume the meeting.

         You don't need a new 24-hour-notice period, you don't need a new

    notice and agenda.  I think that was really intended for recesses

    that were shorter than 24 hours, where otherwise you'd have to delay

    resuming your meeting, but can you go longer than 24 hours?  There is

    nothing in the statute that says you can't, but I'd advise against

    it.  If you're going to recess more than 24 hours, put out a new

    notice and a new agenda.  That would be my recommendation.

         The second exception to the 24-hour-notice period is for an

    actual emergency.  If, due to unforeseen circumstances, you need to

    get together and potentially act in less than 24 hours to avoid

    serious issues like people dying, getting hurt, property burning

    down, stuff like that, then you can meet with less than 24 hours of

    notice.  But it has to be an actual emergency, something where, if

    you get called into court, you would feel comfortable arguing to a

    judge, hey, we needed to act now or devastating stuff was going to

    happen.  We saw a lot of that a few years ago with the pandemic.

    There were a lot of actual emergency situations during that.

         So if you do have an actual emergency, which should be pretty

    rare, besides the 24-hour-notice requirement, which you don't have to

    follow, what do you need to do?  Well, provide as much notice as you





    can.  If you have three hours to spare, provide three hours of

    notice.  Publicly announce what the emergency is that's necessitating

    the meeting, put that in the minutes and the recording, and then

    after the fact, post a notice like you normally would ahead of time

    within 24 hours of the meeting saying basically the same type of

    stuff you normally would but that it happened in the past, there was

    an emergency meeting, such-and-such.  That way if anyone didn't find

    out in time, they are now made aware, they can go get the minutes of

    the recording and catch themselves up.

         Common question.  A bunch of us are on the board together, but

    we're on the same baseball team or softball team on the weekends.

    Are we violating the Open Meeting Law by all hanging out together?

    It goes back to the definition of meeting.  You need a quorum present

    and you need to be basically discussing or acting on official agency

    business.

         So if you stay on best behavior and only talk about how the

    Diamondbacks are doing or movies, what have you, that has nothing to

    did with your community college district, then you're not having a

    meeting, it's not subject to the Open Meeting Law, but you got to

    stay on best behavior.  It's very easy with co-workers to start

    talking about things that are work-related, and then you'd be

    violating the Open Meeting Law.

         So if you are going to have one of these social events or you're

    going to go to a conference together or some sort of gala event, you

    have two choices:  Stay on best behavior and either avoid talking to





    each other or only talk about nondistrict stuff.  Or treat it like an

    open meeting:  Put out a notice, put out an agenda, 24 hours, let the

    public show up.  But then you've got to make sure everyone can hear

    everything that's being said.  So those are the two ways to go about

    that.

         It's not required by the law but something we recommend is if you

    are going to have one of those social situations where you know you

    might bump into each other and have a quorum but you're going to stay

    on best behavior and not talk about official business, still consider

    publishing a notice and/or agenda that indicates that this might

    happen, something along the lines of it looks like a normal notice or

    agenda but says something like quorum of the Governing Board might be

    gathered at this time and this place, it's a social event, no

    official business will be discussed or transacted.

         That way if someone happens to see you, they don't think you're

    having secret off-the-books meetings.  It just ups the transparency.

    It's not required, but it's a good way to maximize your transparency

    so people don't get suspicious.

         The next major requirement is the agenda, the roadmap for your

    meetings.  Every meeting needs to have an agenda publicly available

    24 hours in advance or more, and it needs to explain everything

    you're going to talk about, consider, or potentially vote on at your

    meeting.

         It needs to be reasonably specific.  I should be able to look at

    an agenda item and get an idea of what you're going to be talking





    about.  Or, maybe thinking of it a different way, if I start

    listening to your discussion, I should be able to look at a copy of

    the agenda and probably figure out which item it is.

         Everything you talk about needs to be reasonably related to a

    proper agenda item, so don't start talking about stuff that really

    isn't directly connected to the agenda item.

         There is a new requirement that went into effect in October that

    if you're going to have a meeting with an in-person component, so

    maybe some of you are going to be in a room together, or all of you,

    then you need to put on the agenda when that meeting room is open to

    the public.  So basically, like, the gates-open time at a concert or

    a sports event, so people I guess can get out of the heat and know

    when they can come into the room and sit down.

         Some things to avoid with your agendas, using terminology the

    general public doesn't understand, overly legalistic language,

    education jargon, agency slang.  You know, you know what that means,

    but if the general public doesn't get it, either avoid it or explain

    what it means.  Overly vague terms, new business, old business, stuff

    like that, you can use those terms as headers on your agenda, but

    then get specific as to what the old or new business is.

         A kind of exception to that, your agenda can say something like

    Board Member Garone is going to provide a brief summary of current

    events.  I then at the meeting say my spiel.  You know, Friday's the

    deadline for this, the turnout for this event was great, and blah,

    blah, blah.  Then I sit back down and we move on.





         If we want to talk about any of those things I brought up or vote

    on them, it needs to be its own specific agenda item.  But otherwise,

    if I'm just going to provide a brief summary of current events with

    no subsequent discussion or by anybody else, we don't need to list

    every event on the agenda.  Just that I'm going to provide a brief

    summary of current events.

         If it's not on the agenda, do not talk about it.  Definitely do

    not vote on it.  It's got to wait, got to be on the agenda for a

    meeting 24 hours in advance.

         Be careful about certain things with your meeting time and

    location.  Wherever you're going to have your meeting, you've got to

    let the public in.  So if you want to have it at your house, well,

    open the doors to the public.  If you are in a big meeting room,

    don't sit in the front and whisper or talk quietly so the average

    person can't hear you.

         I used to say make sure you've got enough room for people.  But

    things changed last year, in fact, saying that certain public bodies

    for schools, school boards, executive boards, and municipalities need

    to provide a reasonable amount of seating for a reasonably

    anticipated number of people up to and including moving your meeting

    to your biggest regular meeting location.

         I kind of interpret that, better safe than sorry, because if you

    know a ton of people are going to show up, move into the biggest room

    you have available to you that you don't have to go out of your way

    to pay for.





         I don't think this applies to you guys, but it depends on what

    the definition of school means.  I think it was meant for public

    K-12s, but maybe you want to get with your attorney and double-check

    whether that applies to you guys.

         Either way, there is some legislation going on right now that

    might make this requirement apply to everybody across the state.

    It's gotten very close to passing, but it's stalled out over the last

    few weeks, so we'll have to wait and see.

         Then last, but not least, be careful about when you have your

    meetings.  Any time during business hours or a little before, little

    after, is probably okay into the evenings.  3:00 a.m. on New Year's

    Day, probably not going to be okay.

         What does the public have a right to do at your meetings?  They

    get to show up, see and hear what you're doing, and record you if

    they want.  That's it.  That's all the Open Meeting Law says they

    have a right to do at your meetings.

         The public generally has no right to talk or disrupt at your

    meetings.  You can give them an opportunity to speak, but under the

    Open Meeting Law they don't have a right to speak.

         There might be other areas of law, other situations where the

    public might get a limited right to speak or certain members of the

    public might.  I'm not an expert on all areas of law in the state.  I

    think there are certain education situations with expulsions and

    stuff, there might be a limited right to speak, but generally under

    the Open Meeting Law the public doesn't have a right to talk at your





    meetings.

         But as I said, you can give them an opportunity in what's

    generally known as a call to the public.  If you want to do this, put

    it on your agenda, but it's up to you.  From a legal perspective, the

    Open Meeting Law doesn't require that you do this.  From a political

    perspective, that's a different ballgame and that's up for you guys

    to figure out.

         But if you choose to have one, put it on the agenda, and you can

    subject the speakers to reasonable time, matter, place restrictions.

    The way I read that is treat everyone the same.  Don't discriminate

    based on a viewpoint, and probably try to avoid discriminating based

    on content.

         So if you know someone is going to be anti whatever or pro

    something and you don't like it, too bad.  Let them say it.  If

    you're going to give everybody three minutes, don't cut your friends

    off or let your friends go over three minutes and cut off the other

    people.  Cut everybody off or let everybody go overtime.

         The AG used to say if everyone is showing up at the meeting to

    say the same spiel at the call to the public, you can say we are

    going to take the first X amount of people, or if you're on the pro

    side, nominate the first five people to come up and speak on behalf,

    we don't have all night.

         I don't think that's based on Arizona law.  They were looking at

    what other states had said was okay.  I would ignore that.  My view

    to you is if you have a thousand people show up, either let them all





    talk or let none of them talk.  That's the safest approach.

         What can go wrong with a call to the public?  The public gets to

    talk about pretty much whatever they want.  They are not limited by

    the Open Meeting Law.  You, however, are still limited to only

    talking about what's on the agenda.

         So if a member of the public brings up something that's not on

    the agenda, what can you do when they are done talking?  Ask your

    staff to study that issue, ask that it be put on a future agenda, and

    then you can also respond to criticism.  So if someone gives two

    minutes about why Board Member Garone is the worst and his vote on

    whatever was super dumb, at the end, if I want, I can respond and say

    why I disagree.

         Everybody else doesn't get to jump in and weigh in on that topic.

    That's it.  Just respond to the criticism and move on.  Again, you

    don't have to do any of those three things under the Open Meeting

    Law.  Those are just the options available to you when someone brings

    up something at a call to the public that's not on the agenda.

         Some stuff that you probably want to avoid in the physical and

    the digital context.  If you're in a room together having the

    meeting, don't whisper to each other and pass notes.  If you are

    talking about official business, it's probably a violation of the

    Open Meeting Law.  If you're just talking about how late the meeting

    is running and where you want to get lunch, that is not unlawful, but

    it looks suspicious and it might rankle people, so try to keep that

    to a minimum.





         Same thing with typing to each other in the background or through

    the chat function where the public can't see it on the Zoom call.  I

    have seen some meetings where people could hear the click-clack of

    the board members, but they couldn't see what they were saying.  It

    ended up being nothing, but it looked suspicious and people got all

    bent out of shape about it and complained.  So that's why there's an

    incentive to avoid it.

         Something else that even if your heart is in the right place,

    you've got to avoid.  Accidentally forming a quorum before or after.

    You all get on the Zoom call 10 minutes early before the meeting

    starts, don't start talking about official business or you're having

    an improper meeting.

         You're all leaving the meeting room after the meeting, and a

    constituent stops you in the parking lot, you want to talk to them,

    that's great, but then the rest of your board hears it and walks over

    and joins in, that's going to be a violation of the Open Meeting Law.

         So generally everything has to be open and done in front of the

    public when you board members want to get together and talk about

    official business, but there are nine situations known as executive

    sessions where you can meet in private.  The public knows it's

    happening, you have to tell them, but they don't get to hear what you

    say to each other ever.

         If you want to do these, you've got to put it in your

    notice/agenda, or you need to create a separate notice and agenda for

    it.  You can do a stand-alone executive session.  That would need its





    own notice and agenda.  And you need to cite which of the nine

    provisions in that statute on the slide enables that type of

    executive session.

         You need to hold a public vote at a public meeting to have an

    executive session before you can go into it, and at that point you

    did everything right, you want to have your executive session, you've

    got to keep it confidential.  It's not an option.  Once you hold one

    of these, you can never publicly discuss what was discussed to

    anybody outside of a very narrow list of people.

         You can't take action.  No decision-making, no votes should be

    taking place in executive session.  Even though they will remain

    confidential from almost everybody, you must have minutes or a

    recording for your executive sessions.

         Something to consider.  Oftentimes you could legally have an

    executive session but you're not required to.  It's up to you to

    decide if it's worth it.  Is the public suspicion that might arise

    from us having a confidential discussion worth whatever we are

    gaining from it?  That's up for you to decide.

         Your notice/agenda, as I alluded to earlier, must indicate which

    statutory provision enables that type of executive session.  So you

    say pursuant to ARS Section 38-431.03(A), and then one of the nine

    subsections.

         And then a brief description of what you're going to talk about.

    You don't have to be so specific you defeat the whole point of the

    executive session, but you can't just say for legal advice.  Well,





    for legal advice about what?  You've got to give us a little

    something more so we know what the heck is happening.

         Who gets to be there.  All of you guys on the board.  All members

    of the public body get to be in the executive session.  If you're

    having a personnel discussion, which is one of the nine types of

    executive session, you can allow that person to be there, although

    there is nothing in the Open Meeting Law that says they're entitled

    to be there.  The auditor general in connection with an audit.  And

    then any other individuals whose presence is reasonably necessary to

    carry out the executive session.

         You want your clerk or staff member to take minutes or to run the

    recorder.  I think that person can be there.  You want your attorney

    to be there to keep an eye on things to make sure you stay on the

    legal straight and narrow, okay, or you're getting legal advice from

    them.  People like that.  Your friend Ted down the street just wants

    to see what it's all about, not going to cut it.  He doesn't get to

    be there.

         My suggestion is if it's an unusual person besides like your

    clerk and lawyer, put down in your minutes or whatever other meeting

    documents explaining who that person is and why they were there.  You

    don't have to do that, but I think that alleviates some public

    suspicion.

         What can go wrong with executive sessions.  Do not talk about

    what anyone said in executive session.  When you leave, don't go tell

    the public, oh, listen to what Board Member Tim said in executive





    session.  Do not tell anybody what you or anyone said in executive

    session.

         The legislature cares so much about this, they put in the Open

    Meeting Law that the chair, every time you have an executive session,

    is supposed to remind you, keep it confidential.

         And then 2, do not vote on it.  You can discuss certain things in

    executive session, but if you want to then act on it and make a

    decision, that needs to take place in public.

         Real quick, what are the nine types of executive session.

    Personnel.  Your board wants to discuss whether to fire, hire,

    demote, promote, blah, blah, blah, related to employment for an

    individual employee.  You can have that discussion in executive

    session.  But it needs to be an individual employee.

         If you want to talk about giving all your teachers, professors,

    staff, a 5% raise, you can't do that in executive session.  But if

    you want to talk about two specific people, you can do that.

         This is a special type of executive session, and it requires

    written notice 24 hours in advance to that person you're going to

    talk about their employment in executive session.  Then if it's not

    about salary, that person can require the discussion take place in

    public.  In other words, they can veto the executive session and say,

    if you want to discuss my employment, do it in public or don't do it

    at all, unless it's about salary.  For some reason, salary, they

    don't have that ability.

         Again, nothing says in the Open Meeting Law that they have a





    right to be there when you're discussing their employment but nothing

    prohibits it.  They are however entitled to the minutes or the

    recording for that executive session.  So they are going to find out

    at least somewhat what was said in the executive session depending

    how detailed your minutes are.

         Some common related questions for that kind of executive session

    that the attorney general has formally weighed in on.  Can you do

    personnel evaluations in executive session?  Yes.  Can you interview

    people for an opening?  Yes.  I think those are both reasonable

    positions, but again, the decision, the vote, needs to take place in

    public.

         Second, the second type of executive session, and it might apply

    to you guys because you deal with a lot of protective FERPA education

    information, is confidential information.  If you need to discuss

    something that's made confidential by state or federal law, how do

    you do that without either violating the Open Meeting Law or

    violating that state or federal law that protects the information?

    You hold an executive session.

         This is probably the only type of executive session you must

    have.  If you want to talk about protected information, this is the

    only way you can legally do it.

         Third and probably most common is legal advice.  You want to

    preserve that attorney/client privilege that protects the discretions

    between you and your lawyer, this is how you do it.  You talk to them

    in executive session.  So you can go into executive session with your





    lawyer, give them your questions, your facts, and say, render us

    legal advice, answer our legal questions, and then the lawyer can do

    it.

         If you then want to discuss amongst yourselves whether to follow

    that advice or what to did with it, that needs to take place either

    in public or in another type of executive session.  You don't get to

    have the pros and cons and policy discussions about the legal advice

    in executive session.

         Here are four other types that all have to do with keeping your

    negotiating position confidential from whomever you are negotiating

    with.  You can meet with your attorney in executive session and

    discuss contract negotiations, litigation, settlements, and instruct

    your attorney.  You can meet amongst yourselves and your designated

    representative in your negotiating position with an employee union

    basically about salary.  Certain interstate, international, and

    travel negotiations, you can meet amongst yourselves to discuss your

    negotiating position.  Then last, same type of thing with your

    representative and amongst yourselves about selling, buying, leasing

    real property.  Then you can instruct your representative.

         You don't get to have the person or entity you're negotiating

    against or with there, but this is you guys so that the other party

    doesn't know, oh, we're willing to go up to a million dollars, well,

    if the other party gets to hear that, so they'd have to show up to

    the meeting, then they are just going to take you for a million

    dollars.  So this way your negotiating position stays confidential





    during negotiations.

         Then last, two newish types, and they are somewhat duplicative,

    one I think swallows the other.  I don't think the two

    representatives who proposed these talked to each other in advance,

    and I think they both would apply to you guys.  The first is when you

    want to talk about school safety plans, what do we do if there's a

    shooter on campus or a hacker wants to get into our FERPA files,

    well, you can talk about that in executive session.

         And then the other is basically similar to that but seems to

    apply to more than just schools.  Basically if a public body wants to

    talk about security plans and procedures and assessments about

    buildings and property or even your technological infrastructure, you

    can have those discussions in executive session so the bad guys and

    the hackers don't know how to get into your stuff, they don't get to

    hear what you had to say.  Then everything related to those

    discussions is going to be confidential and exempt from the Public

    Records Law.

         The last major requirement are minutes, recordings.  For your

    meetings you need to either have written minutes or a recording for

    all of them.  Sometimes bodies will record it, use that recording in

    the next couple of days to make the written minutes, and then make

    the written minutes their permanent record of the meeting.  That's

    okay, but don't destroy that recording right when you're done with

    it.  You have to hold on to it for at least three months after.

         Then whichever is going to be your permanent record, be it





    minutes or recording, that needs to be kept forever.  Minutes or

    recordings of meetings that are the true record of the meeting need

    to be kept forever.

         What do your minutes or your recordings need to have?  Which body

    was it?  Where and when did you meet?  Which of your members of your

    body were there?  Which were absent?  What did you talk about?  Just

    a general description of what you considered.  An accurate

    description of all the legal actions proposed, discussed, or taken.

    A record of how each of your members votes for every vote.  The name

    of whoever proposes each motion.  Then the name of whoever presents

    or speaks at your meetings and which agenda item it was related to.

         You might notice that this doesn't say, ask you to write down

    every statement or summarize every comment made by people.  This

    doesn't need to be a line-by-line retelling.  The recording will be,

    but your minutes, if you do minutes instead, don't need to have a

    complete retelling of what happened at the meeting.  Except for the

    votes.  The decision-making, that needs to be very clear.  Who

    proposed what, exactly what did they propose, how did everybody vote?

         Super common question.  Does the public get to see our minutes,

    recording, when, so on and so forth.  The Open Meeting Law says

    within three working days after the meeting, you need to have minutes

    or recording that have everything on this slide ready to roll.  You

    don't get to make them wait until you've approved them.  So Monday

    meeting, Thursday at the same time as the meeting, you've got to have

    minutes or recording ready when someone wants to see them.





         Cities and towns over a certain population, 2,500, have

    additional requirements besides what everything I just told you about

    the minutes or recording.  Not only do they have to do that, they

    have to post online within three working days a summary of the legal

    actions taken at the meeting or a recording of the meeting.

         Then once the minutes are approved or the recording is approved,

    post that online within two working days following the approval and

    keep that all online for at least a year.  Same thing for

    subcommittees and advisory committees for those same cities and

    towns, but you have a longer time period to get it up online.

         Why am I telling you this?  Well, one, you might eventually go

    work for a city or town.  Two, the legislature is floating real heavy

    with a new requirement that would make this apply to all the bodies

    in the state.

         So if one of the houses of the legislature takes one more

    positive vote and sends it to the governor and she signs it, this is

    going to be the law of the land for everybody.  The bill has kind of

    stalled, but we'll see.  It's gotten very close.  I think it's still

    technically live.

         In Title 32, outside of the Open Meeting Law, which is in Title

    38, there is a requirement that all licensing authorities record

    their meetings and post the recordings online for a certain amount of

    time.  I don't believe that would apply to you guys, but I'm telling

    you because the legislature over the last five, ten years has flirted

    multiple times with legislation that would mandate this for





    everybody.

         I get the impression you guys record your meetings, so if this

    ever does become the law of the land, you'll already be set to go,

    but just something to keep in mind that this might be pushed on you

    at some point by the legislature.

         Executive sessions.  Discussions are confidential but you still

    have to have minutes or a recording.  Why?  Well, if you get sued and

    someone argues that you had discussions in executive session you

    weren't supposed to, you went outside those nine discrete categories,

    you have the burden of proof of showing the discussion was

    legitimate.

         How do you do that?  Well, the minutes or recording would be

    great evidence, so it really protects you.  And it has to have

    similar stuff to the regular minutes for the public portion of the

    meeting.  Which body, date, time, place, who was there, who wasn't, a

    general description of what you talked about, if you give

    instructions to your lawyer or representative in negotiating, what

    were the instructions, and then whatever else you think is

    appropriate.

         Keep these confidential.  If you get a public records request for

    these, you deny them and you point to the statute on this slide and

    say, sir, ma'am, I cannot give those to you or I'm violating the law,

    and you're set.

         So who does get to see them?  All of you guys, all members of the

    public body.  So if you are on the board and you meet in executive





    session, you get to see those executive session minutes.

         I think a common question is if executive session happened before

    I was elected or appointed to the board, can I go back and look at

    those old ones?  Yes, I think so.  From a logical perspective and the

    way the statute is written, I believe if you are on the board right

    now, you can look at all of the executive session minutes.

         If you talk about personnel, the personnel that you talked about

    gets to listen or see the minutes, the auditor general, and then any

    of the oversight agencies, county attorney, AG, courts, ombudsman's

    office.  If we are investigating a complaint related to it, we can

    look at them.

         If you ever find yourself trying to get sneaky in getting around

    the Open Meeting Law, you're trying to be a real clever person,

    you're probably violating the Open Meeting Law.  This is a set of

    requirements and ideals to strive to to maximize transparency, not a

    set of challenges to find clever workarounds for.

         You can't use devices to get around it, so you can violate the

    Open Meeting Law using your phone or any digital device.  If you do

    what's known as splintering the quorum, a/k/a a fancy game of

    Telephone, board member A e-mails board member B who then passes

    their discussions along to board member C until it reaches a quorum,

    you're having a meeting subject to the Open Meeting Law.

         If you e-mail the rest of the board and say, hey, how are you

    guys thinking of voting on whatever topic tomorrow at the meeting?

    That's going to cause trouble for you if everybody responds.





         Doesn't matter if it's oral or in writing, if you can communicate

    human thought, you can violate the Open Meeting Law.  Letters, clay

    tablets, smoke signals, etchings into marble, it doesn't matter.  If

    you can write it down or communicate it in some way visually or

    through sound, you can violate the Open Meeting Law.

         E-mail, be careful, e-mail makes it so easy to violate the Open

    Meeting Law.  Your communications don't need to be simultaneous.  I

    e-mail the rest of the board tomorrow, and then they all start

    responding the next day, violation of the Open Meeting Law.

         Back in '05 when I think e-mail was somewhat new and scary to a

    lot of people, the AG weighed in and said, yes, you can't use e-mail

    to get around the Open Meeting Law.

         Same thing with other electronic communications.  Be careful

    about Snapchat, Instagram, YouTube, any other app or social media.

    You could be violating the Open Meeting Law.

         Here are some examples of what can cause you to violate the Open

    Meeting Law.  You have five people on your board, the quorum is

    three, that's the magic number for triggering the Open Meeting Law.

    You e-mail the rest of the board or two of the other members, and

    then somebody hits reply all amongst that quorum, you are having a

    discussion about something, the budget.  You're violating the Open

    Meeting Law.

         Does it matter if you're sending facts versus opinions?  Probably

    not.  Deliberation is one of the things that's in the definition of

    meeting.  You look at the dictionary and it includes the phrase on





    this slide.  So if I start sending all these statistics on some issue

    we are going to talk about to the rest of my board and then someone

    starts firing back different facts or what have you, arguably we are

    violating the Open Meeting Law.  We are deliberating.

         Is it possible you could convince the AG or court that that

    doesn't rise to the level of a meeting?  Yeah, possibly, but I

    wouldn't want to risk it.  It's going to get some, minimum, some

    suspicious eyes from the AG or our office on you.

         Something to consider.  Put a little note in your e-mail

    signature so when you e-mail each other, there is a little reminder,

    hey, remember, Open Meeting Law, be careful who you send what to.

    It's free, it's easy.  Does anyone read them?  Probably not, but at

    some point in the history of Arizona, I bet you someone has gotten

    reminded by one of these and saved themselves at the last second.

         You can send stuff to staff or passively receive information from

    staff.  That in and of itself does not violate the Open Meeting Law.

    That's how we send out our notices and agendas and supporting

    documentation to bring yourselves up to speed so you can be educated

    and talk about something from an educated point of view at your

    meeting.

         Generally to violate the Open Meeting Law you need more than one

    person talking.  Discussion, deliberation, that requires two human

    beings or more talking.  We are not having a discussion right now.

    I'm just talking at you.  So I e-mail the rest of my board my thought

    on something, and they say, oh, boy, we can't do that, nobody replies





    back, or they reply back and say, hey, we can't talk about that, we

    probably narrowly avoided an Open Meeting Law violation.

         One exception.  Proposing legal action.  Part of the definition

    of meeting.  That only requires one person.  I can propose legal

    action without anyone else saying anything.  If I e-mail the rest of

    the board I'm on and say, hey, let's vote to do ABC at the next

    meeting, even if no one replies, I have violated the Open Meeting

    Law.  You need to be careful about that.

         Then how do you propose agenda items without violating the Open

    Meeting Law?  Well, the easiest way is to not do this.  Do not

    collectively e-mail, text, whatever, to come up with the agenda.

    Because if someone words something the wrong way, they violate the

    Open Meeting Law, or you accidentally start having a discussion.

    That's the easiest yay.

         Send all your stuff to the chair or to a staff member who is

    going to put together the agenda.  That way if somebody words

    something wrong, it doesn't get into a quorum of the body and you can

    reword it and fix it and get it shaped up so it doesn't violate the

    Open Meeting Law.

         But if you insist on doing it together, the key is to propose the

    general topic for discussion or consideration but not the action you

    want taken.  What does that mean in real life?  Well, imagine you're

    on the Tempe City Council and you e-mail the rest of your council

    members and say, hey, at the next meeting, let's discuss safety at

    First Street and Main Street.





         That's okay.  You didn't propose any action.  Just that you want

    discussion on that topic.  Now, instead imagine you e-mail the rest

    of the council and say, hey, we should install a crosswalk at First

    and Main Street, or let's vote to put in a crosswalk at that

    intersection.  That's proposing specific action you want taken.  You

    want the council to vote to do what you asked, to install a

    crosswalk, spend money, paint on the ground, put a crosswalk in.

         That's going to be a violation of the Open Meeting Law.  Yes,

    those two examples, it's a little bit of hairsplitting, which is why,

    in a perfect world, you probably shouldn't come up with the agenda

    together.

         Some more examples.  I imagine you guys have some sort of

    chancellor or provost and you get together and say, hey -- or one of

    you e-mails the rest of the board and says, I think at the next

    meeting we should consider firing the provost or the dean.  That's a

    violation of the Open Meeting Law, most likely.  You proposed legal

    action.  You want to vote to fire that person.  You're kind of

    communicating that you want the firing to take place.

         Now, instead, imagine you e-mail the rest of the board and say,

    hey, let's talk about how the dean is doing at the next meeting, just

    talk about how they've been doing.  That makes my nervous, but it's

    probably okay.  You're not proposing a particular action you want

    taken.  Just the general topic you want discussed.

         Now one more.  Well, I think I have two more.  Imagine you're on

    the board, and you e-mailed the rest of your board saying, hey, let's





    implement a program like the one in this attachment that I'm sending

    or in this news article I'm linking.  That's proposing legal action.

    That's going to be a violation of the Open Meeting Law.  You want to

    implement a particular type of program.  Save that proposal for the

    meeting so the public can hear you propose it.

         Now, imagine instead of saying of saying let's implement this

    program, you say, hey, here's something interesting, and you just

    send an article about a program some other school has implemented and

    it talks about what's been going on with that, that's probably okay,

    assuming no one responds and starts weighing in with their opinion.

    Again, hairsplitting.  That's tough.  Try to avoid it as much as you

    can, so you don't even run into this issue.

         I will give you one more.  Imagine you are on your board, you

    send the rest of the board members an e-mail with a news article

    saying, pro-mask mandate or something, and then someone else on the

    board hits reply all so it reaches a quorum and sends you back an

    dueling anti-mask mandate article.  That's dangerous.  That could be

    construed as discussion.  You're using somebody else's words, but you

    are sending diametrically opposed opinions back and forth.  So be

    careful about that type of stuff.

         You can't knowingly ask your staff to violate the Open Meeting

    Law.  If you can't do it, don't go, well, I have an idea, and go ask

    your staff member to go do it for you.  Hey, I can't propose this

    legal action outside of a meeting.  Can you go and tell them I want

    to take the following action at the meeting?  You're putting that





    person in a tough spot, and you yourself are violating the Open

    Meeting Law.

         You can be sanctioned for knowingly aiding, agreeing to aid, or

    attempting to aid someone in violating the Open Meeting Law, so

    you're putting yourself at risk and you're putting the staff at risk

    for violating the Open Meeting Law.

         There is a kind of exception in the Open Meeting Law, arguably to

    protect First Amendment rights, where if you're at a public venue

    besides one of your public meetings where there is some sort of media

    present, you can basically say whatever you want without worrying

    about your public body hearing it on TV or in the newspaper.  The

    idea is that it will be disseminated through mass media, so the

    public will be made aware of it.

         As long as you're not doing this as a way to get around the Open

    Meeting Law.  So the way I envision it is I'm on the City of Phoenix

    City Council.  We had a really contentious debate on a hot item.  I'm

    leaving, coming down the steps to my car, and a reporter shoves a

    microphone in my face and says, what are you going to do at the next

    meeting?  How are you going to vote?

         Usually I don't want my board to hear that, so I know they are

    going to hear it because it's probably going to be on the news.

    That's okay.  In this situation, that's okay.

         As long as you're not trying to do a sneaky end-around.  If you

    know someone who publishes the circulars that are in the sitting area

    at the local Safeway, and he or she says, oh, pen me an editorial,





    and I will put it on page 37 where no one will see it, but you can

    tell the other members to go look at it and basically have a secret

    discussion where they can hear your opinion and most people won't

    know it's there, if you have some sort of proof that you're doing

    that and the AG gets their hands on it, you can get in trouble for

    that.

         When in doubt, resolve all interpretations of the Open Meeting

    Law in favor of openness.  So you have a gray area or something

    that's not clear, resolve it in favor of openness.  The Open Meeting

    Law specifically says to do that.

         Legal action.  All decisions you make at your meetings can be

    rendered null and void, basically they will be illegitimate,

    nonbinding, if there is a serious-enough Open Meeting Law violation.

    That's one of the big reasons we need to be careful about the Open

    Meeting Law.  It can mess up our big-ticket votes.

         So if you're in the meddle of a meeting and you think there might

    be a violation, what do you do?  Slow things down.  Maybe even recess

    and figure out if it's serious enough that you can't continue.  You

    forgot to do a notice, you forgot to do an agenda, you put the wrong

    date and time, something like that that really taints the meeting,

    it's probably enough that you need to stop and cancel the meeting,

    that anything you do from that point on, you know you're violating

    the Open Meeting Law, which can get you in trouble, and any votes you

    take will probably be null and void.

         But if it's a minor thing, someone talked about something that's





    not on the agenda for a minute, steer them back on track.  Little

    violations don't wreck the whole meeting.

         If you have your legal counsel handy, this is when you want to

    rope them in and say, hey, are we okay?  Are we cool here?  What if

    you figure it out after the fact, like, oh, boy, I think we might

    have violated the Open Meeting Law at yesterday's meeting.  Well,

    figure it out.  Did you forget the notice, agenda, or you voted on

    something that wasn't on the agenda?  Then you might have a serious

    problem.

         If you took action at the meeting and there was a serious

    violation, those actions are probably null and void and you need to

    do something about it.  One of the things you can do is you can

    ratify.  Ratification is a process in the Open Meeting Law for when

    you have a violation that renders an action null and void.  You can

    go through certain steps and make that action legitimate.  I'll

    explain that in a minute.

         So get everyone on the same page.  Here is where we went wrong,

    here was the violation, don't do this again, let's figure it out.

         If you get complaints, I suggest being open and addressing them

    transparently.  Otherwise they will get more suspicious and complain

    to me or the AG, and you'll have a bigger headache on your hands.

         What if you do need ratification?  What if you had a meeting and

    you had a big violation, you forgot to put out a notice for that

    meeting, and you took a bunch of votes that passed during the

    meeting.  You have actions that are now null and void.





         If you didn't vote on anything, you're okay.  It wasn't good what

    you did, but there is nothing you really need to fix.  But if you did

    vote, and there was a serious-enough violation, you have a problem on

    your hands.  So within 30 days after you have discovered the

    violation of the Open Meeting Law or when you should have, through

    reasonable diligence, you can ratify.

         Ratification is basically a meeting with super notice where,

    instead of 24 hours, you have 72 hours.  You have a written

    description of basically everything that went wrong.  What is the

    vote you took, the action you voted on?  That needs to be ratified.

    Clearly explain that you're ratifying it, what happened, a written

    description of all that stuff.

         That needs to be available to the public 72 hours-plus in

    advance, and it needs to go in the minutes or a recording of the

    meeting.  And you also need to include in there all the proceeding

    deliberations, consultations, and decisions that led up to that

    action.

         Then, and only then, you can take a vote to ratify, and if the

    vote passes, your action is now legitimate.  You can still

    theoretically get in trouble, but the action is good.

         What can happen to you penalty-wise if you violate the Open

    Meeting Law?  Well, the AG and county attorney and members of the

    public can sue you as a body to enforce the Open Meeting Law.  But

    what if you yourself are doing something wrong?  Who can come after

    you to try to get you in trouble?





         Only the attorney general.  If they think you're knowingly

    violating the Open Meeting Law, they can take you directly to court

    as an individual person, and if a judge agrees and finds that you

    knowingly violated the Open Meeting Law, you can be on the hook for

    civil penalties.

         The first one is apparently a give-me, the second is up to 500

    bucks, subsequent ones are up to 2,500, also whatever equitable

    relief the court thinks is appropriate, and reasonable attorneys

    fees.  So it can get pricey.  And if this happens, it's coming out of

    your pocket, not the community college district.

         Only the AG can do this and it's rare.  I'm not trying to scare

    you with this.  This is basically where there is good evidence where

    you know what you're doing is wrong and you are doing it anyway, or

    you have been told a million times to stop and you just keep doing

    it.  We are all going to mess up here or there by accident.  We are

    going to accidentally talk about stuff we shouldn't or make a mistake

    on the agenda, you're not going to get dragged into court and

    penalized for that.  That's not what the AG does.

         But if there is some evidence that you just do not care about the

    Open Meeting Law, you keep doing bad stuff to hide from the public,

    you can get in trouble.  If you see your body making an Open Meeting

    Law violation around you, you can protect yourself by objecting on

    the record, saying, hey, I don't think we can do this, and they

    ignore you and say, yeah, we can and we're going to vote, and then

    you participate in the vote anyway so your voice is heard, if then





    you get taken to court by the AG, you can use the fact that you

    objected as a reasonable defense.

         Last, but not least, if you get dragged to court by the AG, and

    not only do they find that you knowingly violated the Open Meeting

    Law but you did so with the intent to deprive the public of

    information, basically you were intentionally trying to hide from the

    public, you can be on the hook for all that previous stuff and

    removed from office or even charged with a low-level crime.  So don't

    be corrupt and shady in trying to hide what you're doing from the

    public.

         I mentioned earlier there are a couple of bills that would change

    the Open Meeting Law.  The first one is a house bill.  It passed the

    house and has gotten close in the senate but hasn't gotten there.

    The second one passed the senate and has gotten close in the house

    but hasn't gotten there.  Nothing's happened for a few weeks, so I

    don't know what's going to happen.

         They would make lots of changes.  They would require that you do

    calls to the public.  They would allow you to talk about anything

    raised by a member of the public at a call to the public even if it's

    not on the agenda.  It would change the notice agenda requirements to

    48 hours.  They'd make you put your agendas and all supporting

    documentation online ahead of the meeting.

         A couple other things.  They would extend those city and town web

    posting requirements to cover everybody.  The sufficient seating

    requirement would be extended to apply to everybody.  So it would





    make a lot of big changes, both of these bills.  Keep an eye on them.

    Our website, AZOCA, we have an Open Meeting and a Public Records Law

    page where I update the current legislation that's being considered

    and where it is in the process if you want to follow it through us,

    or go check the bills out yourself on your own time.

         Otherwise on our website is some useful information including my

    contact information and the main phone number, an e-mail address, and

    a complaint form for our office.  We also publish Open Meeting Law

    and Public Records Law handbooks, which the newest version is always

    on our website.  If you want print versions, let us know, and we can

    send you some.

         Otherwise, are there any questions?

         >> MS. MARIA GARCIA:  Hi.  I'm Maria Garcia.  I'm the board

    member for Pima Community College, and I do have a question.

         My question is this.  Say, for example, that you are in executive

    session, and during the course of that meeting, as a board member,

    you're being threatened with being sued.

         Now, what options do I, as a board member, have?  Because you're

    saying that I should -- a suit is not something that's acceptable, it

    has to be voted on, but if the majority doesn't agree or we're not

    really suing somebody, but you, as a board member, are being

    threatened with suit, and this is what your counsel is telling you,

    and you go outside to ask for assistance to get an opinion of whether

    it's legal or not, they're not part of your agency, what recourse

    does a board member have?





         >> DANEE GARONE:  So the board is threatening to sue you or the

    board is telling you that, hey, you, board member A, might get sued?

         >> MS. MARIA GARCIA:  Yes, for an opinion that you have

    presented.

         >> DANEE GARONE:  Like someone might sue you for defamation or

    something?

         >> MS. MARIA GARCIA:  Well, say, for example, it was an

    evaluation.

         >> DANEE GARONE:  Okay.  So what can you do as an individual?  I

    don't know what your role is, what your attorney's role is.

         Does he or she represent each board member as well as the board

    collectively?  I don't know exactly how your situation is set up with

    legal counsel, but you can absolutely go consult an attorney.

         >> MS. MARIA GARCIA:  Okay, you consult an attorney, and then you

    have now violated Open Meeting Law because you have discussed

    something you should not have discussed.

         >> DANEE GARONE:  Because you're saying the discussion that when

    somebody told you you might get sued shouldn't have been said in

    executive session?

         >> MS. MARIA GARCIA:  Because it was in executive session, you

    should not have mentioned it to anybody else.

         >> DANEE GARONE:  Well, okay.  So if someone brings up -- I don't

    know why that would be coming up.  Say I said something defamatory as

    a board member and somebody was thinking of suing me personally, I

    don't see how that could legally be raised at an executive session.





         Unless, I guess arguably unless the district would be on the hook

    for it financially.  Then I guess you could talk about it under the

    litigation exemption.  It would really be very fact-specific what was

    okay and what wasn't.

         But you can go outside the executive session and get legal

    counsel.  Just because something was raised in executive session

    doesn't mean you're banned from ever talking about it ever again.

    Just don't go and tell people that it was discussed in executive

    session and what people said.

         So if you're worried you're going to get sued, you can go call up

    an attorney and say, hey, I think I might get sued, and then you can

    go and do what happened and tell them what they need to know, in my

    opinion, without violating the Open Meeting Law

         >> MS. MARIA GARCIA:  Thank you.

         >> DANEE GARONE:  Again, just a caveat, there is a lot of aspects

    to this that would need to be fleshed out to know exactly what was

    going on and get you a straight answer.

         So if you want to know for sure what's going on, consult your

    attorney for the district and/or your own legal counsel depending on

    the situation.

         >> MS. MARIA GARCIA:  If you don't trust your legal counsel, then

    you have to go outside.

         >> DANEE GARONE:  That's a decision for you to have to make.  I'm

    sorry you're in that position.

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  I have a quick question.  This is Theresa





    Riel.

         So I was leaving a restaurant a couple of weeks ago, and I ran

    into a person who's very concerned about good and bad things at the

    college.  She's really active in supporting us and in calling us when

    we are not doing the right thing.

         Anyway, she said, oh, I wanted to talk to you about something,

    and then she said, oh, wait a minute, I have already talked to two

    other board members about it.  I can't talk to you.  I'll be breaking

    Open Meeting Law.

         You know, I'm not a lawyer.  I've just watched a lot of law

    shows.  But to me, it seems like she can tell us, one board member

    individually, she can tell all five of us something that she would

    like us to think about or consider.  That's not breaking Open Meeting

    Law.  And I don't even know if somebody not on the board can break

    Open Meeting Law.

         But if she just tells us what she wants us to consider, I think

    that would be okay.  I think maybe the only tricky part would be if

    she said, and I just want to tell you what Wade said and what Maria

    said.  But can people talk to more than a quorum of board members

    about something that they'd like us to consider?  I guess that's my

    question.

         >> DANEE GARONE:  I don't think members of the public, like your

    constituents, are really bound by the Open Meeting Law unless you're

    enlisting them to help you violate the Open Meeting Law.

         If you go to a constituent and say, hey, I can't say this to the





    rest of them, but can you go do it, and there is evidence of that,

    maybe they could get in trouble.  But if they just want to bounce

    things off their elected or appointed officials, the way I read the

    law, they can do whatever they want.

         But you are still bound by the Open Meeting Law.  So if they come

    up to you and say, you've got to hear what the other board members

    told me, if I were in your shoes, I'd probably say, I'm sorry,

    because of the Open Meeting Law, please don't tell me what they are

    telling you, and please don't -- I can't stop you, but please don't

    relay what I'm going to tell you to them.

         But then I think you're free to engage with a constituent.

    That's the way I read the Open Meeting Law.

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  Thank you.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  Can we put his picture up on the screen so

    we can see who we are talking to?  Is that possible?  Anybody?

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  Danee, do you think you can stop sharing

    your screen so we can see your pretty mug so we know who we are

    talking to?  Thank you.

         >> DANEE GARONE:  Let's see.  How do I do that?  Sorry, I have

    too many monitors.  Ta da.  (Laughter.)

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  Hi, Danee, I'm Wade McLean.

         >> DANEE GARONE:  Hi.  Hi, everybody.  Thanks for hearing my

    spiel today.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  If we can't vote in exec session, how are we

    going to instruct the attorney to do our bidding?





         >> DANEE GARONE:  If you want to actually instruct them to do

    something binding, like go settle this lawsuit for X amount of money,

    you have to take the vote in public.

         What do they mean by instruct in the language?  I think they

    mean, like, go see what you can do and then report back, and then

    we'll then vote to actually do that action.

         So in the context of negotiating for property, you can instruct

    the representative.  And I think what was envisioned was, hey, we're

    talking about this, I think we're willing to go up to a million

    dollars, go negotiate and see what kind of price you can get up to

    million dollars, and then report back.

         Then they report back and say, hey, they'll do it for 800,000.

    And you go, oh, great.  Do we want to do that?  Yes?  Okay.  Now,

    let's take a public vote to buy that property for $800,000.  That

    type of deal.  Or go draft up a contract for 800,000, get them to

    agree to it, and before we sign it, we'll take the public vote on it.

         That's the way I read the Open Meeting Laws.  The final binding

    decision needs to be in, like go file the paperwork to settle this

    litigation or go file the lawsuit, that needs to be a public vote.

    But everything up until then can be done more or less in executive

    session.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  Is the answer the same for employee

    negotiations?

         >> DANEE GARONE:  Yes.  All those in negotiation, four types of

    executive sessions that say you can instruct somebody, that's the way





    I view it is.  They can tentatively act on your behalf, but to take

    the final binding action, to buy the land, to agree to a collective

    bargaining agreement with a union, blah, blah, blah, that needs to be

    a public vote.  The public needs to know what you're doing.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  If we find that a majority of the board is

    anticipating attending a state, regional, or national convention,

    should we post that?

         >> DANEE GARONE:  If you're going to be real good and either not

    talk to each other in a quorum while you're there or do not talk

    about official business, you don't have to post anything, but my

    recommendation would be to be transparent and say post a notice or

    agenda that says, you know, this is being issued as a courtesy, a

    quorum of the board might be at this event, no official business will

    be discussed or transacted.  But then you need to stick to that.  If

    you start talking about official business and there is a quorum

    present, you're violating the Open Meeting Law.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  Is the answer the same for social?

         >> DANEE GARONE:  For literally any event outside of a proper

    public meeting.  So if you're going to do something like this today

    where you have a notice, you have an agenda, you're going to meet in

    public, you're good to go.  The Open Meeting Law applies, but you're

    following the rules.

         Any other circumstance where a quorum might gather, at someone's

    house, some other event, you all have day jobs where you all happen

    to work for the same company, any other situation where you might





    bump into each other with a quorum, you've got to be on best behavior

    or you violate the Open Meeting Law.  Does that make sense?

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  So if the majority of the board attends a

    regional meeting, does that automatically make that meeting open to

    the public?

         >> DANEE GARONE:  No.  First of all, you probably don't have the

    ability to mandate that somebody else's event be open to the public.

    But will you run into trouble?  If you have the quorum present at

    that regional meeting and you guys get together, that quorum, and

    talk about district business.

         If you don't talk about anything that can come before your board

    for action, then you have a good argument that the Open Meeting Law

    doesn't apply and you don't need a notice, you don't need an agenda,

    and the public doesn't need to be permitted to attend.  But it's a

    thin line, so you've got to be careful.

         If I were your attorney, I'd say, best-case scenario, don't have

    a quorum show up.  Second best-case scenario, don't all talk to each

    other if you do have a quorum show up there.  Third string, if you

    absolutely get seated at the same table and you must talk to each

    other, keep it light and nothing about district business.

         If you then talk about district business, you're violating the

    Open Meeting Law unless you have a notice and an agenda and allow the

    public to attend and the public can hear what you're saying.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  We are in the process of selecting a new

    chancellor.  One of the possibilities is having the candidates attend





    a social gathering such as a dinner or a cocktail party.

         How would you recommend we proceed on that?

         >> DANEE GARONE:  That's up to you guys.  I'm super conservative,

    and I don't want you to risk trouble, don't have a quorum present of

    your body.  But if that's cold and lame and you want to be able to

    have everybody there to be part of the event, then don't get a quorum

    in the same spot talking to each other about district business.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  If we're going to evaluate the responses of

    the candidates and everybody on the board is going to participate,

    wouldn't that require an executive session?

         >> DANEE GARONE:  No.  You could theoretically do that in

    executive session, but there is no reason you can't do that at a

    regular public meeting.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  So that dinner would become a public

    meeting?

         >> DANEE GARONE:  If you're going to have a quorum present and

    you're going to discuss anything related to district business, you

    need to follow the Open Meeting Law which means notice, agenda,

    public attendance.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  Does it need to be tape recorded?

         >> DANEE GARONE:  You need minutes or -- everything I have

    explained to you for the last hour, you need to do.  So minutes,

    recording, agenda, notice, public is allowed to show up, public gets

    to hear everything that's being said amongst the quorum.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  What if we hear from a community member or a





    former employee that shares information with one of us that we know

    had to have come out of an exec session conversation.  Does that

    employee or former employee have any exposure with the Open Meeting

    Law?

         >> DANEE GARONE:  I think there is an argument they do.  You

    could possibly report them to the attorney general and see what the

    attorney general thinks they can do about it if the evidence is

    strong enough, whatever.

         If you have evidence that somebody knowingly revealed what was

    said in executive session, then that would be probably an Open

    Meeting Law violation and something the AG might be able to prosecute

    if they are so inclined.

         How does that work with former employees who are now out in the

    public?  I don't know for sure, but that's something you can raise to

    the AG, because the AG is the only one who can do something about

    that.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  Final comment is this training was done

    because the board believes that it's important for the public to know

    that we are attempting to comply with state laws.  And my question is

    how are we going to document that the two board members not

    present --

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  Greg is online.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  Greg, are you here?

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  He is.

         >> MR. GREG TAYLOR:  Yeah, I'm here.





         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  Oh, sorry, I didn't know you were here.

         -- the one board member that's not present complies with this

    training.  Not a question for you, Danee.  A question for us.

         >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA:  Since this is being recorded, we

    will make sure that the other board member reviews it, and I can

    discuss it with him.

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  Danee, I would just like to mention this

    isn't the first time we have heard pretty much verbatim what you have

    shared with us, and we do have legal counsel here who shares with us

    all the time that it's, you know, the optics.  If it looks like you

    might be breaking Open Meeting Law, you shouldn't be sitting together

    or standing together.

         So I think the more times we hear it, the more aware we will be

    of breaking Open Meeting Law or looking like we are.  I think as far

    as our meeting when we have -- I don't think we should do any

    business at the social hour if we meet with the candidates.

         Greg, do you have any comments or questions?

         >> MR. GREG TAYLOR:  Yeah, I do have a question.

         Danee, you touched briefly on social media, and I wonder if you

    might just talk a little bit more, because all of us are elected

    officials so we have constituents that we are responsible to, and

    certainly elected officials use social media.  I don't know that any

    of us really do, but many elected officials use social media pretty

    actively to convey opinions and have discussions with their

    constituents about those particular issues.





         I'm wondering how that works in these Open Meeting Law scenarios

    so -- I'm not doing this, but you mentioned TikTok earlier.  So if I

    made a TikTok video that said I feel strongly about XYZ, I think the

    college needs to do ABC --

         >> DANEE GARONE:  And then the board sees it?

         >> MR. GREG TAYLOR:  Yeah, exactly.  Can you talk about how that

    works in the context of Open Meeting Law?

         >> DANEE GARONE:  I cannot, and I will tell you why.  The

    legislature hasn't changed any wording since this stuff became a

    thing.  So I don't know exactly what the courts would do.

         There is that exception I mentioned where, in a public location

    with mass media present, you don't really have to worry about the

    Open Meeting Law.

         Would the court extend that to social media?  I don't know.  I

    think you can make a very reasonable argument, like, hey, I have a

    Twitter account with 10,000 followers, how is this any different than

    me shouting out on the street corner, doing an interview for The

    Republic?  And I think the court would be open to that argument, but

    I wouldn't bet the farm on it.  I just don't know.

         Then the other consideration is where does the First Amendment

    come into play here?  At what point is the Open Meeting Law

    preventing you from exercising your protected First Amendment rights?

    Again, I don't know where that line is.

         So I'm sympathetic to the people who are like, well, we are in

    this new age where I'm not hiding from the public.  I'm being super





    public by using social media, on Twitter, publicly posting TikToks to

    whoever wants to view them.  But I just can't give you a sure thing

    to say that's okay.  I think it is, but it's you who is going to be

    risking it if the AG disagrees and takes you to court.

         If you want to be the test case and get us a good court decision

    that explains this, that would be awesome, but I don't know if you

    want to be that guy (smiling).  It would be nice if the legislature

    could tweak the language a little to kind of accommodate this new

    reality we live in where it's not 1990 where we have five to ten news

    stations in a market and that's the only way of reaching people.

         We now can do it from our own phone all day no problem.  So I

    just can't give you a good answer on that other than my gut feeling

    is a court would extend that exception to apply to most social media

    cases.

         >> MR. GREG TAYLOR:  Thank you.

         >> DANEE GARONE:  Any other questions?

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  No, I think we have asked all our

    questions.  Thank you so much for the presentation and for being here

    today.

         >> DANEE GARONE:  You're welcome.  If anything occurs to you

    later, feel free to reach out.  And if you want your discussions with

    our office to be confidential, tell us.  They are confidential by law

    if you request it.

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  Great.  Thank you.

         >> DANEE GARONE:  Have a great day, everybody.





         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  You too.  Thank you.

         Next on the agenda is administrators compensation overview with

    Dr. Dave Bea.

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Good afternoon, Chairperson Riel, members of

    the board, Chancellor Duran-Cerda, colleagues and guests.

         Happy to provide a brief overview of information that we shared

    with the board related to administrator positions and compensation.

    The information that we put together for you again is to give an

    overview of where the positions are at, historically how they have

    changed, and given some insight into compensation as it's come up

    through budget conversations and so forth.

         Can someone put up the presentation, or do I need to do that?

         Thank you.

         Firstly, to give some context, when we say the word

    "administrator," that is a Pima-specific phrase.  It is not a common

    phrase across the world, not a common college phrase.  It's specific

    to Pima College.  What it means here is they are exempt staff,

    higher-level exempt staff who are on annualized contracts, right?

    Each year we get another contract, and the contracts have specific

    parameters associated with them.

         The positions that are included in administrators are deans,

    executive directors, assistant vice chancellors, vice presidents,

    vice chancellors, executive vice chancellors, and then the

    chancellor.  So when we talk about administrators, it's a small

    subset of the college to show you -- again, sorry about the echo.





    Closer is better?  Oh, alrighty.  Now it's awkward (smiling).

         The number of positions you can see over time, we have talked

    about this with the board, we have decreased the number of

    administrators over time.  To give some context, if you go back even

    further than what is included in this chart, the high point for

    administrators at the college was 63.  So 63 positions back right

    before the fiscal crisis happened.  So starting with fiscal crisis

    and then continuing on to today has been an effort to consolidate the

    administrative structure in the college and reduce the number of

    positions.

         So you can see, beginning in 2014 when this chart starts, there

    were a little bit more than 55, 55.5 full-time equivalent positions,

    and now it's 46.

         The percentage of -- you can see the line is the one that gives

    you a little bit better context as in how many, what percentage of

    the total FTEs at the college are administrator positions, and you

    can see that's at the right-hand side where it has varied from a high

    point of about 3.7% to down now it's a little bit over 3.2%.  So

    again, showcasing the fact that the college has intentionally been

    reducing those positions over time.

         I talked about what positions are included in that, and sorry

    about the acronyms or the abbreviations I used here, but this gives

    you some context in terms of how many of those administrative

    positions are at each level.  Deans, executive directors now, there

    are 17 positions.  Assistant vice chancellors, vice-president level,





    there are 18.  There are 10 positions that are executive vice

    chancellor, vice chancellor, and one chancellor position, as you

    know.

         Again, looking back in time, I gave the definition of what an

    administrator is.  The other important element of it is that these

    are based on budgeted positions.  So it is a snapshot in time at each

    year going back in time.  That's the way that it gives us the most

    accurate comparable information year over year, so we're looking at

    the same time period.

         Looking then at total compensation that's associated with

    administrators, we talked about it, that from the position

    standpoint, it was a little bit under 3% or around 3% in terms of

    compensation.  It also is a minority, small minority of the total

    compensation that goes to personnel at the college.  In terms of

    regular positions, it's varied from a little bit, about 8.5%, down to

    about 7% over time.

         One important thing to think about is beginning from 2013 to

    2024, the total compensation that is going to administrators has

    actually gone down.  Despite inflation, despite all of the other

    things, the total budget that is going to administrator positions has

    gone down.

         Again, I want to try and get us back on time, because I know we

    have gone a little bit late with that important conversation we just

    had.  Average base salary increases by employee classification, so

    looking at the last four years in particular how salaries changed, so





    you see the first three years, '20, '21, '22, they were very

    moderate, small increases for employee groups.  Beginning in 2023 is

    where you see the impacts of the classification compensation change.

         Those changes impacted faculty and staff positions more than they

    did administrators.  Administrators were impacted by the class comp

    study, but it was the positions that were at the lower end, those two

    lower groups, the executive director, deans, and the AVC and

    vice-president positions.

         The reason for that is the deans for years had been stuck at a

    very low compensation and (indiscernible) increase, and a lot of the

    deans were at step one.  So when the class comp study came in and

    started recognizing years of experience in the position, a number of

    people got bigger increases as a result of that.  Again, that was at

    the lower end of the spectrum in terms of administrators.

         The average base salary, you can see that based on those three

    categories that I talked about, the vice chancellor, executive vice

    chancellor pay is in gray there, ranges from the beginning was

    165,000 to 191,000.  So fairly moderate increases over a pretty

    significant period of time.  That's because the budget the college

    has gone through, the beginning of the time period was going through

    the tail end of the fiscal crisis, went into the period of time where

    we had expenditure limitation challenges, and then the COVID reality.

         So there have been multiple, almost this entire time frame that

    we are looking at has been sort of budgetary challenging time

    periods.  The result of that is doing everything we can to keep pay





    increases as low as possible.

         The problem with that is that now that's going to come back to

    bite, just like with the class comp study where we recognize we have

    been keeping people disproportionately low, that's also going to be

    true for the administrator pay.  We've addressed it with the lower

    administrators because that's part of the class comp study, but the

    higher administrators were excluded from the class comp study, and

    the intent with that was do class comp for everybody else first,

    worry about the executives at the top later, and then the challenge

    though now more recently is the pay increases in the last few years,

    you can see these are just the administrators and the average pay

    increases, this is based on individuals in those positions, so you

    can see they are relatively low for the first few years.  That's true

    for all employees.  That would be consistent for all employees,

    because we were doing pretty standard increases across the board.

    But then looking at then when class comp study kicked in for the

    2023/2024, you can see that, as I mentioned, the adjustments that

    happened for the lower levels were reflecting the years of

    experience, for the higher ELT-type positions, the vice chancellors

    and executive vice chancellors, haven't been adjusted significantly.

         The problem with that is as we are trying to implement this

    philosophy at the college that we are paying people appropriately for

    the work that they are doing for the college, which is important to

    attract and retain the talent we need to do the jobs, we need to keep

    pace with the market.  Unfortunately for the college, the market for





    those higher-level positions is also going up, just like it is for a

    lot of positions.

         So, for example, the ELT-type positions, the sample of those

    positions, if we look at them for the college over the last four

    years, those have gone up about 5% over that period of time.  Similar

    positions for the Arizona community colleges are closer to 10% to 15%

    increases.  So we are losing pace compared to peer institutions for

    those positions.

         Anyway, that is the quick-and-dirty of what I wanted to get

    through, provide that information in context for you all, and then

    leave some time if you have questions, because I wanted to get

    through it and keep us on pace.

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  I have a couple of questions.  You don't

    have to answer them now, just if you could get back to me.  I was

    looking at this organizational chart from February of this year, and

    the naming, I didn't look at everything, I just looked at what I

    thought were administrators, are directors not considered

    administrators?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Directors are not considered administrators.

    So the cutoff is between director and executive director, and that's

    a really important point, because what the actual work is in between

    those two, there is not a big chasm between that.  A director who

    does very significant things and then maybe they take on additional

    duties, that position might next year be reevaluated and becomes an

    executive director, so there is not this, like, you can never cross





    between those two things.  Directors can become executive directors

    based on some small changes in duties and vice versa.   Some other

    things is you could have a vacancy, you can change things around, and

    then make an executive director a director.

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  Okay.  So there are -- the naming thing is

    a little wonky --

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Yes.

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  -- in my opinion, in here.  I'm not sure,

    you guys are super busy, but at some point it would be nice if that

    was cleaned up.

         Then the next thing, I noticed also that there is a lot of

    vacancies, and I'm not sure now, I thought maybe directors were

    administrators, so it might have only been in the director area where

    there were --

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  It's both.

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  -- between three and eight or nine

    vacancies.  When we talk about these numbers, I'm assuming that the

    vacancies aren't included in the numbers that were on here?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  In the numbers that we are talking about,

    mostly they are included.  When you're talking about budgeted

    positions, the positions, if they're vacant, are considered vacant

    but they are a position.

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  On that first slide when there was, or

    second slide, there were 46 administrators.

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  That would include vacancies.





         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  Okay.  Then obviously the money can't be

    including the vacancies because we are not spending it, or were you

    actually including --

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  It is included except with one exception,

    which is with the slide toward the end that says individual basis,

    that excludes vacancies.  So what it's doing is it's looking at

    someone who was here from one year to the next year to look at an

    increase year over year, so when there is a year-over-year increase,

    we can't look at vacancies because excuse, that particular, like,

    topic, because if you had a vacancy, and then you hired someone at

    $20,000 a year higher because you got someone who is really

    experienced, that would skew the whole thing.

         So the idea is looking at the same individual year over year,

    what were their average increases, because that gives you a better

    idea of, like, how it affects an actual person.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  Excuse me in advance for these stupid

    questions.  I still am having trouble understanding all this.

         Are any of the people, positions that are in this data,

    multi-year contracts?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  No.  The chancellor, where there is like that

    one chancellor line, chancellor excepted, no.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  So the chancellor is not in this data?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  The chancellor is, when we are talking about

    total administrators and total administrator compensation, yes, but

    when you're talking about -- so this one, where chancellor is shown,





    yes, included.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  Okay.  What's your current understanding of

    how any salary changes are authorized for administrators?  Who makes

    that decision?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Okay.  Couple of answers to that.  There are a

    few different answers.

         One is mostly it's based on what the board decision is in an

    annual budget process.  So when you say implement a year of

    experience and a minimum increase of $2,000 for most administrators,

    that would be the answer.

         In the case where there are adjustments that are related to

    changing duties or changing job descriptions, there is a process for

    doing that.  And then typically if it's a smaller increase related to

    a reorganization, it could be an executive administrator who is

    overseeing that with HR involved, mostly it would be with the

    chancellor, though, would be involved in that kind of a decision.

    Certainly when it's your direct report, it's related to your direct

    report.

         So what does that mean?  So for me, I have a couple of director

    positions that went vacant.  Hired one director.  When the other one

    went vacant, I consolidated the two units, and then that position, we

    had to go through HR, and now that position is moving from a director

    over one unit now is an executive director over what used to be two

    units.  So it's an efficiency but the position gets elevated.

         I actually did run that through Dolores, as well, but in a lot of





    cases that could be HR and me based on the individual position

    review, reviewing what level that position should be.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  So there is no personnel policy that guides

    you through that process?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  No, there is, yes.  There is, like, specific

    ways you go through that process, yes.  You follow a process.  You

    don't just willy-nilly do it.  There's a process you follow to do it

    with approvals.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  So go back to that first question you

    answered.  Could you repeat that?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Which?

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  Who makes the decision ultimately on

    administrative salaries?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  I would say, because that's why I gave a

    couple of different answers, it could be the executive administrator

    with HR.  Mostly it's the chancellor would be involved, though.

    Certainly if there was anything extraordinary involved, the

    chancellor would be involved in the decision.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  So when you're in the shared governance

    conversations, who sets the parameters of that conversation?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  The process would be discussed.  How that

    process works -- so when I was talking like an individual position

    review where you review what level a position should be, that's part

    of the discussion that would happen with AERC but with the employee

    groups, and that process follows an accepted process of the college.





         So if you have a position that gets elevated, there are a couple

    of processes to follow that, and that's fairly transparent, I would

    say.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  So the decision to make changes in the

    administrative salaries is discussed at the shared governance

    conversations?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  No, the processes that you would follow to do

    that -- so, for example, let's go back to the example I gave where we

    did a reorganization, and I now have an executive director overseeing

    grants and contracts.  That isn't discussed through shared

    governance.  That's an organizational decision based on, like, okay,

    it makes sense to do this.  Then you communicate that we did this.

    We consolidated these two units, here's why we are doing it.

         So it's publicized, but the actual decision to make that happen

    isn't done in a collaborative way, if that makes sense.  It's an

    organizational structure.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  Okay.  I get that.  But a base salary

    increase for administrators, who makes that decision?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Again, in most cases, base salary stuff is

    what gets decided with the board in the budget process.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  By the board?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  In the budget process.  So the recommendation

    would be, like, we are recommending we do a year of experience plus

    minimum increase.  In most cases, that's what determines what the

    administrator's pay is.  You start here, you had what the approved





    budget parameter is based on the discussions with the board, that's

    what gets decided.

         Again, the exceptions to that would be if there has been an

    organizational change and a position is assuming additional duties,

    right?

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  No, I don't mean that.  I just mean base

    salary increases.  That would be recommended to the board --

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  It gets recommended to the board.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  Historically when does that happen?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  It will happen in May.  We are going to bring

    that information.  That's typically when it would happen.  April,

    May, sometimes June.  Depends on the year.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  Does that decision have anything to do with

    the chancellor's salary?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  The chancellor's contracts historically have,

    a number of them have been written, I don't know if all of them have,

    in my memory, I think it's common language that says the chancellor's

    pay will reflect the increase that is the common increase that

    administrators get for the college, or when it's college-wide,

    everybody gets a 3% increase, then it would be, the chancellor's

    salary would then go up 3%, because it would be consistent with what

    happened for all of the employees.  So it's either what is consistent

    for the administrators or it's what would be consistent for all

    employees.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  So you're not having any conversations with





    administrators in the shared governance model prior to the board

    adopting --

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  No.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  -- the salary increase in May?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  No.  Administrators don't have an employee

    group per se.  There are a couple who sit in on AERC.

         Actually, I want to hesitate there, because yes, they do have

    those conversations.  We typically don't think of administrators as

    anything different from how we are talking about the other employees,

    so we have those conversations with representatives who are

    administrators who are on AERC, if that makes sense.

         So, yes, it is consistent with what's happening for everybody

    else, but we don't have, like, a specific set-aside where we go and

    talk with administrators about their pay.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  So then we issue contracts coming up soon?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Uh-huh.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  But then we decide on salaries in May?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  You decide that someone's going to be approved

    to get a contract soon.  What that contract actually says in terms of

    what their actual pay recommendation would be has not been decided

    yet.  So in May you decide that.  The contract then goes out late May

    or in June that says specifically here's what the pay will be for

    your contract.

         So you know you're getting a contract.  You have heard what the

    conversations generally are around pay.  They're not going down,





    right?  Compensation is probably going to go up.  We have general

    parameters around that.  Then once the board makes that decision,

    then it would be reflected in the contract and would go out to the

    individual for signing.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  I'm hearing you say the board makes the

    decision on administrative pay.

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  That's how I would describe it in most cases.

    Like I said, there are organizational structure decisions.  The

    chancellor makes some of those decisions.  Some of the executives

    make some of those decisions again based on some of the standard

    practices at the college and the procedures that are established.

    But other than that, the standard base changes, I would say the board

    makes the decision.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  Okay.  I'm going to say this one more time,

    and then I'll be quiet.  It makes no sense to me that we are

    approving a budget in May and making that determination on increases

    in salary when we have already set the tax rate and the tuition for

    the students.

         In my opinion, we need to make those decisions on the front end

    and then determine how much we need to increase tuition and raise

    taxes in order to generate the revenue that's going to result in that

    increase in the budget.

         That's what I have to say.  Because I think we are doing it

    backwards.  Because we are already locked in to a certain amount of

    revenue, and then in May, I guess we are going to decide how we're





    going to spend it.  That's the ultimate decision by the board on

    salaries.  I just think we ought to make that decision and then have

    a conversation how we are going to generate the revenue.

         >> MS. MARIA GARCIA:  Okay.  So I have some concerns, and this

    has been all along.  On the shared governance end of it, we really

    don't have any shared governance on executive salaries, okay,

    administrative.  We don't.  Because if we are approving -- for

    example, it's kind of misleading to say that we know exactly what

    they're going to get, because at the end, we say, okay, you guys

    determine, and it's objective as to who gets an increase and how

    much.

         You know, $2,000 a year, it's not based on -- I mean, we don't

    see it, you know, that this is what the market is giving, and this is

    what we should do, because these are the responsibilities.

         It's the chancellor that votes for that, administrative.  If you

    like somebody, you give them a better raise.  To me, that's very

    subjective.

         I don't see the process as being fair for everyone.

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  Not right now, but I would like to meet

    with you sometime to talk about what pooled salary increases mean

    again.  I still don't, that's not --

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Happy to.

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  Okay.  Thank you.

         Greg, do you have any questions or comments?

         >> MR. GREG TAYLOR:  I guess just sort of maybe it's a rhetorical





    question, but I feel like in these meetings we hear a lot of people

    talking or implying that our administrators and certainly the most

    senior of them are overpaid, and certainly they are paid a lot, but

    what I'm taking away from what you are saying in here is that we

    really haven't done the market analysis on the most senior positions

    and that we suspect that they are actually underpaid based on their

    equivalents in the larger market.

         Am I understanding you correctly?

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  I would agree with how you said that.

         >> MR. GREG TAYLOR:  Okay.

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  Thank you, Dr. Bea.

         Next up, PSESI.  Dr. Ian Roark and Amanda Abens.  Thanks for

    being here.

         >> DR. IAN ROARK:  Good evening, Board Chair, members of the

    board, Chancellor, colleagues and guests.  We do have some guests

    with us.  So I would like to call out our guests real quickly so that

    you know who they are.  During the course of our discussion,

    especially during the Q&A, should you have questions for them, they

    are here for that as well.

         We have Laura Vertes, who is an architect with Swaim.  Based on

    the information you were provided in preparation for this meeting,

    there were two analyses done, one on 29th and then a rough estimate

    of what could be done in the future East Campus.  So Swaim is here to

    answer those questions, particularly about 29th, if needed.

         Jackie Evans, the operation manager at American Medical Rescue.





    We have Patrick Calhoun, battalion chief, public information officer

    for the Avra Valley Fire District.  We have Marc Meredith, fire chief

    for Sonoita Elgin Fire District.  Brian Stevens, deputy chief EMS

    division, Tucson Metro Fire.  Joe P., police officer, former PCC

    student, part-time City of Tucson, VA full-time employee.

         So we have provided you, based on the template for the summary,

    and really quick, because we know we are short on time, the issues at

    hand, the discussion, and then some of the information about the

    current status of the public safety and security programs at Pima

    Community College.

         In brief, when we say public safety, we are talking about the

    administration of justice programs, the fire academies, the police

    academies, emergency medical technician, and the paramedic program,

    as well as all of the upskilling and reskilling that occurs through

    those various programs, faculty, instructional staff, and staff.

         With that, I'm going to turn it over to Dean Abens for a little

    bit more information, but one other data point I'd like to highlight

    publicly, and that is that the public safety programs at Pima

    Community College enroll nearly 2,000 learners on an annual basis,

    2,000 learners.  That's an unduplicated head count number, and the

    FTSE is included in the board packet, which I believe last year was

    over 800 FTSE.

         With that, I turn it over to Dean Abens.

         >> AMANDA ABENS:  Thank you so much, Board Chair, board members,

    really appreciate the opportunity to be here today and really





    appreciate our honored guests and have facilities here as well as

    PSESI staff.  We wanted to make sure any questions you have that the

    right people were here to answer.

         We also really wanted to highlight how incredibly important our

    partnerships are in this community to us.  Public safety programs

    cannot operate without working hand and foot with our public safety

    entities.  So you have a small sampling with you here today to really

    represent their interests.

         We partner with about 20 local EMS and fire agencies and law

    agencies and have another 9 entities that provide clinical rotations

    for our EMS work-based learning experience, as well, too.

         So we operate with a number of partnerships.  We work hand and

    glove with them in a couple of different formats.  You have some

    details in your executive summary, but we really wanted the

    opportunity here today to allow you to ask us any questions that you

    have to be able to share with you the amazing things that happen in

    our programs and if you have any questions on the challenges that we

    have in being at the 29th Street Coalition for all of our paramedic

    programs as well as a number of our EMT offerings.

         >> MS. MARIA GARCIA:  Were you going to show slides on what

    you're proposing?  I mean, I have already seen that, but so my

    question would be, okay, the recommendation of course was that the

    centers of excellence, that the PSI be placed at the East Campus.

         Well, from what we have heard, and correct me if I'm wrong, that

    there is really no space.  We'd have to build to extend it.  Okay.





         Now, my next question is why does it have to be there?  Why can't

    we consider another location?  We have underutilized buildings.  I

    mean, I don't know.  You know, I spoke to somebody recently while I

    was out collecting signatures, and they said that they really

    appreciated the fact that they could go to different campuses to take

    some of the courses.  I don't know if that's still happening, because

    -- I understand it's easier to just be in one area, you know.  And I

    realize that Vail and all these other areas, you know, Santa Cruz is

    nearby.  I don't know where the police academies are or other things

    that need to be considered.  But my recommendation would be to really

    look at overall, without incurring a cost and not eliminating or, you

    know, bringing, you know, taking some of the stuff away from the East

    Campus, because it is a small campus.

         So that's all I have to say.  Thank you.

         >> DR. IAN ROARK:  Thank you, Board Member Garcia.  In response,

    there are a number of threads there.  I'll try and touch on a couple

    of them.  If I haven't sufficiently addressed your question, Amanda

    and I can add additional pieces or clarify further.

         But a lot of work was done with respect to the education master

    plan back in 2015/'16 circa that time period, with relation to

    consolidating like programs to where they should be on one campus,

    which is one of the central definitions or aspects of a center of

    excellence, which is finding those efficiencies and finding those

    areas where programs converge and then locating.

         That's why, for example, many medical programs at the Desert





    Vista Campus are now moving to the West Campus as a part of that

    center-of-excellence consolidation.

         There will still be aspects of the public safety program,

    especially with the community partnerships with Southern Arizona Law

    Training Center and others, that will still be outside of the

    proposed East Campus.  One of the many drivers was the fact that we

    have two very like programs that share the same zip codes, the same

    standard occupational codes, the same agencies, and similar training

    facilities in our emergency medical services program, which is

    predominantly located at the East Campus, and the paramedic program,

    which is predominantly located at the 29th Street.  Those facilities,

    being co-located, would actually allow for more convergence and

    better alignment of training just for that one program alone.

         Another key aspect of this is the actual public safety training

    center that is owned and operated by the City of Tucson that's

    located out on Wilmot.  The adjacency of the East Campus compared to

    the other campuses to that training center is pivotal to the center

    of excellence, because some of the education and training for some of

    the programs we have discussed and mentioned occurs in a classroom or

    didactic or a semilaboratory setting, but we do not have a burn

    tower, do not have a driving range, do not have a shooting range on

    any of our campuses, or at least in the short time, so therefore we

    will need to continue to lease our part of that partnership at Wilmot

    and utilize those facilities in East Campus as in closer proximity.

         It also goes without saying that we are nationally known for our





    partnerships with paramedics with the United States Air Force, and

    the proximity of the East Campus to the Davis-Monthan access for the

    multitude of partnerships that we have, including the paramedic

    program with the U.S. Air Force, is really critical to that

    partnership.

         And then also, there is not a lot of land at least that's easily

    accessible at many of the other campuses, and so in recognition of

    the fact that one of the studies shows that there would be additional

    expansion on the East Campus, it would require some utilization of

    land that's currently not being utilized or expansion of parking

    therein.

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  This is going to sound like it's a

    criticism, but it's not.  Okay.  In the report, twice it was

    mentioned that this building, 29th Street, was built for elementary

    school children.  Being a public school teacher for many, many years,

    you were too, so that is not quite -- I think when public school

    teachers hear that, it's not built less because there were, you know,

    elementary school children.

         So maybe when we, if we share this with other people, let's not

    put those kind of words.  Let's just say that it was a public school

    but maybe not say that it's inadequate because it was for children.

    Do you see what I'm saying?

         >> DR. IAN ROARK:  Board Chair, point taken.  There's a reframing

    of that, that basically, even if it was something other than a

    school, say it was a former veterinary office, it wouldn't be





    sufficient for paramedic, fire, or law enforcement training.

         So point well taken, and we will make sure that we do not

    accidentally or inadvertently frame it as less than again, and point

    well taken, especially since my spouse still is an elementary school

    teacher.

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  Yeah.  And many of our children still go to

    elementary schools, right?  When my kids were in elementary school,

    they still had swamp cooling in all of their buildings through

    elementary school, and none of us would work in swamp cooling 100% of

    the time, right?

         Just FYI, I completely agree with you and I have spoken with both

    of you about this.  We need to make sure that the college builds

    something, and I don't necessarily 100% just mean literally build.  I

    mean, we need to create a place where the program is housed

    successfully, and I think I'm going to share Maria's, I don't think

    we need to squeeze out what's going on at the East Campus.  I think

    we need to make sure we do this well thought out that we build

    something that's appropriate.

         Lastly, there was another, and this isn't a criticism, just a

    concern, there were some words about the space utilization at the

    East Campus.  I had been talking with some of the folks in the cyber

    warfare range, and they had mentioned that in the books it looks as

    if some of their rooms aren't being utilized to the fullest, but he

    said, check it out right now, and I think that's something we have to

    be aware of.





         I think the books show when there is actually instruction going

    on in class.  It doesn't necessarily account for when students are

    doing group work and using the warfare range to do that stuff that

    they do.  So let's make sure that we don't... thank you.

         >> AMANDA ABENS:  Absolutely.  And to that point, I really

    appreciate the leadership of our East Campus vice president, Jade

    Borne, who has come along.  He and I are co-leads on the East Campus

    planning group.

         And to your point, Board Chair Riel, we have been meeting with

    subcommittees of all the different areas at East Campus, because we

    know that there are a lot of nuances to data that's readily

    available, like space utilization data, and really getting in and

    observing.  We went on a campus tour, and we all saw the activity.

         And we are working with all of the different departments on what

    it is that their needs are, where they may not need space, where they

    may need space.  That will be all-encompassing.

         So when we look at what a center of excellence for public safety

    can be at East Campus, we are really looking at the entirety of the

    needs of East Campus.

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  Thank you.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  What are we doing here now?  What's your

    goal?  Information to us, or...

         >> DR. IAN ROARK:  We were asked to give an update on the public

    safety programs overall, so we included some general update data in

    the executive summary as well as the unmet future need for the center





    of excellence and the status report on where we are.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  Okay.  So here's what I have been thinking

    about.  Knowing I won't be around in order to make this decision,

    but, you know, I hear the fire districts represented, police

    departments, Air Force, City of Tucson, Pima County, Pima Community

    College, you took us to an event last Friday where I pretty much

    heard that Pima College needs to be a driver in this Pima County

    environment in which we live.

         I have had a little experience remodeling elementary schools, or

    schools, and sometimes you just can't fix them.  Just so you know,

    Josh Campbell is my son-in-law, and I got a captain in Tucson Fire as

    a cousin, and during the course of conversations, what I believe

    needs to be discussed is looking past all this.

         If we have every aspect of the county represented in these

    conversations, I think Pima College could become the driver to do

    something on a larger scale, you know, a facility that's going to

    meet the needs of everybody.  Not tearing down a wall here and

    putting up a tower there, but looking towards the future and the

    kinds of positions that this community needs and building the

    structure that meets those needs.

         And not to say to Pima College, you're going to have to borrow

    the money in order to put together this effort, but to go to the

    voters in Pima County and pass a bond that's going to support every

    aspect of Pima County and service the people like they deserve with

    trained professionals like we already have, but the ones we are going





    to need in the future.

         So my recommendation would be to you, think bigger, and

    understand that Pima College can't fund probably what needs to be

    done, because so you know these centers of excellence, many of them,

    we have had to borrow the money to build the facility, and then it

    comes out of our budget.

         I really think this is an effort that needs to be a Pima County

    bond that everybody can participate in in the county and be

    responsible for paying for.

         >> DR. IAN ROARK:  Thank you, Dr. McLean.  I love "think bigger."

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  Greg, do you have some comments?

         >> MR. GREG TAYLOR:  Yeah, a couple, and a couple of questions.

         I will just start with sorry I can't be there in person with you

    all, but I wanted to thank the first responders who I can at least

    see behind the presenters on the camera.  I can see some of your legs

    and shirts and things like that, but thank you for your time tonight

    and for your service.  What you do for this community is incredible,

    and I'm really proud that the college can support not only all of

    your training but the next generation of first responders.

         Ian, you know, we have come back to this idea a couple of times

    that was brought up to me too around other available space within the

    college.  So I heard you saying earlier that there is a lot of

    adjacencies to East Campus, which makes a lot of sense for this

    center of excellence around public safety to be located there.

         I'm wondering if there are also unique needs in terms of what the





    actual space would require that would make it so we really couldn't

    use space on other campuses, and what we are talking about is either

    building and sort of rebuilding or building something new on East

    Campus because these kind of programs have unique space needs that

    couldn't be accommodated elsewhere in addition to the adjacencies.

         >> AMANDA ABENS:  Great question.  Thank you, Board Member

    Taylor.

         We do need a large amount of square footage.  So to build out a

    center of excellence for square footage, we are looking at just about

    20,000 square foot just to co-locate, but then to build a true center

    of excellence, we are talking more upwards of 30,000 square feet.

         We do need large classroom spaces, which is part of the challenge

    of being at 29th Street where those classrooms are small.  We have

    programs where we run what is called our shift friendly paramedic

    class that is a class of 50 learners that will bifurcate across two

    different days to accommodate the shifts that they can work so that

    they can take paramedic training while they are still are on shift

    with their agency.

         So those classes are large, in addition to simulation lab space,

    and we have started virtual reality training in our programs, too, so

    need to ensure that we have space for that.

         >> DR. IAN ROARK:  Board Member Taylor, I would only add by

    making some rudimentary but I think somewhat accurate comparisons to

    past centers of excellence adjacencies.

         These program areas are delivering.  We have data, we have





    included some of that, we have further data on completion on where we

    stand nationally with many of our completion and passing rates,

    particularly with the paramedic program, among the best in the

    nation.

         So the program area suffers to some extent of you're already

    doing well with what you have, why do you need more?  Whereas the

    true definition of a center of excellence is because the community is

    going to grow, because there still is much akin to nursing and Allied

    Health professions a deficit of professionals in our community who

    need to fill these roles, recruiting in law enforcement and

    recruiting in paramedicine and the loss in paramedicine during the

    pandemic has hurt the industry or the sector tremendously, but also,

    I think, in terms of comparing it to our fantastic nursing programs,

    and you're very familiar with those, and sort of the cramped and

    really not maximized spaces that we had at West Campus prior, and now

    that we are going to have, once the center of excellence there is

    complete, it's a very similar situation with respect to the training

    rooms and the equipment that's located in those rooms at 29th Street.

         So, for example, we have a mockup in an ambulance in one of these

    elementary school classrooms.  To move that, we will have to

    dismantle it and take it apart, whereas a true center of excellence

    could and would perhaps have an actual ambulance with an ambulance

    bay.

         We already have an ambulance and a bay over at East Campus that

    could either remain the same or expand.  Those are some of the





    adjacencies that our learners and our faculty really need to continue

    the quality that they have but to build and expand upon that.

         >> MR. GREG TAYLOR:  Another question, too, and forgive me if you

    don't have the answer, that's fine, or maybe Interim Chancellor

    Duran-Cerda does or someone can get back to me, that's fine, but I

    know that the college's ownership of and ability to use land around

    our different campuses varies from campus to campus, and sometimes I

    mix up which campus is which, but we have the flexibility on East

    Campus to, if we needed to build new things, do we own enough land

    around there or are able to access that land?

         I know there is a lot of vacant land around East Campus.  I just

    don't know who owns it.  I don't remember from those discussions we

    had.  Is there any information you can share with me on that?

         >> DR. IAN ROARK:  So Amanda and I will need to defer to Dr. B.

    and AVC Brandye D'Lena, and if they have that answer now, but if not,

    if we need time to get it, we can.

         (Comments off microphone.)

         >> DR. IAN ROARK:  Dr. Bea's reporting that we own the land.  We

    are not exactly sure in this meeting how much additional acreage we

    have access to.  We'll have to get back to you on that.  There is a

    lot of parking lot that's underutilized and the former field and

    things like that.

         >> MR. GREG TAYLOR:  Great.  That's it from me.  Thank you both.

         >> AMANDA ABENS:  Our wonderful architect firm, Swaim, had done a

    really brief look at East Campus when we pivoted from a potential





    center of excellence to 29th to East, did work with us to look at

    where a building could be.  And there was in that kind of simplistic

    review enough land and space to build adequate facilities.

         >> MR. GREG TAYLOR:  Great.  Thank you.

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  Then I guess maybe for Jeff and Dave Bea

    and Chancellor, I think that this is something that we should be

    moving forward with.  I know that Juan Ciscomani had some federal

    monies we could have spent but we didn't have anything beyond the

    talking stages, and so I don't know -- I'm not sure what the process

    or procedure is, do you do the feasibility study first, do you do the

    GO bond first?  What is it that we have to do?

         I know we are all super, super busy, but this would be a great

    thing to get going.  For sure we shouldn't be passing by federal

    monies that could help us out.

         >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA:  It's a long time coming, as

    Dr. Roark said, since 2015.  That was the plan to move PSESI to East

    Campus.  We can start working on some preliminary efforts so we can

    get there when we have a bond or something like that.

         >> DR. IAN ROARK:  Additionally, we are always going to be on the

    hunt for additional funds, whether that's through philanthropy,

    federally directed asks on the part of Pima have been limited to 1 to

    I think the most recent one is 2.5.  This would be significantly

    more.

         There may be, down the road, future opportunity to do something

    that we did for aviation technology, which would be to front a lot of





    the costs on a program, but also, as Dr. Bea is at my right, may have

    something to say about future needs that extend beyond public safety

    and how public safety fits in with future efforts.

         >> MS. MARIA GARCIA:  I have one more question.  What about the

    Downtown Campus as a means to be able to put that in there?  That's a

    lot -- we have those three hotels.  We are talking about different

    use for them.  Just think about it.  I don't know.

         >> DR. DAVID BEA:  Yeah, I think that's a fine comment.  Just

    wanted to add, looking into the feasibility, some of the logistics,

    we are already doing some work, that work is underway and will

    continue for a while trying to identify what the best possible use is

    and what some of the recommendations may be.

         I know Jade is working on that and Brandye is also working on

    that, sort of making sure they are working coordinatedly on that to

    sort of identify and then plan out.  The challenge with it is we are

    talking about a major investment, that the college's resources are

    limited, so then it gets to the GO bond possibility and timing and

    planning for that, what other projects might come along if we are

    going to do a GO bond, and obviously what you want to do is be ready

    to move if funds are available.

         Unfortunately, a lot of the funds that are available are not

    sufficient to do the kind of size and scope of what we are talking

    about.  But I think working with the partners that we are talking

    about, trying to identify is there a way we can cooperatively put

    together funding from other entities, as well.  Any partnership we





    have where funding comes in to us to help with this is going to make

    it much more viable.

         >> DR. DOLORES DURAN-CERDA:  If I could add one more thing, Board

    Member Garcia, I think the contract with the military base, Air Force

    base, it has to be near that.  So Downtown Campus would be too far.

         >> AMANDA ABENS:  There is a requirement on miles from the base.

    I have not mapped out those miles to Downtown Campus.

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  Thank you both for being here.  Thank you

    to all of the guests who came.  We would love to talk to you all, but

    we have been doing this for two hours already, and we still have

    another session to go.

         But thank you all, and Pima does a great job, I'm not sure how

    many of you have been to our graduation ceremonies, but they are

    amazing.  So thank you for supporting Pima.

         >> DR. WADE McLEAN:  Madam Chair, I move we adjourn to executive

    session.

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  Is there a second?

         >> MS. MARIA GARCIA:  Second.

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  All in favor?

         (Ayes.)

         >> MS. THERESA RIEL:  Thank you all for being here and we will

    see you in a couple of weeks at our regular board meeting.

         (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.

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