MAT Executive Council Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, March 27, 2001
Room 2-c
Rio Salado College
2:00pm - 4:00pm
Ann Barrett called a regular meeting of the MAT Executive Council to order at 2:00pm.

Those attending: Bill Coppola, Suzanne Martin, Polly Miller, Sandra Mares, Chrystle Hall, Jan Binder, Dee Jacobs, Emily Weinacker, Norm Godin, Sara L. Rassas, David Gerkin, Johnice Wilkins, Rick Kemp, Barbara Yancy, Sue Kater, Marina Gorton, Rick DeGraw.

GROUND RULES
  • Meetings will start on time.
  • Meetings will end on time.
  • Everybody must be respectful of the opinions of others.
  • A topic must be "finished" before moving on.
  • What is said remains in the room.
  • Have fun.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2/27/00
ACTION ITEM: The minutes were approved by consensus.

BOARD REPORTS
President's report
  • The topic of MAT Evaluations was introduced, as well as the guest speaker Brenda Stocklin-Smith (from employee relations).
  • Volunteers were solicited for an evaluations committee, not permanent. The goal for this committee needs to be specific. Partnering with incoming MAT president was suggested. People outside MEC are wanted on this committee. Time commitment is still TBA.
  • A precise time line for this project has not yet been identified. Following is a rough sketch:
    • Identify couple of objectives by fall
    • By April:
    • By March: identify source of funding and who will be on committee
    • Considering leadership breakfast (200 people)
  • What does appraisal process intend to accomplish? What would MAT employees value?
  • There will be a presentation on evaluation tools and training at the conference.
  • Should MAT have three different kinds of evaluations?
  • Is there a possibility of eliminating evaluations? Should they be formal or informal?
  • An evaluation tool was previously developed during a one year trial, where did the information from this trial go to?
  • Some supervisors used 360 degree evaluations instead of the pilot.
  • It was suggested that the minutes be distributed to all of MAT.
  • It was also stated that the evaluation tool will have to be comprehensive incase the district moves to performance-based pay.
  • If there is no evaluation in the personnel file, it is assumed that an employee is satisfactory.
  • Problems with the current tool include: time involved, effectively describing behavior. In the future, evaluations will be tied to anniversary date so that they can be spread out over time.
  • An article form HR magazine was distributed.

Treasurer's report
Professional Growth Report - written

MEC COMMITTEE REPORTS
Activity Committee - Conference Report
  • A written report was distributed.
  • 162 people have signed up and "last chance" announcement will be sent out 03/27/01. All of the speakers are lined up, things are fine budget-wise, and everybody is doing what they're supposed to be doing.
  • A sample of the pin was passed around.
  • Some speakers will be vending their books.
  • AV is being provided by Glendale.
  • There are no EBAC discussions scheduled for the conference.
  • It was suggested that MAT volunteers for the evaluation committee be sought at the conference.
  • Unit Presidents were encouraged to spread the word about the MAT Employees' Annual Meeting. Many of the concerns that go to M&C are collected here.

Activity Committee - Reception Report
  • This report will be emailed to MEC.

Grievance/Collaborative Resolution - Legal Fund Report
  • Recommended procedure worked. A written version of the procedure to be followed will be submitted at the next meeting.

Membership Ad Hoc Committee - Report
  • Membership card is made. It will be ready for the conference.

Policy Manual Change -
  • Some of the language in policy manual was incongruent with current practice, therefore changes have been made. A copy of these changes will be emailed to all MEC members.
  • If a person is already on sabbatical they cannot receive any additional funding (for conferences, etc.)

Resources and By-Laws -
  • It was suggested that the process of electing MAT Presidents begin earlier. The idea would be that potential presidents could attend the Retreat with written consent from their campus for reassign time. They could also submit a brief document stating what they plan to do with their reassign time (clerical assistant, divided with President Elect). This document could be submitted in response to four or five questions developed by MEC.
  • Not many people want job.
  • What's involved in the job must be more clearly defined. Benefits of being on MEC must be identified, should be made a positive thing.
  • A person is guaranteed to get their same job back when returning from being MEC President.
  • The Bylaws and Nominating Committees may want to partner in order to identify and write down the steps of the election process down and send them out to see what people think.
  • Future MEC Presidents will need data to make good decisions on what they'd like to do with their reassign time. What MAT ought to be doing (presence at functions) should be considered.
  • That a small number of people are expected to do a large number of things was pointed out. This may account for the lack of interest in joining MEC.
  • A new Cluster II Representative will be sought.

DISTRICT COMMITTEE REPORTS
EBAC -no official report was scheduled, but topic was brought up.
  • Blue cross raised rates 16.5% instead of the expected 12%. The Governing Board will absorb this cost for the next year only.
  • MCCCD's coverage seems to be a little bit better than that of other companies. More data is needed on what services are being used most often, also the thirty most expensive individuals are being looked at.
  • A summary-type document to provide to employees was requested.
  • There was some concern about having no EBAC discussion scheduled at the conference. People want to know about this.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Reclassification Discussion
  • As much input as possible will be required.
  • . . .
  • The creation of a diverse focus is important.
  • . . .
  • Information collected will be summarized and written, then sent out for approval by MEC. The document should be sent to Dr. Randolph a week before the meeting so that he could review it and possibly come in to comment on it.
  • Many technical people seem to want their own employee group. They feel that their not being paid what they should be, some are leaving.
  • That technology should have their own group was proposed in the Hastings study, six years ago.
  • The number MAT employees who have quit is the same for 1995 as it is for 2000, whereas the number of MAT employees has increased. Percentage of employees who have quit has therefore decreased.
  • Why do the MAT technology people talk about pulling out while the PSA technology people do not? Higher level PSA people are apparently leaving.
  • If MAT shrinks by one third will it lose its clout?
  • The market value of technology employees has gone down over past 9 to 12 months.
  • Technology people are not compensated for doing extra work because they are part of MAT.
  • Page two, bullet three of the Reclassification document that was distributed during the meeting states roughly that at larger colleges people do more work. This argument is weak and is an indication that jobs should be rewritten to correspond with the roles necessitated by each individual college's functioning.

PLUS-DELTA
Plus
  • Good reports.
  • Conference coming together nicely.
Delta
  • Projector: noisy, takes too much space.
  • Room too small.
  • Side conversations were distracting.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:00pm.

Approved 04/24/01. Posted 04/30/01.