Skip to content

Adopted Meeting Minutes
October 21, 2002
Regular Meeting

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 6:08 p.m.

Roll Call

Canady, Heywood, Holden, Jeffries, Patterson, Pelleran, Rasmusson

Additions/Deletions to the Agenda

There were no additions or deletions to the agenda.

Limited Public Comment Regarding Agenda Items

Sean Kosofsky - Good evening, thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight.
My name is Sean Kosofsky.
I am the Director of Policy for Triangle Foundation.
Some of you may be familiar with Triangle Foundation.
we're the state?s largest civil rights advocacy and anti-violence organization for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people.
It is my understanding tonight there will be a vote on whether to extend domestic partner benefits to those employees of LCC not currently allowed to, for example, get the same basic coverage by getting married.
I have some handouts for the entire Board, I'll pass them out right now (Mr. Kosofsky distributed two documents.
They are on file with the official Board materials).
These handouts are two separate things.
The one on the back of the other.
The first of which are a number of talking points, which can actually explain the issue.
I think it's actually a simple issue.
The second handout is a list of all other employers based in the state of Michigan that offer domestic partner benefits including corporations as large as General Motors to as small as, you?ll see on this whole list, a small newspaper such as the Bay City Times.
There are a number of employers there.
I think you?ll find a lot of them very interesting including many of the state?s universities offer these benefits also.
I'll quickly just say that the issue of domestic partner benefits is important because many of the people living in the United States of America are not able to get married in this country since the federal government and the state of Michigan in 1996 banned gay marriage.
The only opportunity for same sex couples in this country to extend healthcare benefits to their partner for needed medicine and needed therapy, needed healthcare is domestic partner benefits.
We are doing a disservice to those people, their families, their loved ones, and their entire community if we do not extend domestic partner benefits.
I believe it would be a wise move, a very courageous move for this school to become, to join the list of employers in the state of Michigan that extend domestic partner benefits.
First and foremost, it's a commitment to equal pay for equal work.
You are and you do employ gay, lesbian and bisexual people at this school and they need the same benefits that other people are able to get by getting married.
Equal protection under the law guaranteed by the 14th amendment would bring this, would help this, the employer, LCC, get closer to that promise by offering true equal protection by giving people those benefits.
Most importantly, is the ability to attract and retain the best possible workers.
I can't tell you how important it is when a gay or lesbian person decides to go to work somewhere, to go to school somewhere, when they decide whether or not they are welcome there, whether their partner will be able to be healthy should something go wrong.
I really want to encourage LCC to extend these benefits.
I encourage you all to review the list I provided for you.
There are a number of rather talking points that I think are very important.
Most importantly, is the last one on the list which is the costs are low.
A dramatically, a dramatic number.
You?ll find that sometimes 1% or less of all those eligible actually apply for domestic partner benefits.
For a number of reasons.
Domestic partner benefits are taxable as income unlike marriage benefits.
So many opt to not apply for them.
But also applying for them for many people means coming out of the closet.
Which for most people, and they understand this, in the city of Lansing and in the state of Michigan, it is still legal to discriminate against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.
I think you?ll find that those courageous enough to ask for healthcare, will ask, but many will not.
Costs will be lower than expected.
Thank you very much for your time tonight and I hope that we will vote on the entire healthcare issue, including the domestic partner benefits as one vote.
That we will hopefully enjoy all of your support.
Thank you very much.

Lynn Savage - good evening, my name is Lynn Savage.
I'm president of LCC's administrative association and I have for you tonight a slightly different bend on the healthcare issue written by one of my members who is a part-time administrator here at LCC.
So, I'll read to you verbatim from an email that she forwarded me this afternoon.
?My name is Ruthi Bloomfield and for the past six years I have worked 30 hours per week as a part-time administrator in the Women?s Resource Center.
In this position I meet with perspective students particularly re-entry women, provide ongoing support for current students, and administer the child care award program, which thanks to your generosity, has a budget of $266,000.
I am grateful to work with a dedicated staff of the WRC to provide the academic, emotional, and financial support students need to ensure their success.
I applaud the Board of Trustees for taking the lead in offering same sex benefits to full-time employees.
I believe that equal benefits should be available to non-traditional families.
And I agree with Trustee Heywood?s statement in the Lansing State Journal that offering these benefits sends a message to full-time employees that LCC values them.
Tonight I ask the Trustees to demonstrate that you also value part-time employees by extending to us the same basic benefits that our full-time colleagues already receive.
As you know, part-time employees receive no benefits at all.
We are entitled to 56 paid hours per year to cover everything from caring for a sick child, bereavement time, jury duty, and our own sick and vacation time.
The inadequacy of this benefit is particularly apparent to me now as I recover from surgery.
Those 57 hours cover less than two weeks of my expected six week recovery period and I therefore face more than four weeks of unpaid time.
Our union has for years requested that LCC's 15 to 25 part-time administrative employees receive at the very least pro-rated health benefits.
I urge you tonight to show that you value LCC's part-time administrative staff as much as you?ve already demonstrated your value for full-time staff by extending benefits to this dedicated group of employees.
Thank you for your consideration.?

Barry Stearns - my name is Barry Stearns, I am the acting president of the faculty association.
I?d like to talk about the personnel report.
The HR report.
You?ll note in there are a number of new hires and I checked with Dave Davidson, the HR director, earlier today and he shared with me that the faculty positions being brought to you this evening are permanent positions as opposed to temporary.
My purpose for talking to you this evening is we often hear about new positions that are being added to our staff - faculty, support staff, administration.
I?d like you to be aware that, indeed many of these are new positions, however, they are filling vacancies from some other area within the institution.
For example, the number of full-time faculty members has not significantly increased or changed in the last three years.
Even though there have been a number of new hires within the faculty.
There have been many people who have retired or have left for other reasons.
So, when we talk about new positions that's sometimes a misleading statement.
Also, I?d like to point out that currently approximately 20% of all of our full-time faculty are on terminal contracts, temporary contracts.
They have no guarantees that they?ll be here after that temporary contract is up.
And in effect are working as at-will employees at this institution.
that's something I?d like to bring to the HR program to discuss this semester while I'm the acting president and see if we can do some things to identify switching those temporary positions to permanent positions.
So, I'll be meeting with HR and discussing those options.

Paul Downey - my name is Paul Downey and I began teaching at Lansing Community College in what was then the Humanities Department alone - 27 - years ago and despite a stroke a 1 - year ago, I was only off the job two weeks.
I am also a priest in the Episcopal Church.
Have been for nearly 43 years and in my dual role I'm especially sensitive to church state issues.
And a passionate supporter of what Thomas Jefferson in about 1801 or 1802 described as the necessary wall of separation.
And because I hear many outside of LCC attempting to make this kind of issue, benefits for gay and straight, gay and lesbian people a religious and moral issue.
I simply would say at this point that that should be given no consideration whatsoever.
This is simply an issue of justice and equity.
I am not gay and, therefore, I have nothing to gain no matter what you do on this tonight.
But I urge you to pass the domestic partner health benefits.
Thank you.

Trevor Wagenmaker - my name is Trevor Wagenmaker, I live in Alraeidon Township.
I'm a taxpayer helping to support the institution and just to voice my opinion that I am opposed to the institution extending benefits to partners of homosexuals.
Both for economic reasons, I don't see how trying to keep an affordable institution here, an affordable education to people fits in with that as an unnecessary expenditure.
And also on moral grounds.
You?re setting an example for the community, for the students and I don't think that represents the majority of the constituents of the people that support the institution.
So, just to voice my opinion in opposition to that.
Thank you.

Queen Foreman McMiller, letter read by Norma Mendez (the letter is on file with the official Board materials.) - My name is Queen Foreman McMiller and I serve as the Director of Equal Opportunity and Diversity Programs at Lansing Community College.
I would like to be with you in person but unfortunately illness keeps me away.
I would like to comment on the Board's consideration of offering same sex benefits for full-time employees.
This issue has been a concern for a number of years.
As early as 1999, LCC employees came to me in confidence to express their interest in this issue and their concern about repercussions facing them if they were to openly advocate for this benefit.
I applaud the Lansing Community College Board of Trustees for adding same sex benefits to this health care agreement.
By doing so, you have put the interests of LCC employees above the give and take of the negotiating table.
Including same sex benefits in the health care agreement for LCC's full-time employees is consistent with our value for each individual and our willingness to examine our most deeply held beliefs of equality and demonstrate the courage to act on them.

Chairperson Jeffries stated that the Board received emails supporting and opposing the same sex benefits. He asked for them to be part of the record.
(The emails are on file with the official Board materials)

Public Hearing

Chairperson Jeffries stated that at its meeting on August 26, 2002, the Board of Trustees reviewed a recommendation from College staff that the Board invoke its powers under PA 281 of 1998 to empower the College's Police and Public Safety Department officers to act as law enforcement and peace officers.
The recommendation proposed would not change the operation of LCC's Police and Public Safety Department or the responsibilities of its officers.
Nor would the College incur additional liability.
Prior to taking action on this recommendation, the Board of Trustees must hold two public hearings on the matter.

Chairperson Jeffries opened the floor for comments.

There were no comments from the public.

Chairperson Jeffries closed the public hearing.

Chairperson Jeffries stated that it had been requested that agenda item B, 2, a Healthcare, Bargaining Tentative Agreement be moved to the top of the agenda.


Bargaining Tentative Agreement

President Cunningham thanked members of the Coalition and the Board's bargaining team for their hard work throughout the last nine months.
The President presented the tentative agreement to the Board.

Trustee Canady stated that the agreement does not impose an obligation nor does it contain an affirmation that this board is extending same sex benefits.
What the agreement states is that the Coalition agrees to accept coverage for same sex domestic partners of full-time employees, if approved by the Board of Trustees during the course of this agreement.
Trustee Canady stated that it requires a separate resolution.

Trustee Rasmusson disagreed with Trustee Canady.

Trustee Canady felt that the issue of same sex domestic partner relationships needs to be segregated from this agreement.
He said that he is in favor of the tentative collective bargaining agreement, however, that issue was not bargained.
The language that appears from the Coalition makes it clear that it was not bargained for.
He moved for separation of same sex domestic relations and for the Board to first deal with the tentative agreement without that provision and then move on to the issue at hand.

Chairperson Jeffries asked for a roll call vote on the separation of same sex domestic partner benefits from the tentative agreement.

Roll call vote:
Canady, Patterson, Pelleran
Heywood, Holden, Jeffries, Rasmusson

Request failed due to lack of support.

Trustee Canady felt that a legal interpretation is needed because the agreement does not affirmatively state that the Board is offering these benefits.
He didn?t believe this was collectively bargained and the unions never asked for it.
From the language that appears in the tentative agreement it has never been offered.
Trustee Canady stated that he would be voting against the agreement because criteria has not been established.
He would propose that a criteria be established that states that the parties are of a legal age to enter into contracts, and then the fact they have a contract that is in place and is legal and enforceable that requires a division of their assets or their jointly acquired assets upon dissolution of their relationship.
He believes the Board should not give benefits for those people who just want to shack up.
Trustee Canady stated that he supports the Coalition with respect to what it is they have bargained for.
Same sex domestic partner benefits is something members of this Board wanted to give away and Trustee Canady felt that it is inappropriate and irresponsible with respect to their fiduciary duty to the taxpayers.
He felt that it is irresponsible from a collective bargaining standpoint.
Trustee Canady felt that the healthcare package being offered is good, but the way the Board has circumvented the Open Meetings Act, the way the Board has circumvented public debate on this issue is abominable.
By claiming this issue is part of collective bargaining, therefore, it is only discussed in closed session.
This has been the first time this evening that this has been discussed in open session.
Trustee Canady stated that tonight is the first time the Board was furnished with proposed criteria, which was distributed 15 minutes prior to the meeting.
He said that the administration stated at the outset of the negotiations process that the Board should wait until the unions ask for this benefit and some decided not to.
Trustee Canady felt that the Board shunned their responsibility; it is a disservice to the taxpayers and he will not be supporting it if that is the position the Board is going to take this evening.

Trustee Heywood stated that he appreciated Trustee Canady?s position and opinion.
He said that if he thought that this agreement was violating the Open Meetings Act, he would not be supporting it.
Trustee Heywood felt that the Board had not violated the Open Meetings Act or have done anything inappropriate.
He addressed the Board's fiduciary responsibility.
With the agreement there may be a .1 % to .02% increase in overall healthcare costs.
It is such a miniscule amount of money, but it creates openness and it says to the community that the Board respects and values them.
He would be voting for the agreement.

Trustee Holden stated that there has been precedent for this Board to have given monies that were not negotiated.
One occasion was to set aside $500,000 each time for faculty equity, which was not a negotiated item and was initiated by the Board.
The second occasion was to give tuition reimbursement for permanent part-time employees, which was also not negotiated.

Trustee Rasmusson wanted to state for the record that this has been part of the collective bargaining process.
The Board has been discussing this for months and he has received calls from the union regarding this issue.

Trustee Canady responded to Trustee Rasmusson that this was not placed on the table as part of formal negotiations and it is clear in the language that appears in the tentative agreement.
It doesn?t read that the Coalition has accepted it.
The agreement reads that if it is approved by the Board, then it will be accepted by the Coalition.
He disagrees with the assumption that the costs will be miniscule at this point in time underscores the ill advisedness of what's happening this evening.
There are no standards and the Board has not adopted a single criteria.
Trustee Canady stated that the Board is discussing this issue for the first time publicly is a crime.

Trustee Pelleran stated that she hoped the Board would have separated the two issues so that an open dialogue could occur.
She agreed with Trustee Canady that an open debate has not occurred and the Board should not operate that way.
Trustee Pelleran stated that she supports the human rights of those in the GLBT community.

Trustee Patterson thanked everyone in the audience for being at the meeting and for being interested in this issue and the College.
He said that everyone on the Board agrees on the premise of offering benefits to the College's employees.
However, the process by which the Board has entered into this issue is an abomination.
He agreed with Trustee Canady 100%.
Trustee Patterson stated that the Board has not had a regularly scheduled meeting.
The Board does not meet.
Their meetings are canceled, they have single issue, closed meetings.
He felt that the Board doesn?t debate anything or discuss issues.
Trustee Patterson said that this Board has not done its homework on this.
He addressed Trustee Heywood and stated that he is an advocate for this issue.
He said that Trustee Heywood has criticized him for being an advocate when he himself is advocating for this.
Trustee Patterson requested that the Board be given time to discuss this issue, and to say that it is going to cost $30,000 to $40,000 based on what.
There is no criteria and how can an estimate be given.
He said that he would not be voting for the tentative agreement.
The criteria was given to the Board 15 minutes prior to the meeting, which does not allow ample time to make a decision and some guidelines listed are unmanageable.
He read #8 from that document (it is on file with the official Board materials.)
the partners are jointly responsible to each other for the necessities of life.?
He asked how the College could manage this.
Trustee Patterson stated this was not bargained for, it was brought to the union and does not agree with it.
He said that this could be easily solved if more time was given for the Board to reach a consensus and discuss this in public.

Trustee Pelleran shared what the Board was sent on the 15th and it said in the materials ?the same sex domestic partner benefits proposal is still being researched and will be sent in your Board packets.?
She said that the Board did not receive anything in the Board packet except the statement in the tentative agreement, which does not offer same sex partner benefits.
She said that the note she just read was then omitted in the Board packet.
The only information that she was given, and she read it for the record, ?Michigan State University has approximately .6% of their employees take advantage of same sex benefits.
Marsh, Inc., (the healthcare consultants that have been hired by the College to help with healthcare benefits) forecasts a 1% increase in the overall cost of healthcare to the College.
If these numbers hold true,? and she emphasized ?if these numbers hold true?, she said that there is nothing that says these numbers will hold true.
She continued reading, ?we estimate a cost ranging from $30,000 to $40,000.
These benefits will be made available to both bargaining and non-bargaining employees.?
Trustee Pelleran stated that nothing has been provided to the Board in order to make a solid, sound, fiscal decision.
She said that she supports the human rights of everyone and everyone should have health benefits.
But the process by which the Board has followed has not been open and has not been well researched.
The Board has not heard from the insurance carriers on this issue.
Trustee Pelleran would like to have a presentation to see what the costs may be and what the experience is.

President Cunningham stated she felt it was important to remind the Board what it is they have said to her and to the negotiating team regarding same sex benefits.
Queen Foreman McMiller?s statement that was read into the record indicated that since 1999 presentations have been made regarding same sex benefits.
This Board also discussed this issue one and a half years ago.
The Board asked for a report regarding which entities were providing same sex benefits and this report was provided to the Board.
In addition, it is difficult to know the number of people that would participate in same sex benefits as the College does not ask, upon employment, of their sexual preference.
It is illegal and the College does not and will not ask that.
Therefore, there will never be a way to inform the Board exactly about the number of people who will take advantage of same sex benefits until that is asked of employees.
All that the administration has to go on is what other entities have experienced and the advice of the consultants, Marsh, Inc., who the College has hired to assist with healthcare benefits.

President Cunningham responded to the comments made by several Trustees regarding having just received the criteria.
She said that there was conflicting information as to whether or not the Board actually needs to adopt the procedures.
The Board did not adopt the procedures for the Family Medical Leave Act, Critical Family Illness, or other types of healthcare related issues.
President Cunningham reminded the Board that when they discussed healthcare with Marsh, Inc., every question regarding healthcare was asked, including same sex benefits.
The administration has responded to all of the Board's questions and requests.
No one asked specific questions regarding same sex benefits, although overwhelmingly the majority of the Board requested to give it to the unions whether they ask for it or not.
It was not the administration?s understanding that the Board would treat same sex domestic partner benefits differently than the way they?ve treated other types of healthcare benefits in the past in terms of implementation.
President Cunningham stated that whatever the Board wishes in terms of looking at this procedure, the administration would be happy to provide that.
She asked the Board to not blame the negotiation team or the administration if questions have not been asked.

Trustee Patterson stated he is not being critical of the administration.
He said that the administration has been very clear on this issue.
Trustee Patterson asked the president of the bargaining unit how same sex benefits got back on the table.

Ms. Lynn Savage stated that it was placed on the table by the Board.

Mr. Barry Stearns stated that criteria had not been discussed with the Coalition at this point.

Trustee Patterson asked how did this get on the table without being negotiated.

President Cunningham asked Mr. Tim Zeller to respond to Trustee Patterson?s question.

Mr. Zeller stated he wanted to speak to the criteria.
The criteria is not developed by the Board or the employees.
The criteria is developed by the health insurance carriers and they define what a domestic partner is, the same sex partner, what it means to be supporting each other in the necessities of life and what it takes to prove that.
This criteria must be met before coverage is given.

Trustee Canady stated that he has no complaints about the administration whatsoever.
He felt the administration gave the Board good advice, but members of the Board did not want to follow it.
With respect to the criteria, he does not look at it as implementing the benefits, but rather defining who will these benefits be offered to, which is in the providence of the Board.
Trustee Canady feels that the criteria does not go far enough and the Board has created what is essentially a discriminatory system against heterosexual couples because the standard is higher.
Primarily because of the legally mandated or consensually agreed to division of assets upon termination of the relationship.
If this was added, he would not have a problem with it.

Chairperson Jeffries asked if there was support to Trustee Canady?s suggestion.

There was no support for his suggestion.

Trustee Pelleran referred to what the Board received last week.
She questions when she is told that the domestic partner benefits proposal is still being researched and will be sent in the Board packet.
She asked if the paragraph she read before is the essence of the research.

President Cunningham responded that there were two days difference between what the Trustees received regarding healthcare negotiations and when the Board received their packets.
The administration was looking at costs, which was a question Trustee Patterson had asked, other employers who offer these benefits was being reviewed, that was part of what was being researched and this information was not available when the benefits information was sent out regarding the costs for MESSA and benefits for other employees.
If there was a question about the packet or wanting more information, the Trustees could have called the administration.
President Cunningham stated the first time she heard that Trustee Pelleran was unhappy about this was this evening.

Trustee Holden stated that she would be supporting same sex benefits and the healthcare contract.
However, she is opposed, along with the LCC administration, about the recommendation of going with MESSA Tri-Med for the bargaining employees.
Trustee Holden gave the following reasons why she is opposed to MESSA as the healthcare provider:
The reluctance of this carrier to coexist with other health care providers within a defined group, limiting options for our employees; refusal of MESSA to consider plan design changes; and refusal to share experience data with the institution.
She realizes that this is the choice of the bargaining employees, but she wanted it on the record her reasons for opposing MESSA.

Trustee Heywood stated that it has always been the activity of this Board to adopt a policy and allow the administration to enforce it and develop an implementation plan.
The Board is creating a policy that ensures benefits to same sex partners, which is a standard, legal definition at this point after 20 years of offering this around the country.
People know what you mean when you say a same sex partner.
He said that it does not refer to a roommate, it refers to two people of the same sex who are in a committed, sexual-based relationship, that's the definition, and that's the reality.
Trustee Heywood stated that it is the purview of the administration to implement it and it is the Board's job to create the policy.

Trustee Pelleran stated that there is a process issue that some Trustees are concerned with.
It is a process issue on how the Board conducts business in an open forum or choose not to do so.
She supports having domestic partner benefits for the employees.
Trustee Pelleran stated the debate should happen in a public session.

Chairperson Jeffries asked for clarification that if the Board adopts the tentative agreement, will same sex benefits be offered to the employees.

President Cunningham responded, yes, that it was the intent that passing this would also allow same sex partner benefits, if that is what the Board wants to do.

Chairperson Jeffries asked Mr. Stearns if that was his understanding if the Board, adopts the tentative agreement, as written, his members would have same sex partner benefits.

Mr. Stearns responded that was correct.

Trustee Canady pointed out that the first rule of government is language of a document adopted speaks for itself.
He pointed out that the tentative agreement does not do that.
Trustee Canady said that there is a legal loophole and a separate resolution is needed.

There was discussion regarding the criteria and the difference some carriers have in regards to the length of time of a domestic partner relationship.

Chairperson Jeffries asked Mr. Stearns if there would be a problem in delaying the ratification of the agreement.

Mr. Stearns responded that there would be a problem because the implementation date is set for December 1.

Trustee Canady asked if the provision for same sex partner benefits was separated and the rest of the agreement was ratified tonight, would that cause a problem.

Mr. Stearns responded that in his opinion that would not be a problem.
If the Board wished to separate the agreement, it would allow time for the Trustees to review this and verify how many people would apply for this benefit.

IT WAS MOVED by Trustee Rasmusson and supported by Trustee Heywood to ratify the healthcare tentative agreement.

Roll call vote:
Heywood, Holden, Jeffries, Pelleran, Rasmusson
Canady, Patterson

Motion carried.

Trustee Pelleran stated that it would have been nice to have had a real solid resolution and a real solid level of support.
It would have been nice to have had a 7-0 vote on that.
She would have postponed the portion on the same sex partner benefits for at least two weeks to have reached a consensus.
She thinks this will be a real benefit to the College's employees and their families.

The Board took a short recess at 7:00 p.m.

The Board returned at 7:15 p.m.

Non-Bargaining Proposal

President Cunningham thanked the Board for their support of the negotiating team.
This Board has done a lot in the past two or three years that others have not done including settling seven labor agreements in record time, an M-TEC proposal, a Facilities Master Plan, a strategic plan, and the millage.
She said that there will always be debate, but thanked the Board for the work they have done.
President Cunningham presented the non-bargaining healthcare proposal to the Board.
She said that there are approximately 107 individuals who are not part of the bargaining unit and being consistent with previous practice, the College also looks at benefits for them anytime there are negotiations with bargaining employees.
She asked Mr. Tim Zeller or Mr. David Davidson to address this agenda item.

Mr. Davidson stated that the administration is recommending that non-bargaining employees stay with the current carriers of Community Blues and PHP with changes in plan design.
In addition, non-bargaining employees will receive $200 reimbursable for uninsured health care.

Chairperson Jeffries asked the Board if there were any questions or comments from the Board.

The Board did not have any questions or comments.

Chairperson Jeffries asked for a roll call vote.

Roll call vote:
Heywood, Holden, Jeffries, Pelleran, Rasmusson
Canady, Patterson

The non-bargaining health care proposal was approved.

Chairperson and Board Member Reports


Calendar of Meetings for 2002-2003 and 2003-2004

Chairperson Jeffries presented the 2002-2003, 2003-2004 schedule of Board meetings.

Trustee Pelleran stated that there was a typo in May 17, 2004.
It should read public hearing on the 2004-2005 budget.

Trustee Patterson asked if the dates through 2003 were secure at this point.

Chairperson Jeffries stated that it is always at the will at the Board.
For the September meeting, the Board was polled and it was the will of the Board to not have the meeting.
He reminded the Board that when a request for a purchase of over $100,000 is received and it is outside of the regular meetings, then a special meeting would be held.

Trustee Patterson stated that the meeting dates on the schedule conflict with the Lansing City Council meeting and asked how would that be handled.

Chairperson Jeffries stated that it would be dealt with when that situation arises.

Board Member Reports

Trustee Olga Holden - Foundation Board and MCCA

Trustee Holden reported that Dan McCormick was hired to develop a strategic plan.
He recently presented an implementation plan to the Foundation Board, and it was unanimously supported.
Trustee Holden reminded everyone of Lip Sync on November 10 and tickets are $25.
She also reported that there is a tentative meeting of the LCC Board and Foundation Board on November 13 at 7:30 a.m.
The need for communication between both boards has been discussed.
Trustee Holden asked President Cunningham and Mr. Chris Laverty if there was any additional information to be shared.

Mr. Laverty stated that on October 22 the finalists for the Executive Director position of the Foundation are being reviewed.
Those interviews will be conducted on November 8 and hopefully a recommendation would then be made to President Cunningham.

Trustee Holden reported that she attended the MCCA Board of Directors on October 4, 2002.
MCCA is officially supporting changing election dates from June to November.
In technology, they are discussing having good procedures for transferring credits for the on-line consortium.
MCCA acknowledged that LCC is ahead of the other colleges in the state.
The concern that has arisen is who grants the credits and how do they get transferred.
Trustee Holden stated that the next MCCA Board of Directors would be held at Lansing Community College.

Trustee Todd Heywood - Smoking Policy Forum

Trustee Heywood reported that he attended the Smoking Policy Forum held prior to the implementation of the policy.
There were approximately 8 people in attendance.
It was an interesting experience.
Having spoken with President Cunningham, faculty, students who have been affected by the policy new information is being reviewed.

President Cunningham stated that they are reviewing information that Trustees Heywood and Rasmusson submitted in terms of taking another look at the implementation and enforceability of the language that currently exists and what needs to be changed, if anything, within the existing policy.
Police and Public Safety has been asked to not enforce any type of punitive consequences for those that violate the policy, but ask violators to step to a public arena so they are not by the door wells.
President Cunningham reported that up to now there were approximately two incidents where individuals refused to move and they have been handled very professionally.
However, the Trustees? concerns are being reviewed along with investigating the costs of acquiring smoking shanties, and a recommendation will be made to the Board's policy committee.

President's Report


Human Resources



Kay Berke, Director, Assessment Center, Assessment Center

Student and Academic Support Division

Wayne Provines, Finance Officer, Executive Office, Business Office

Mary Speiser, Program Director, Information Technology and

Office Systems, Business and Media Careers

Melissa Kaplan, Production Coordinator, Humanities and Performing Arts,

Liberal Studies


Brian Bishop, Faculty Member - Fine Arts Foundation, Visual Arts and Media,

Art, Design and Multi-Media

Brian Jordon, Faculty Member - Biology, Science Department, Liberal

Studies Division

Trustee Holden requested a report that lists how many faculty members have been added. She stated that she is always pleased to see part-time employees obtaining full-time employment

Course Fees

President Cunningham presented the course fees information to the Board for their consideration and discussion.
This item will be brought forward for Board action at next month?s meeting.

Trustee Holden asked if the Long-term Care Nurse Intern Program was a certificate program.

Mr. Jim Predko responded that this course is a bridge course for LPN?s who wish to go into practice in a long-term care facility.
It would also allow students who complete the first year of the program to go into this employer sponsored training.
Mr. Predko stated that it is additional training for those that desire to specialize in long-term care.

Trustee Holden asked what is the duration of the course.

Mr. Predko responded that it is an eight-week course.

Trustee Holden stated that in reviewing the course fee it seems this would lead to a license or something similar.

Mr. Predko stated that this is a requirement that the health care providers have for any employee that they would hire as an LPN.

Trustee Heywood stated that he is tired of nickel and diming students to death with course fee costs.
Looking at the personnel costs, particularly with the costs associated with the Long-term Care Nurse program, is $375, $250 of which goes over the instructional personnel costs to the College of 16 lecture hours per credit with 32 lab hours per credit.
He asked why is the College not making this a higher credit class and charging students for the actual number of credits instead of charging them with fees.
Trustee Heywood said that when the Board takes action on this item, he would be voting against it.

President Cunningham reminded the Board that staff would be submitting a proposal regarding tuition based on contact hours versus credit hours, which will come forward with the regular budget.
She stated that these are new programs and it is common throughout the state that students who enroll in these courses pay for the courses versus distributing the costs amongst all students, and throughout the entire institution, which are not enrolled in these high-demand, highly-technical classes.

EISD Contract

President Cunningham presented the Eaton Intermediate School District (EISD) contract.
She stated that this is a contract between Lansing Community College and Eaton Intermediate School District.
Approximately 800 students from EISD enroll in courses at the College.
Last year the cost was $964,000 for the services the College provides to EISD students.
This year it is almost $1 million and costs are continuously being reviewed to ensure this is a cost recovery program.
President Cunningham stated that the language has been revised after a number of years of having the same contract language in place.
The College's attorneys have reviewed the contract and the legal counsel of EISD is currently reviewing it.

This will be brought forward for Board action at the November Board meeting.

Facilities Master Plan

President Cunningham stated that what was before the Board are changes being submitted to the State.
The Board at prior meetings has approved all the changes.
She said that it is required by the State?s budget office that the College renew the facilities master plan on an annual basis in order to be considered for capitol outlay dollars.
This plan use to be due to the State in November and it is now due in October.

Action Items

Approval of Minutes - August 26, 2002 Special Meeting, September 6, 2002, October 2, 2002 Special Meeting

President Cunningham presented the August 26, 2002; September 6, 2000; and the October 2, 2002 meeting minutes for the Board's review and/or approval.

Trustee Pelleran submitted two changes in the August 26, 2002 meeting minutes.
On page 9 at the end of the second paragraph she would like added, ?Pelleran stated ?No there wasn't, I wrote it myself.??
She referred to page 12 where Chairperson Jeffries stated emails were to be distributed.
Trustee Pelleran stated the Board did not receive copies of those documents.

There was discussion regarding the $500,000 figure on page 18 of the August 26, 2002 Board meeting minutes and whether it was the accurate figure.
Chief Information Officer Cerny clarified that it was the accurate figure based on the analysis conducted.

IT WAS MOVED by Trustee Heywood and supported by Trustee Rasmusson to approve the August 26, 2002; September 6, 2002; and the October 2, 2002 meeting minutes including the amendments made.

Canady, Heywood, Holden, Jeffries, Patterson, Pelleran, Rasmusson

Motion carried.

Public Comment

President Cunningham reported that Officer John Imeson has worked very diligently to control the traffic problem on Grand Avenue.
There are now two lanes entering into the parking ramp versus one lane.
She thanked Officer Imeson and staff for working together to solve this problem, which did not incur any costs to the College.


The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.

Lansing Community College Trustees

LCC Board of Trustees
Administration Bldg
Phone: (517) 483-5252
Additional contact information »

Facebook Twitter YouTube