 Normally we would introduce everyone. I don't know if that's feasible with all this group. A lot of people here to introduce. Why don't the trustees introduce themselves and then we can go on to the administrative and presidents and other people. Thank you. Mary Marie from Rutland, city. Okay, I'm Lynn Dickinson. I'm the chair of the board and I'm from St. Alvin's town. Janet Bombardier from Chroma Technology, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Technology Officer and Living Call Tester. Ryan, I'll let you go next. Ryan Cooney, I'm the student trustee, a junior in the pilot program at VTC, Williston. Dylan. Hey everyone, this is Dylan Chiamatis. I'm one of the legislative trustees. David. David Silverman, Morrisville resident, NVU 1985. 1985 and I think I'm a board nominated trustee. Karen. I'm Karen Lunow from St. Alvin's city, a trustee. Board elected trustee as well. Previously gubernatorial appointee and co-owner of Handy Toyota, Handy Chevrolet and St. Alvin's. Okay, Megan. Good afternoon, Megan Kluver. I live in Heinsberg and I'm a trustee and also a member of Deloitte's higher education practice. Adam, you're next. Oh, hi everybody. Adam Grenold, I live in Willington. I'm a gubernatorial appointee and a graduate of Castleton in 95. Jim. Hi there, Jim Maslin, legislative trustee living in Thepard Center. And Bill. Legislative trustee representing Heinsberg. Okay, I think that does all the trustees. We have 11 trustees here today. Sophie, would you like to introduce the administrative staff for the various people that are here? Sure, so I'm Sophie Zidatny. I'm the Chancellor of the Vermont State College System. And I see we have Jen Poirier who is our office manager administrator. We have Catherine Lavassa who's our director of external and government relations. We have Patti Turley, our general counsel. I'm looking for my office. I have Yasmeen Zeisler who's our chief academic officer. Kevin Conroy, our chief information technology officer. We have Catherine Santiago who's just joined our office as the assistant general counsel and title nine investigator. System investigator. And I believe that's, oh, and Renee Hunt who has just joined us as controller. So those are the folks from the Chancellor's office. Oh, and Katrina Meg, sorry, Katrina. He's our system HR director and benefits person. And Sharon Scott. Oh, and I didn't see Sharon, but Sharon Scott, our chief financial officer and chief operating officer. Okay, and the presidents. Let's see, I know we have Elaine Collins here. She's the president of Northern Vermont University. Pat Moulton, who's the president of Vermont Technical College. I saw Joyce Judy. She is the president of CCD. And I saw Jonathan. He's the president. Jonathan, where are you? Jonathan's the president of Castleton University. And we have some members of the public here. We have, let's say, well, we have Lola Dufour who's here from Mont Digger. She's here fairly often. And others. We have Nick Giovanni. He is here who is an attorney representing the schools and negotiations sometimes. Anyone else that's a member of the public that we would like to not forget? Oh, Linda Olson's here. She's here from the faculty. And who's CDG06180? I'm guessing it's not Charles De Gaulle, but I'm not sure. This is Karen Madden. I signed in late, but I am here. Okay. Are you CDG06180? No, ma'am. So who is that? Jen, do you know? I don't, but I would like to. Well, please introduce yourself so we can welcome you. It appears they don't have sound. They are unmuted though. We'll look it up on our end. We can probably figure it out. Okay. This is Jamie Ventura on the Associate Dean of Athletics at MBU in CDG. It's Chris Gilmourney, the Director of Athletics at. Okay, very good. Thank you very much, Jamie. Okay, it's a little after one and we are going to call the meeting to order. We start with the approval of minutes from the October 16th and October 29th meetings, special board meetings. The October 16th was the regularly scheduled board meeting and the October 29th was a special board meeting. Would anyone have any motions either to accept or amend the minutes of that meeting? Those meetings. I move to accept both. Okay, Mary, Moran is accepting both. Second on that? Adam will second that. Adam seconds that. Is there any discussion on any of that? If not, all those in favor of approving those minutes, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Seeing none, we'll move down to the Chancellor's update. Sophie, that's for you. Thank you. Yeah, so just to fill folks in initially on the Legislative Select Committee, we did receive the draft outline for the initial report that was issued by Enchamps, the external consulting firm that was retained to assist the Legislative Select Committee. That was discussed at the Select Committee meeting that was held on November 9th. Based on the discussion of the draft outline, there will be an additional Select Committee meeting next Monday, the November 23rd, as well as the meeting that had already been scheduled for November 30th. The report, so if anyone looked at the draft outline, it was bullets, it was like 20 pages of bullet points. I assume it's gonna be converted into regular English and that the report will be issued on Friday, December 4th. Our next board meeting, full board meeting will be on Monday, December 7th. As of right now, my understanding is the external consultant group is continuing to meet with external and internal stakeholders. And we did just jumping ahead to the Long Range Planning Committee piece. We did have a lengthy discussion about the Select Committee and its workings at our last full board meeting. So the draft outline contains several recommendations, including many things that the VSC is already working on based on the board's prior charges and the strategic priorities planning that's underway. So for example, we're already working on standardizing core education program, focusing on short-term workforce-oriented programming, delivering selected majors throughout the state via different modalities, collaborating on programs between Carselton and Northern Vermont University, centralizing a web-based catalog of VSC online courses with full transferability within the system, increasing coaching and other student supports, coordinating administrative services, many of those have already been undertaken and are managed centrally already, but there are some additional ones that we're working on such as a procurement process doing that on a system-wide basis. We're also working on a variety of actions under the program array and delivery, such as working to minimize section sizes, streamlining the general education curriculum, creating new sub-baccalaureate credential programs aligned with employer needs and non-credit programming that can be converted into stackable credentials, adapting delivery models to deliver a more streamlined student-centered experience, providing students with funded opportunities for meaningful work experiences through paid internships for academic credit, moving to a system-wide budget and starting work on a system-wide policy on distribution of institutional aid and tuition waivers. And then we're also exploring ways to reduce the inventory of our physical facilities by repurposing space for use by partners and entrepreneurial activities as well as providing opportunities for experiential learning. So those are all things that are listed in the draft outline that was provided by NCHEMS that we're already undertaking. There were a number of other proposals in there that we have not yet actively explored. So it discussed a single accreditation for Castleton and NVU, creating a new unit to be responsible for online programming system-wide, adult career and technical education being moved from the agency of education to the system, the possible creation of a separate subsidiary service corporation, early retirement and separation and centers for faculty and staff, demolition of buildings that cannot be safely refurbished or renovated, adoption of an affordability standard based on a shared responsibility model, coming up with strategies for local economic development, as well as ways the board can better exercise its oversight role. So those were some of the other things that were listed in there that again, it's probably worth having additional discussions about as we move forward. We've also been working with the administration and the general assembly over the past few weeks. We will be discussing our capital and appropriations request as part of the update on finance and facilities that's coming up later this meeting. We did meet with the administration on Friday to discuss the capital bill request and we will be meeting with the administration next Monday to discuss our appropriation request. We're working to keep the governor and legislative leaders apprised of the anticipated budget deficit for this year and we will be talking about that more in the finance and facilities discussion. So looking ahead, I mean, at the executive committee meeting that was held on November 5th, there was a discussion about the trustee's interest in wanting to know what decisions need to be made when and by whom. We have been keeping an eye on what's happening with the legislative select committee and waiting to see how that goes as well as waiting for some guidance from both the governor and the general assembly in terms of what additional bridge funding, if any, we can expect for next fiscal year. But it isn't clear that we're going to have clear answers in the short term and we are facing a significant budget deficit of 42 to $47 million. So I did want to just sort of open this up for discussion with the trustees in terms of thoughts on moving forward and just making sure that we're in the best possible position to assist the board making decisions when you have to make them, given that we do not want to be in the similar situation that we were in last April. So I just wanted to open that up for discussion if there were thoughts that the trustees had in terms of moving forward on this. Anyone have any thoughts or discussions on this? Megan. Thanks. I would actually make a motion here but let me outline my thinking and maybe we can discuss this further. I suggest that maybe we make, that as we go forward here, it's clear from what Sophie shared that we will need to take some action and we don't know what that action is quite yet but given our last discussion in the executive committee, there is work that the system can be doing to be prepared to implement once we have decisions in a clear path forward. So I'd suggest that the system office could begin to put together implementation team who would be on it, how many people will be needed, how much it would cost to pull together the team that we need to implement and to also identify what the decision structure would be as we have a path forward and then as we start to implement that there will be a number of decisions that need to be made on an ongoing basis and clarity around what decisions get escalated to an executive committee and who's on that committee, what decisions get escalated fully to the board and what decisions get made on working groups. So I would make a motion that we direct the chancellor's office to work with the presidents and with the colleges to start to outline what those implementation teams and what that decision structure would be so that we're ready to move once we have a clear path forward. Karen, I second the motion. Janet, you had your hand up. Yeah, it kind of goes along the vein of thinking that Megan was bringing up and maybe it's more of a question. So when I look through the report, there's gonna be any number of recommendations for the moment I don't care what they are, right? How they go from being on a list to being prioritized understanding what's in its way like does it require legislation? Does the governor got to do it, you know, who, who? You know, is there an approval mechanism versus a decision mechanism? Like what could be in the way? And then the implementation. The list is way too long. Long, it might be incredible, but it's too long, right? So there's gotta be a process that goes from that report to what has to get done. And I'm not necessarily in disagreement, Megan, with what you're saying at all. I was thinking the same thing. I'm just more concerned the list is too long and I don't know what's in the way of the system implementing whatever they view as the top part of that list. So that's my concern is that the list is maybe great, but unless it's prioritized and also dominoed, you can't do this until you do this. I think the whole thing's gonna be ugly. So whether it's supporting what Megan said, I just wanted to put it out there that I don't know and maybe somebody who's on the committee could explain, do we know how that is the report supposed to go from report to implement? Is that been discussed or talked about or? Megan, first on Karen. Yeah, so Jen, I think you're bringing up a question that and Joyce, you may have some input here. So I'm the trustee on that select committee and on the steering committee. And in our last steering committee, Janet, you bring up some questions that we actually discussed with the consultant. And I think there's an ambiguity right now in terms of when the select committee produces a report, how it goes from a report to action and what role the board and what role the legislature will have in, as you say, prioritizing and deciding what's in that report. I do know it's being that that topic is being discussed, which I think will help. But I do think there will be some need to prioritize even as the report gets fleshed out and they'll be need to prioritize by us as a board. Karen? Thank you. I did have the opportunity to sit in on most of the meeting and I hoping that I'll be able to sit in on the others. My assumption, and this is just an assumption, there's way too, it was a very inclusive list, very inclusive. And piggybacking on what Janet said, obviously everything that's mentioned by everybody that they talked to was not gonna be part of the report. And the bullets seemed to me to include much of that. It was very inclusive to make sure that people had an opportunity to react. And my assumption is, Megan and Joyce, that your group will streamline it. And I don't pretend to know the process by which this will go through the appropriate entities in the legislature and then come to the board. But as it passes through, as it passes through, it passes through and ultimately decision makers have to take that information and make decisions. And like any decision, there may be things that are added back in or things that are taken out is my assumption of how this process is gonna work. That's just my thinking. Yeah. This is Joyce, and I think what Karen has just described is fairly, is pretty accurate. I think in the end, the NCHEMS will submit a report. I think they're hoping that they get support unit, probably not unanimous, but consensus from the select board, select committee. And then I think it's really up to the legislature and this board to take and enact it or enact pieces of it or whatever. But I think that they're going to put together what they think it makes the most sense. I think they're, and they've been getting a lot of input from a lot of different people. I think they're hoping that the select committee will endorse that plan. But then in the end, it's really the legislature, the governor and this board making the decision on what is really gonna move forward in terms of that, because the select committee doesn't have any power. It's just making recommendations the same way that NCHEMS is pulling this all together. And their goal was the first draft. And in some ways, I think on one hand, they wanted to put out a draft because they wanted to get reaction to it. I think the other is they understood it's really broad. And I think they wanted to see where there was traction. And then I suspect that their next report is gonna be far more narrow and we'll hone in on three, four, five, I don't know, but a very specific number. So I think you'll see it going from, this is my assumption, is that it will go from being very broad and an inch deep to far deeper with decisions that are then supported with data. So this is why we're, I'm using, this is why NCHEMS is recommending this particular strategy because they believe it's prudent based on the data. So I think you're gonna see going from a very broad, they put a lot in there to see what has traction, what is of interest, then they will use that plus the data that they have to put together a report that's much more focused. They're hoping that, I mean, they've been working with the select committee to get consensus. But in the end, and I think, in talking with legislative leadership, they need, they want a plan that is pretty bold and then they will have to decide they, along with the board and along with the governor, how this is gonna go forward in terms of, how is it gonna be funded? How is it gonna be supported? So I think that there's a lot of work that has to happen before December 4th. And then once that, and let's remember the December 4th is another draft that our goal was to get it in front of the governor with some specifics so that if there's funding implications that it might help to inform his budget building. But then there will be another draft in early February and then the final draft. So there's a lot of phases to go through but Janet, you ask a really good question. In the end, it's this board, the legislature and the governor that is really gonna be making the final decisions and how you finesse all of that is gonna be the challenge going forward. I'm gonna do Adam first and then Janet. Thank you. So going forward, right now we have about a $42 million challenge, right? And we've gotta come up with these solutions in partnership with everyone mentioned so far. Ultimately, it will be a decision of the trustees if we do not receive the funding necessary to operate the system as is. And so I just, I don't know if we're, I have not yet heard what the sort of parallel path is. So we're working on suggestions which might help the system. But in reading that report, I didn't see anything that was of significant reduction in costs that would reach the magnitude of the challenge that we're staring down in the size of the $42 million is significant. So how do we prepare sort of two paths where we continue to go down this path where we're finding solutions for improvements, efficiencies, all these system improvements but come this spring, come next fall, at some point, if we have to make a decision, what information do we have to be gathering financially to make a decision what has to be cut in order to save the system? And I still believe that we're not gonna nibble around the edges on this, there's gonna have to be some significant alterations. And I didn't see that, that didn't jump off the page in that bullet point select committee report. It talks about making sure we have the political will to make really challenging decisions. It talks about knocking a building down here or there but it doesn't really identify significant system-wide change that would bring a $42 million deficit into control. So hopefully we're working on both of these. And I think we start as trustees need to start to understand where if we lose a campus, what does that save? We don't even, I don't think we've had that information yet. We have costs that will continue to go on. So is that even a savings that's worth pursuing? At some point, we're gonna have to have that understanding to make an informed decision. Megan, is that the point of this motion to try to come up with a plan, another pathway? I think Bibloster Janet, I think you were next and then we have Karen. Yeah, so kind of along the lines with Adam just thinking and Joyce, Judy, maybe you can answer this is whenever I look at a big list of ideas of things I can do to solve a problem. I do my fast sort, right? What's my fast sort for the problem we have, right? So if we say we have a cost issue, so I wanna know everything that's gonna save me a less than 500K, less than a million, less than 2 million. I don't in buckets. And then I would do time to implement zero to six months, six to 12, 12 to two years. Some fast sorting that at least for the list of ideas and put the, I would put other considerations aside. It's really easy for people to wanna say, yeah, but what about this? What about this? But if you just do a fast sort on a cup three criteria, some things are either gonna float to the top or not and go, huh, this thing's like doable in the shortest amount of time, we'll save quite a bit of money. And then you say, and what are the other implications? And do you believe Joyce that the group, the committee is looking at that sort function or what I would also suggest and maybe it's a, maybe it's part of what Megan just offered upwards of precursor to that is, then we do it, right? Or ask Sophie and team to do it and take the existing report and just, highlight, do ability, time frame and approximate dollars to see if we get to a short list. And then that kind of goes with what Adam said, well, some of this is we're already working on and we kind of know what it might save. Others, at least we could say, oh, we better move this to the top of the list because whatever. But I think a sorting of that list for a couple criteria would be a really helpful move. But I don't know, Joyce, if that team thinks they're gonna do that as well or if they're gonna do the prioritization based on public opinion or lack of resistance. You know, Janet, you ask a really good question. I think Adam, your comments are, I think what a lot, what I would say a lot of people in the select committee are feeling and what I would say, what I'm hoping is it's the next draft that NCHEMS will come with far more financial analysis in terms of this. But I do think, I think after the December 4th draft, Janet, I think your plan in terms of the sort for this, the board, that's what the board should do is say, okay, these are the, because I think that the NCHEMS is gonna come with a few bold, I'm hoping bold ideas because I think that in order that unless they're bold, they're not going to begin to address the financial deficit. But then I think it's really the board, I think you guys are gonna have to decide, okay, these are the ones that we really feel like are gonna make a difference and we're gonna go after it. Because I think that, you know, there is some in the public who feel very strongly that if the legislature just gave more, a higher appropriation that this would help. But I'm very concerned after talking with legislative leadership and the governor's office that next year's budget, state budget looks pretty dire. And so thinking about that, and I guess I would defer to the legislators on the board in terms of, I think thinking that that could be the savior for the system, I think is a bit dangerous, but that's not to rule it out, it's quite possible. I mean, CARES money came through this year. But I think that I would encourage the board in early December to get very aggressive with the plan that has come forward and decide which ones do you feel we need to enact. So that would be my suggestion, but I think I wouldn't start with the broad what's out there now. I'd wait for NCHEMS to narrow it down a little more with a little more data, because I think you'll have more. And I hate to postpone Janet, the thing, but I think another two weeks, you'll have a lot more information that you can, I'm trusting that you'll have a lot more information to make some of those decisions. But I think it's this board who's gonna have to really determine the actual direction of the Vermont State College is going forward. I think the guidance can come from NCHEMS report. I think they're gonna give you some guidance, but in the end, what are the pieces that really, how do you think this system should be structured? What are the pieces that make up? I think it's the board's power that will make it happen Does that help? But I guess my question is, do you think they're going to do that prioritization as well? I realize the report on the fourth might be better, but does the committee, has the committee thought through a sorting criteria process that they're gonna use to go from that big a list to the, let's just say the top 10. But no, I would say that NCHEMS is doing that. Okay. NCHEMS is doing that based on financial. They know they have way that it's, the things that they put out right now are way too broad and some quite frankly are strong and could result in a financial change to the system and others are tweaking around the edges. And so where is the emphasis gonna be and how do you really address the financial challenges? And I think, I mean, the fiduciary responsibility for the system, unfortunately it rests with the board as the first, as the truly the backstop. So I would say that I think that you're gonna see some, a lot of prior prioritization from NCHEMS, but in the end, the board may say, okay, we're gonna take those two things from, we feel like if we address these two things and make these two changes, whatever that is, and we have the wherewithal to make those changes and we believe that that will shrink the gap or whatever, I think it's gonna come down to you using the report as foundational to the direction that you move in. Well, I wouldn't wanna put Sharon on the spot, but I will, but it would be really interesting, Sharon, to see if you took a highlighter to that report and picked your top five of, could actually be done and would save money, what you would pick. Well, that's actually work that we will be doing in the coming couple of weeks. We obviously are waiting very anxiously to see that next version because as you've all noted, there's a very long laundry list of things that have, that may or may not be ones that are coming forward as viable opportunities. And before we spend too, too much time on it, we'd like to make sure that it gets narrowed down a little bit, but I totally understand what you're saying about going through and doing a fast sort. We as the system do need to be looking at the variety of options that we have available to us. Certainly we are working very closely with the administration and the legislature on the next round of bridge funding, but in the event something happens and we're not able to do that, we do need to be prepared and that is work that we're undertaking now. As you can imagine, it's just very challenging to be having simultaneous activities occurring and very, very good work that's happening with the legislative select committee and we don't wanna get ahead of them. Anyone else have any comments? Karen, go ahead. I think this conversation is extremely valuable. There is a lot of work going on. And as I said before, there was just much, I think there was a very inclusive, super inclusive list that was made by the committee and it will be narrowed down. And I think concurrent with that, there are a list of things that have been undertaken by each of the colleges that feed into this. And some of them feed into this quite well. Others, and I'm thinking now of a highlight of the tech centers and high schools as partners that was highlighted by VTC. Maybe an area that's not a specific, much to my dismay, our partners, our public education partners, K through 12 and the tech centers were not specifically part of the select committee. And I understand why. There's just so much, it's overwhelming. But I think that that will be a pivot because I think that that necessarily is part of a long-term solution. And I think UVM at the table, very good to have UVM at the table. That may be part. It's not part of the VSC, but going back to the origination paperwork, it was always intended that UVM and the VSC would work cooperatively. So maybe there's a cooperative piece that helps to provide service to Vermonters in an improved way and helps to alleviate cost. So I think we're putting things together. And I agree with Joyce, there's a lot of dancing going on and there's been a lot of dancing since Jeb's proposal. And people broad-based are unhappy. And we may have some very unhappy people at the end of the road and at the end of the decision-making. But I think an effort is being made to hear everybody and to do the very best we can to provide the very best service to Vermon and Vermonters. So I'm hopeful that it's gonna work. Anyone else have any comments? We have a motion on the table. All those in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Seeing none, the motion has passed. All those, okay, we passed them. I'm sorry about my phone. Okay, anything else from the chancellor's report? No, thank you. Okay, we have next on the agenda, the report from Education, Personnel, Student Life Committee. There was a piece in our packet from the criminal background checks, but Jim, do you or Yasmeen wanna start with the report and we can get to the motion at some point? I just assumed to start with Yasmeen because she's the expert on this. Okay, Yasmeen. She generally leads us through and does a fine job of it. Okay, well, thank you. Well, in addition to the one action item here for the board and I'll turn that over to Patty Turley in a second. Epsil was focused other items, Epsil reviewed was an update on our preset process and just for the full board's benefit, this is our quality improvement process and something that we've modified, just taking into account the impact of the pandemic, all the work that faculty have done to transition to remote delivery, but nevertheless, we are continuing forward with that work and so that our processes for that are outlined back in the Epsil materials, but there are no action items there and an update to our criminal dust, just sorry, criminal background check policy. So I'll turn that over to Patty. Thank you, Yasmeen and good afternoon, everyone. Our current policy requires bigger print supported background checks for all new employees. Even before the pandemic, this process was often taking many months to fulfill. The proposed changes give us more flexibility within the policy to allow the colleges to obtain other types of background checks, including those provided by online services, we're still able to follow up or to do any fingerprint supported background checks that we desire. We are still committed to doing so where the work involves sensitive information or vulnerable populations. The revision, however, provides us with additional needs to satisfy the intent of the policy and it was requested by our human resources folks who are at the front lines of doing the hiring. This is not a comprehensive review of our criminal background check policy, which may be appropriate to do sometime in the next year or so. However, it addresses a need, an immediate need. The proposed change was reviewed with and approved by the educational personnel and student life committee. I should see if Katrina has any additional words that she would want to offer on this. If I missed anything Katrina, I'll send it to you and the other HR folks are on the front lines of it. How do you do a great job? I don't have anything to add at this point. Okay, thank you. Sure, you can find the clean version of the new proposal starting on page 13 of the materials in the board packet and following that, you'll see where the changes were made as well. Do you need a motion to approve this? I believe we do, yes. And to discuss it frankly. Madam chair, shall we do that? All right, Anne. I recommend we approve the revised policy as presented and having lived with this for my entire professional career. I appreciate the need to facilitate getting it done to get your processes going. So I move acceptance of the revised policy. A second on that? Second. Second from David. Any further discussion or questions? I have a question. Sure, Bill. I just want to ask for assurance that there's been a review that there's no outstanding requirements, statutory requirements that this would run a fallow because I know that there are statutory requirements or I believe there are still statutory requirements for doing a criminal background checks for many, actually many organizations in the state of Vermont which whose employees interact with minors. Patty. Thank you. Yes, that is true. There are statutory requirements for that type of a fingerprint background check. And we intend to still do those. So we don't intend to not do fingerprint supported checks. It's just that our current policy requires that we do them for all new employees. And that is just not realistic at this point. But we do intend to continue to comply to provide a fingerprint supported background checks for any statutory requirements. Some of those requirements are geared specifically for K through 12, for example. It may not be as clear where we are required to do it. And nevertheless, that is our policy that we will do it for those particular kinds of positions. Again, I just want to make sure we don't run a foul or something where I'm aware of some ancillary university related activities other than the VSC where it appears that they're requiring this level of background check. And I just want to make sure we're not going to run a foul or something. I understand that. And I believe that this policy will still meet with that because we are still going to be doing background checks as required by any statute. This is simply to provide us with the ability to not do background checks where we don't believe it's required. And Patti, correct me if I'm wrong. This also gives us the ability, though, to do a quicker background check even in those sensitive positions. Because at the moment, given the backlog, we may land up hiring somebody and having them in a position where they're working with vulnerable people and we don't have any background information. So this actually would be more protective. It gives us a first look to make sure there's nothing that we should be picking up on while we wait to get the fingerprint background check. I just want to provide an interim measure in that sense because it is needed to get a fingerprint-supported background check many months, not just one or two months. Many months is my understanding. So in the meantime, we have access to online background checks that would provide us with some information right away while we're waiting for the fingerprint-supported background check to be completed. But our policy doesn't support us to do that as it's currently written, which is another reason for the check. Can I ask one further question? Has there been any review to determine whether what's being proposed is, in any way, parallel or consistent with other institutions of higher education in Vermont? I did not review other institutions. Oh, Katrina did, though. I did, and it was in the complete thorough gem I mean, Bill, I apologize. I did go through and I looked at UVM. I looked at Middlebury. I looked at Champlain College. And our policy, as it stands right now, as far as I could see, is more comprehensive than any of their three. It's just allowing us the flexibility to not do fingerprint on every single employee. Yeah. I think, again, I'm just going to state my concern. And then I obviously don't have the information that the committee has reviewed, but partly it comes from some of my previous legislative work. I'll be quite frank as the chair of the Judiciary Committee. Because the other concern that we should have is that not just it is that vulnerability and liability should, in fact, something happen with a vulnerable population. And we have been found to not have done what is considered an adequate review in order to protect the students or other populations that we may be serving. Totally understand that. And this is not meant to lessen our level of responsibility to comply with those checks. That is fair. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Any other concerns? Hearing none, we have a motion on the table. All those in favor of accepting the motion as read, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? OK, no one's opposed. Is there anything else that we need to hear from Epsilon? Representative Magslin. Not that I'm aware of, Madam Chair. OK, we have a report from the Long Range Planning Committee. We do not have the chair of that committee here. Who's the vice chair? Janet. Janet. Perhaps you may want to check in with Sophie and have her proceed. We have a pretty extensive Long Range Planning Committee meeting last time. Sophie, are you willing to take the floor? I can do that. I'd be happy to. We did have an extensive Long Range Planning Committee meeting, and a large portion of it, as I alluded to earlier, was talking about the select committee because the trustees had, understandably, wanted to have better information about what that committee's doing. And we did have extensive discussion about that. The other piece we talked about was the chancellor's recommendations for strategic action. So back in at the October 16th board meeting, the board had adopted updated strategic priorities. And then since that time between then and the 29th, when we had the Long Range Planning Committee meeting, I had, in consultation with the presidents, had come up with proposals for strategic actions for this academic year, because there were so many things in the strategic priorities. And it was a question of bandwidth, just our human resources, our financial resources, and where to go first. So we came up with a list of recommended strategic actions for this year, and that was approved by the Long Range Planning Committee. Those materials are on page 20 and 21 of the board materials. So I guess we would be looking for a motion for the full board to approve those. And if anyone has any questions, I'm happy to talk to them about that. Does anyone have a motion to make on the acceptance of the recommendations for strategic action in the first year? You're muted, Janet. I'll make a motion that we approve the list from the Long Range Planning Committee for this strategic act. We have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. Mary will second. Mary, Mary will second. OK, we have some discussions. I have a question. There is a draft of strategies for implementing those strategic priorities that goes campus by campus or college by college. Is there anybody who has any questions on any of those? I was going to talk about that bit second, but right. So as part of the process is we work together to identify the specific priorities we would or the strategic actions we take this year. So for example, reducing the total cost of attendance for students and families. And then we came up with specific commitments that the system would make. The next step of the process was for the colleges to then come back with their individual institution specific strategies on each of those. And we had hoped to have the board look at those in their entirety today, but we're still working on those. I included them in the materials, their pages 22 to 26, just to show that we weren't doing nothing. We have been working on them, but they weren't quite ready for prime time. So we're going to continue, I will continue working with the presidents on those and we will be coming back at the December 7th meeting with those more fully fleshed out. So that's the final part of this process. So yeah, today we were looking for a vote on the focus, the strategic action focus for this year and then at the next meeting we would be looking to share with you exactly what the colleges will be doing to implement those specific things this year, understanding some of them. For example, increasing average class size at residential campuses is something that's a challenge to do with the pandemic and we'll take some time to get to. But one of the pieces of data that certainly the external consulting firm was looking at was we do have quite a high percentage of classes that we run with very few students in them. And that was one of their suggestions in terms of again, trying to bring costs under control. So that was something we have listed, but some of these things are things that colleges can work on immediately, but some will obviously take some time to really be able to measure them and make sure that we're achieving what we're hoping to achieve. Okay, that's very helpful. Thank you. Any more comments or any questions on the recommendations and the motion? Yes, Ryan. Hi, thank you. So yeah, so kind of speaking to what Sophie was just talking about under the affordability, I noticed it also points out to improving the on-time graduation rate. And then as you mentioned, improving the average class size on a residential campuses. And I'm curious if there's any specifics on how we would look to improve the on-time graduation rate or if there's a specific rate we're expecting across the system. But then also, what is the average class size we'd be looking to have? Is there a number we have? And would that mean classes with lesser people would either be combined or would we be then cutting classes to meet that average number? Right, so those would be things that the colleges would be looking at in terms of their individual strategies. And I think it would depend. We don't have at this point a specific number in mind, but for example, I mean, the reason it says residential colleges is that CCV does already has a pretty tight grip on how many students they need to have in classes and it may vary depending on which center you're at, which academic center, I think is a little more challenging for the residential colleges because there are some courses that have to be taught in order for students to get through and graduate because that also is key for on-time graduation is that students have access to the courses they need to get there. So these things go together, but again, you can see some of the strategies that the colleges are starting to look at in the additional materials that are included at page 22 to 26. So that's not final yet, but there are many different ways. Again, on-time graduation rate helps with affordability because it helps reduce the amount of student debt that students are building up. So that's why it's listed in here as being one of the priorities. No, I've... Is it your question directly or that was something else, sir? No, no, I mean, absolutely. I can't disagree. I mean, graduating on time is something we're all as students trying to do, of course. I was just curious if there was any specific number system why we were wanting to hit as of yet in what specific steps might be taken to ensure that. But I mean, it does say this is a draft to be finalized on December 7th. So I would look forward to hearing potentially some numbers at our next meeting. Yes, Megan. Thank you. I want to be cautious in what I'm asking here because I know that presidents are working extremely hard on this already, but I do wonder if it might be useful as these strategies are finalized to understand what are the roadblocks and what do they'll just need in order to achieve what they're laying out here? So when we talk about increasing graduation rates by 2%, that's a significant undertaking. Are there resource needs? Are there roadblocks? Are there inputs that are needed in order to achieve that? Maybe the answer is no. Colleges have everything they need, but it might be useful information. Presidents, anyone want to tackle one? One other thing, Lynn, I'm very pleased to see the clear reference to licensing because that's very, very important for many professions. Completing is one thing, but having finished the requisite program and courses and practica for licensure is very, very important, both in education and nursing and probably in other fields as well that I'm not familiar with. Yeah. Good point. Anyone else have anything else to say about any of this? Any questions? I suspect we'll have Sophie and the president's working on this for the next few weeks. Yeah, so we just needed a vote on the Chancellor's recommendations for strategic action that came out of the Long Range Planning Committee. And it looks like Janet and Mary already proposed the motion and seconded it, but I don't think we voted on it. No, we haven't voted. Anyone else, if not? All those in favor of the motion from the Chancellor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Seeing none. Okay. We're moving on to the report from Finance and Facilities Committee. That's David and Sharon. Who will do the speaking here? Well, I'll take a crack at it and I'm sure where I struggle, Sharon will step in. We had a pretty robust agenda for our last FNF meeting. We looked at approving and recommending to the full board a FIPSI grant, which we'll cover in a second. We also looked at the FY21 budget review. We also have approved that with an aye to recommending that to the full board. We received an enrollment update, which looked at the fall of this year and pretty grim numbers. Our residential campuses being off in enrollment by 20% or more in all cases. We had a very preliminary conversation about the FY22 budget and Sharon and Sophie will speak to that as well as speaking to the annual appropriations that we will request. We did have a brief discussion about the investment subcommittee, which has been sort of on idle, but is due for having a meeting in the early part of 2021. And I think we talked about this at our last meeting briefly. We're recruiting for an additional member. Mike Pichak and I are serving on that committee. I think we agreed that one does not necessarily have to serve on the finance and facilities committee. And I forget if somebody actually rose their hand for that. But if not, we're looking for another member. It's pretty light lift. And finally, we had an opportunity to review and approve a gift for Northern Vermont University and subsequently had a special meeting of the Board of Trustees, which also approved that. So that was our meeting. Now taking things sort of in order, the FIPSI grant, which under our bylaws, the full board needs to approve when a grant application is being submitted over $750,000. I looked up what FIPSI means. It's a fund for the improvement of post-secondary education. This grant is in support of our Vermont strong initiative which is looking to improve high school, college continuation rates through expanded dual enrollment programming and additional tactics. This is for $1,797,653 and the finance and facilities committee recommends that the board approve that application. And you could take that in the form of a motion if you like. Okay, we have a motion to accept the FIPSI grant. Do I have a second? Adam will second that. Okay, Adam Grinnell, seconds at any questions or anything like that? I don't remember ever hearing much about this grant in the past, but dual enrollment is a major goal for our high school students to improve and increase college attendance. And I believe it's a very successful program in many of our colleges. Most of our colleges participate in it. Yasmeen, would you like to comment further on that? This is kind of your deal. Certainly, dual enrollment is one of the parts of the grant. It's also heavily focused with both dual enrollment and our regular offerings on supporting faculty in new delivery techniques, leveraging technology. So it's really designed to make us more resilient, operating in potentially continued pandemic conditions where we may be doing more remote instruction or pivoting, as well as being able to go forward and deliver more of our courses utilizing technology. So that's the heart of the grant. Anyone have any other questions or comments? We're all seeing none. All those in favor of accepting the FIPSI grant, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Aye. Seeing no opposition. Anything else that we need to discuss, David, that requires action? Absolutely, it's the 2021 budget. As you recall, we've approved, I believe, two interim budgets because of the uncertainties in funding and the pandemic. And so we're now recommending approval of a budget. In summary, looking at total system revenues of $172 million. Sorry about that. Expenses of $164 million, $600 million for a total projected surplus of approximately $2 million. Sharon, did I cover that? Absolutely. And if you'd like, I can give a brief overview of the FY20 results and FY21 performance, if you'd like. Or you can move right to the program if you'd like, the resolution. I will ask Madam Chair her pleasure. I think we have still a lot to go through. So why don't we just ask for the resolution? Anyone has any questions? Please ask them now. OK, so I will read the resolution. This is Vermont State College's System Board of Trustees resolution 2020-22, the FY2021 Vermont State College's System Annual Operating Budget, whereas the Chancellor of the Vermont State Colleges has recommended the FY2021 budget presented at the October 29, 2020 meeting of the Finance and Facilities Committee, and whereas the Finance and Facilities Committee of the Board of Trustees has reviewed the FY2021 budget, and whereas the Finance and Facilities Committee has discussed individual aspects of the proposals with the chancellors and the presidents of the individual institutions, whereas the Finance and Facilities Committees recommend the FY2021 System Annual Operating Budget to the full board, therefore be it resolved that the Board of Trustees of the Vermont State College System hereby approves the System Annual Operating Budget of $176 million, including a projected surplus net of bridge and CRF funding of $2 million consistent with the attached materials. Do I have a second on that? I'm glad the second data can't go on already. OK, Jim. Jim Maslin has seconded that. Any discussion? Any further questions? Seeing none, we have a question. Sure, go ahead, Bill. I'm sorry. I want to just share. And if you could just clarify, the legislature had appropriated CRF dollars for our use to be expended by December 30. Am I confusing several things here in terms of our inability to actually utilize all of those dollars? What's the relationship between that and the budget that's being put forward? So if you look at the budget that's been presented, a portion of those monies, the money that you'll see highlighted on the gray lines, are the use of CRF dollars that assists us with addressing ongoing operating expenses or current year operating expenses. Now, that's not entirely all of them. We are actually in the process of identifying further expenses that we will have expensed before the end of this month. And those will also show in those lines when we show you the second quarter financial statements in early February. The difference for us and the materials that you have, so the 22.758 million that was allocated as CRF is largely being spent on direct expenditures that you do not see in the unrestricted lines. So it would be directly expending against the grant funds because we allocate for them as a grant. And you will see them in our restricted expendable accounts but not in this budget that you're seeing here. Those would be for things like personal protective equipment, construction that we've done related to that, but they do not run through the college's books. So you would not see them on this particular presentation of the format here. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay, saying none. All those in support of the resolution for the fiscal year 2021 system annual operating budget, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Now our position, we will move on. I think we have here a discussion of tuition and fees for the upcoming year. David, do you wanna start with that? Yes, please. I think actually we'd like to switch order a little bit with your permission. Sure. I'd like to yield the floor to Sharon and Sophie to discuss our capital appropriation as well as to have a bit of a discussion with regards to the fiscal year 2022 budget and what that might look like. That will provide some context for the discussion with regards to tuition and room and board. All right, I think I can, I'll start. So this is really just to set the scene for the FY22 budget. So we've heard from the state economists and the state budget writers that they're planning to level fund state government for the moment due to the level of uncertainty that Vermont is operating in right now. The state can't predict what the final numbers will look like and we're taking our cues from the state and sharing today a budget snapshot that assumes all external factors remain where they are today. That being said, we all know that transformation is happening at the Vermont State Colleges as we discussed at the recent EPSIL and Long Range Planning Committee meetings and earlier today. We are taking a needed initial action in the Chancellor's Office and member institutions and a number of fronts, including evaluating our current program offerings, identifying opportunities for program collaboration across the system, analyzing some of our greatest expenses like our software needs and making sure that we're getting our return of investment on those. So the work to transform the VSC is ongoing right now. As we do the internal work though, we are gonna be looking at the direction given to us by the Legislative Select Committee on the future of public higher education in Vermont as well as the governor and the legislature. And we're doing our best to be as nimble as we can with respect to the needs of the state, our students, our faculty and staff and the communities in which we're located. At this point in time, as was expected through the Jim Page Report and Beth Pierce's report, we were expected that we would have a significant deficit for FY22 and that has definitely come to pass as of right now. We're looking at a significant budget gap for FY22 and the current ranges we'd mentioned earlier is between $42 and $47 million. So depending on the actions of the federal and state government over the next few months that will help inform what we need to do moving forward. And again, we've already started working with legislative leaders on the next portion of the bridge funding that we need to successfully transform. We're also in touch with the congressional delegation on possible changes regarding the use of CRF money beyond the December 30th deadline and the need for additional federal dollars to support higher education. And again, right now, we don't have any dates in mind, but we know that there's likely to be action at the federal level. We just don't know what it will be and how it will affect us. The budget snapshot that's on your screen assumes several factors. It assumes that we're not raising tuition room or board. It anticipates that we'll be providing the bug and for faculty wage increase. It fulfills our debt service obligation and it sustains our standard requirements for capital maintenance. At the same time, this snapshot shows the impact that the lower enrollment that we had this fall for the class of 2024 will have on years to come. So in other words, by having a much smaller class, this fall, we're going to have that smaller class working its way through the system in the next few years. This estimate shows a 20% shortfall. And we will be looking for assistance from state and federal government to help. So given the uncertainty, and this is again a very early snapshot, I do want to emphasize that, we anticipate there could be a variance in this budget of up to 30%. If the variance is in our favor, then the estimated deficit would land up being between 30 and $37 million, which is still a very significant number. We'll continue to evaluate our financial situation as we move forward and we'll continue to work closely with the board and with the member institutions, as well as the governor and the legislature on the next part of the bridge funding. We'll be looking at the select committee for direction on how we can continue to transform and fulfill our mission for the benefit of the state of Vermont. As I mentioned earlier, we will be talking to the administration next Monday on our appropriation request and that state appropriation request is due on Friday. Sharon, did you want to follow up on? Certainly. So as we look ahead towards the next state appropriation request, at present, we have been asked to present to the state, according to state guidelines, a flat state appropriation, one, two, or 3% increase. And we will also put forward a request that would address the full operating deficit that we anticipate at this time. That is obviously a very big ask. And simultaneously, we will also be working with the colleges to address what might happen if we aren't able to achieve those expectations and what changes can be made between now and the next fiscal year. Any questions? Do I now, you said the, I'm just to clarify, you said that the budgets that you looked at that we just saw on the screen, that presumes no tuition increase, no room and board increases. Is that what I heard correctly? Yes, that's correct. That's one of the reasons why we thought it was appropriate to talk about the FY22 budget and the appropriations request before you had a conversation about the tuition and fees increase for the upcoming year. Any questions on that? Any discussion? We don't need any decision on this today. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. David, do you have anything else to add? Yes. To go back to the whole tuition discussion, the committee is not prepared to make a recommendation to the full board at this time, but we do think that it's something that we need to have on our radar and the board collectively needs to have on our radar because what our hope is is to fully vet a discussion about tuition and fees for fiscal year 2022 and then ask the board to approve that at our meeting on December 7th. So, there's a lot of things to think about in those terms. There's an advantage to the colleges to be able to set their fees early so that gives students as well as the colleges in the budget process some predictability. Unfortunately, we don't function in a vacuum. In other words, we compete with other schools for students and we know that the flagship here in the state of Vermont recently announced that they would be freezing tuition fees for fiscal year 2022. And I think that throughout the country, other colleges and universities are doing the same. So, what we do with tuition impacts the overall budget in many different ways, including recruiting and retention that I think is critical. And I think one of the backdrops that we have to think about is one of the key things that we've identified as a strategic goal is affordability and certainly an increase in tuition and fees in 2022 sort of runs counter to that. So, I wanted to and was asked to introduce that topic but that is something that the facilities, Finance and Facilities Committee will be taking up on the seventh and will present a proposal to the full board. However, if a discussion wants to be held in advance, that's really your choice, Lynn. Okay, is there anyone who has any comments or questions? So, we will hear more about this at the December 7th meeting. Correct. Okay, we don't have any motions or anything to discuss. There were reports from the colleges. If we don't have to read through them, if the college presidents wanna talk about something specific, I think it gave some enrollment figures and some other summaries of their expenses and revenue. But if they don't, I think it was pretty self-explanatory. Yes, they are supplemental to the FY 21 budget. Okay. So that, I guess that would be our report. Okay, well, thank you. We now have an audit committee meeting and Sharon, I don't see the chair of that committee. Would you like to go over that with us? Certainly. The audit committee met on October 29th and heard from O'Connor and Drew. They presented the draft financial statements to the audit committee. It was a clean audit that was presented. There was one audit adjustment that was made during the course of the audit that was related to the Perkins Loan Fund processing at the chancellor's office. And that adjusting entry was made during the course of the audit. They presented and the audit committee approved the audit itself. I believe that there is an action item here to approve the audit by the board of trustees. Is that correct? There is. There's someone who would like to either read the resolution. It's resolution 2020-020-0. It's the acceptance of the fiscal year 2020 audited financial statements. Anyone want to now read the thing as a former audit committee member? So we can move on here. Whereas the Vermont State colleges is contracted with O'Connor and Drew to perform a fiscal year 2020 financial statements audit and the auditors have delivered the draft financial statements. And whereas the board's audit committee has reviewed these materials and recommended that the board accept them, therefore. And whereas federal guidance regarding the audit of CARES, HERF, and coronavirus relief funding is currently pending. Therefore, be it resolved that the board of trustees of the Vermont State Colleges hereby accepts the fiscal year 2020 financial statement audit report by O'Connor and Drew and be it further resolved that O'Connor and Drew will complete the uniform guidance single audit report and advisory comments as soon as practicable following release of guidance and be it further resolved that the completed uniform guidance single audit report and advisory comments will be presented for review and approval by the audit committee. The board of trustees of the Vermont State Colleges regularly scheduled meeting following completion of the report by O'Connor and Drew and that is the motion adopted by the audit committee for the board. I need a second on that. This is Dylan, I'll second. Okay, Dylan, thank you. Any comments or any questions? The audit committee can be much more exciting than this sometimes, but if not, we will go and... There is only one other item from the audit committee and that was the review and approval of the internal audit for the upcoming fiscal year. That is, it's actually the same internal audit that was approved last spring, but was delayed due to the pandemic. So we will be doing an audit of the payroll and benefits system. Okay, we'll do one at a time. Let's do this one. All those who approve of the acceptance of the fiscal year 2020 audited financial statements, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Now having heard now, we will move on. And Sharon, can you please repeat that again, please? My apologies. There's the audit committee reviewed and approved. It does not require action by the full board, the internal audit for the upcoming fiscal year. It is the same internal audit as was approved by the audit committee last spring, but was delayed due to the pandemic. And that will be on the payroll and benefits system. Okay, so we don't need a motion on that or we do? My understanding is you do not. Okay. Hearing that, let me see where I'm right here. Okay, so that's it for the audit committee. And the next item on the agenda is, I'm going to find my thing here. Okay, here we are. We have a presentation by Nicholas Giovanni. He's regarding our collective bargaining agreements. Nick Giovanni has been working with us for many years. And Sophie, would you like to introduce him to us? Sure. So yeah, as you mentioned, Nick has been, has had many, I want to say four decades. Is that right, Nick? I don't want to... That's about right. Age you more than I should. Nick works for Morgan Brown and Joy in Massachusetts. And he is one of the foremost authorities on higher education labor relations in the country and represents many institutions of higher education, particularly in the Northeast. And so we're always a delight to work with Nick. And Nick is here really to provide an educational piece for the board. There was questions, particularly for some of newer members about our bargaining agreements and just having an understanding of how that works here at the VSC. So thank you so much, Nick. Very happy to have you here. Thank you, Sophie, for that introduction. And it is indeed a lot of fun for me to meet with the board. As Sophie said, I have worked with your system for over four decades, almost virtually my entire career. And go back a long way to the early days of collective bargaining on your campuses. And I might add that all of the work that I do is higher education work, labor and employment law for those institutions. And in Vermont, in addition to VSC, I've worked for many decades with the university and also have done a fair amount of work with Champlain College. So I'm very familiar with the landscape in Vermont. And I think when I talked to Sophie about this meeting with you, I think we felt it was important for the board members, especially the new board members, to at least understand the legal landscape in which you operate vis-a-vis your labor unions and your obligations. This is especially important as you sift through some of these, frankly, existential questions with regard to the system and your rights and responsibilities. So that's what I wanna do. I wanna spend a little bit of time going over that landscape and talk a bit about legal requirements that you have and a little bit about our collective bargaining agreements over that period. Very quick union history here. Many of you may know this, but let me just highlight a few bullet points. Collective bargaining first came to your system in 1973 when the faculty unionized. They were followed six years later by your non-professional staff, now known as your staff federation unit. They came in in 1979 as representing your non-professional staff. In the late 80s, there was an effort by your adjunct faculty to join the full-time faculty union and that was rejected by the Vermont Supreme Court on community of interest grounds, but eventually the adjuncts formed their own union and that took place in 1991. And then in 2002, you had the arrival of your professional staff union, the professional administrative technical employees, along with the supervisory staff for that group. And then the latest entry has been CCV faculty who for many years were not unionized at all, but in 2017, the faculty at CCV was unionized and they negotiated their first contract about two or three years ago. So I point this out because labor history is important when you're dealing with folks at the bargaining table. As you can tell, some of the contracts that you're covered by go back three or four decades and they're the product of compromise, they're the product of the viewpoints of different administrations from the ones you have now, different boards of trustees. And that's always important when you're dealing with labor matters. The legal framework in which we operate, how did these unions come into play, what are the obligations, et cetera, itself is interesting. Vermont has a very complicated public sector labor relations scene. In many states, including my home state of Massachusetts, there is a single statute covering all public employees, whether they're state college, university employees, municipal employees, state employees, one statute, not so much in Vermont. In Vermont, we have multiple statutes. We have statutes that govern teacher relations, as you know, I'm sure anecdotally, if not directly. We have a statute dealing with municipal employees, we have a statute for judiciary employees and we have a statute for state employees and that's the one we're under. We're covered by the State Employees Labor Relations Act, which is different from some of those other statutes for reasons I'll make clear in a minute. The State Employees Labor Relations Act, like the other acts, operate through the Vermont Labor Relations Board. That's the labor agency that governs and oversees labor relations policy, grievances, collective bargaining, et cetera. The board was appointed by the governor. Many of you, I'm sure, are familiar with that and we can talk about that if you like. But under the State Employees Labor Relations Act, the process for negotiating, which is something that is extremely important to take into account, is quite unusual. First of all, it requires good faith bargaining as all labor statutes do between the employer and the labor union on matters affecting wages, hours, working conditions, anything affecting the employment relationship. If the parties cannot reach an agreement at the bargaining table, there is an impasse procedure which begins with mediation. If that's not successful after a certain length of time, the parties are then required to go to fact finding. We could spend a lot of time on, but basically it's a hearing in which a designated arbitrator will listen to arguments by both sides as to the strength of their positions, why they're arguing for the positions at the bargaining table. The classic example might be a union who would be seeking a 5% raise, management may be arguing for a 1% raise. Each side would be presenting considerable evidence to support their positions. That's true with every position that you haven't reached an agreement on at the bargaining table. Those are hearings, presentation of evidence, testimony, briefs in the wake of those fact finding hearings. And then the arbitrator and fact finder goes away and makes a decision. And the fact finder will go through each of the disputed items and make a recommendation based on a variety of factors, including the ability to pay of the employer, the comparability of wages and compensation between the employees working for that employer compared to other comparable types of employment situations, cost of living considerations, what other people in the state of Vermont are making for comparable work, et cetera, et cetera. The statute lays out quite a few of those factors which we don't need to go through here. And basically, the fact finder comes up with a report that hopefully, since it's a third party neutral, can be the basis for an agreement between the parties. In many states that have fact finding, that's the last step of the process. The hope is that the parties can then work out an agreement, go back to the table and finish up. In our state, under our statute, the state employee statute, unlike the other public sector statutes, the parties have about 20 days to try to work out a deal following that report. And then if they can't reach an agreement, they have to submit to the labor board their last best offer on all items as a package. So whatever was still left in dispute, that each side has to present their best package to the labor board. And the labor board then is required within 30 days to select one or the other package with all the items in that package. They can't separate out the issues. It's either the union package or the employer package. The only thing that they have some wiggle room in is that if they look at the two packages and they find that the last best offers of both parties were unreasonable and likely to produce undesirable results, they can then turn to the recommendation of the fact finder as to those disputed items. So that's a highly significant power that the labor board has and it's final. Under the statute, they make the final and binding decision on the state colleges. They also have that power for the University of Vermont. Same thing. So our statute is set up with an endpoint. There's no right to strike under the statute. There is a right to strike for teachers, as many of you know from just reading the papers over the years, but not for state employees and not for our employees. But there's an endpoint and that often weighs into what the parties choose to do in their negotiations leading up to that point. Facing the imposition of a contract, sometimes the idea is that that will force parties to make final concessions to come to an agreement. But that process has been there for some time. Over the years we have gone through that process all probably half a dozen times if you look at all of the unions that we have. Most recently you went through it last year with regard to one issue on retirement. But we've had several contentious hearings in which the labor board had to make a final call. So that's the process of collective bargaining. And it's one that is always in the background when we begin negotiations with any of our unions. It's also important to know that this process is also something that we would have to go through if we are engaged in what's called impact bargaining. Now I don't wanna spend a lot of time on this, but impact bargaining means this. There are some things in which you have as the employer the absolute right to decide. A union has no jurisdiction to bargain over certain decisions that you might make. Perhaps the consolidation of colleges to take a more recent example might be an example of something that you don't have to bargain with the union over. However, as a consequence of a decision like that, which is clearly yours, a union will argue that there's an impact of that decision on the working conditions or compensation of the people they represent. And they do have the right to bargain over the impact of that kind of a decision. This can take place in the middle of a contract. And if it does, and if you can't come to terms with the union on those issues that they're bringing up that have an impact on them, the same process I just outlined is required to deal with those issues as well. So it is possible, doesn't happen very often. In fact, I don't think it's ever happened in our situation, you could have the same process of mediation, in fact, finding last best offer on an impact issue during the life of these agreements. So I mentioned that because many of you may have come from settings in which either management has a lot of authority to impose a last best offer or different statutory schemes that don't call for the process I just outlined. And this is what makes Vermont bargaining for the state employee, state colleges as well as universities so challenging because that is always gonna be part of our scene. Now, with the contracts themselves, you have multiple contracts in effect. I think most of them are gonna be expiring next year. And under those contracts, you have many defined rights and responsibilities. There are things in those contracts and they're all a little bit different as you can imagine that give you certain powers, certain things you can do during the life of those agreements and also certain restraints. And as I said at the beginning, these restraints and compromises come from decades of back and forth arguments over various provisions, be they workload, job security, compensation and the like. And with all of these contracts, most of which have been settled at the bargaining table or with the help of a mediator, you see that balance. You take an issue like workload, for example, usually you have the right to assign workload, but there are some restrictions in all of the contracts on to the extent to which you can assign workload and what its impact may be on the employees. All of the contracts have what I would consider relatively strong management rights articles that allow for layoffs, partial layoffs, consolidation of campuses, not filling vacancies, a variety of things like that, any one of which we could spend some time on. But there again, there may be other provisions in those contracts that require you to follow a process or restrict in some way the exercise of the powers that you have under the management rights article. So like most collective bargaining, compromises the name of the game and balance between the rights of your labor unions and the rights that you have as board members are very evident in the many contracts that we have. And I know that as you're considering some of the decisions that are coming up, I'm sure there will be a need to see what your rights and obligations are under existing contracts. And as you move into next year, what if anything you're choosing to do in negotiating future contracts? So I wanted to lay out those broad strokes on the labor scene and I'd be happy to answer any questions on that process. You notice I'm not giving in this session particular advice on what you should do on any given issue, but I wanna make sure everyone is comfortable with the history, with the law that we're under and any process questions that you might have, I'd be glad to answer. Any questions for Nick Giovanni? Go ahead, John. Yeah, Nick, thank you very much. I'm sure we don't have time this afternoon to answer my questions, but I'm fascinated and didn't know until you spoke that we had, you know, handfuls of different statutes regarding click the barting in Massachusetts, you have one. That's right. It really, I mean, we know how things evolve and things are added on and, you know, I knew one of these and a new one of those, but at some point it would be nice to have a tutorial or just a discussion on the potential advantages in having one straightforward process that everybody understands versus a handful. I mean, here we are, I've been on the trustees for a while, the legislature for a while, and I did not know that we had so many different statutes and I wonder how on earth it happened. I can answer that, Jim. It's a good question though and I'm sure you'd have to dig into the legislative history. When I started working with the colleges, way back when the State Employees Act had just been passed and most of those statutes came in in the 70s and early 80s, but I'm sure that they were the result of different types of lobbying efforts by both sides, if you will. And I always mentioned that at the outset when discussing Vermont because there are real distinctions between these statutes. It's not just that they're separate statutes, but if you're a teacher in a K through 12 system, you have the right to strike. That is something that no one else has in the state for the most part. You have a different process for settling contracts than the one I outlined. So the real differences, I will say this, the one common thread of all of them is that they expect that labor and management will negotiate in good faith to reach a collective bargaining agreement. And that's a universal. The language is a little bit different in the statutes, but that's something that even if you're in the private sector under the National Labor Relations Act, that's the essence of the requirement of both parties when they come to the table. Thanks. Does anyone else have any questions? Just an observation, having been involved in labor relations since I was a young teacher and a superintendent subsequently. So Nick, to be clear, there's no role for arbitration and there's no right to strike. Is that correct? There's no role, I'm glad you mentioned that. There is no right to strike for our employees, for the state of our employees. There is an arbitration procedure, but if you're talking about arbitration of the contract, that's the fact finding last best offer that I talked about. If you're talking about grievances, of course, grievances under our contracts, in other words, alleged claims by union that we violated the provisions of the contract, those grievances do go to arbitration, but again, here's where Vermont's different. In most situations, you would think it'd go to a private arbitrator. In Vermont, they go to the labor board. So over the decades, I can't tell you how many cases we've had, many of which I've handled in the past that go to the labor board in which the labor board itself is acting as the statutory arbitrator. They interpret our contract, they give us guidance on what those phrases in that contract mean if there's a dispute. And it's a full blown hearing, it's arbitration hearing. And interestingly, when they issue a decision, the losing party can appeal that directly to the state Supreme Court. So if you get into the history of our cases, we've had a number of them in which we've appealed or the union has appealed the losing decision at the labor board and our Supreme Court has ruled on the contract. That's another unique feature of our statute. That's very interesting. And my labor activism was in Massachusetts, so I know quite a bit about Massachusetts, but so the final arbiter would be the Supreme Court. It would be for a grievance. A grievance, but not contract. But not for the contract because our statute's very explicit that the board makes the final call. Thank you. Anyone else? We do have an executive session set up. And I would need someone to read the, this would be a relatively short executive session. Megan, do you want to read the, are you there to read the motion? No, I can do that. I move the board of trustees enter executive session pursuant to one VSA 313A1B to discuss labor relations agreements with employees and one VSA 313A1F for the purpose of receiving confidential attorney client communications made for the purpose of providing professional legal services. Because premature general public knowledge of these discussions would place VSE at a substantial disadvantage, it is appropriate committee to enter executive session. Longer than the president of this meeting in its discretion, the board invites the chancellor, the presidents, the VSE chief financial officer, the VSE chief academic officer, VSE general Kell, system chapter external government affairs and the outside labor council, Nicholas D. Giovanni to attend. Mary, is that a second? Okay, we've got a motion on the table and a second. Is there any discussion? No questions. All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye, that we accept the motion to go into executive session. Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Do we have a breakout room here, Sophie? Here we do. Okay. We will be back. We don't expect this to take very long. But thank you. We'll be right back. Okay. I think we've just got everybody back. We're not taking any action out of executive session. What we're going to do now is take a 10 minute break. And we'll be back at about five of four. So can we request an all mute so that members who forget to take themselves off mute aren't broadcast on YouTube while they're on break? I think we're just about everybody back. We're not taking any action out of executive session. They're on break. Okay, Sophie. Time to reconvene. All right. I think the next item is we have Michael Alcamo here. And I believe Patty's going to do an introduction for us to Michael. And I did just want to say Adam Grinold indicated that he had to step away, but he would be rejoining us shortly. Okay, good. Welcome, Michael. Patty, you're on. Okay. Good afternoon, everyone. Again, three of the Vermont State College, state college institutions hold licenses registered with the FCC for educational broadband services spectrum. Most commonly referred to as EBS. Today we will hear more about these licenses from Michael Alcamo whom the colleges has retained as a consultant regarding our EBS. It is anticipated that we will enter executive session to discuss valuation and legal issues related to the licenses and contracts as allowed by law. In addition, we are proposing a modification to the VSC policy regarding EBS. The current policy allows only for the leasing of the licenses, which was consistent with the earlier FCC regulation. That environment has changed as Michael will be describing. And we are now going to propose that the policy be revised to allow for the sale or other disposition of the licenses. Any lease, sale, or other disposition of the licenses will continue to follow the current process of public advertising and at least three bids to ensure fair market value consistent with our current policy. You can find the policy revisions on page 36 of the board packet. Now, I'm pleased to introduce Michael Alcamo of MC Alcamo and Company. VSC, as I mentioned, retained the company as an external consultant with expertise in the field of EBS to assist with the valuation and strategy relating to these licenses. Mr. Alcamo has a deep understanding of the history of these licenses and he has developed extensive experience in this specific market. Michael, welcome. Thank you very much. And I know it's been a long day for everybody so I will keep my historical and technical presentation abbreviated but I love answering questions. So I wanna leave plenty of time for questions and I will turn on my timer right now. And thank you for that kind and gracious introduction, Patty. Our firm is a specialty investment bank with particular expertise in FCC spectrum matters. We've advised dozens of television stations that are independently owned, commercially owned, held by universities, held by PBS groups, in many different kinds of transactions. There's a wealth of activity in this particular niche. A motto of our firm, maybe the motto is that we take on important projects for important clients. And Vermont State Colleges is receiving our highest degree of priority, our highest level of attention and is a great honor, frankly, to be assisting the leadership team in evaluating its spectrum licenses. So what I'll do is describe a little bit of the vital statistics of what are these licenses and then discuss a little bit about the history from inception to the present and that will hopefully illustrate to you how the level of opportunity has evolved through the decades. Sorry about this. The history of these licenses interestingly begins in 1957 with Sputnik, followed up in 1961 with Yuri Gagarin, orbiting the earth once, returning safely to the Soviet Union. What happened next, and we see this in the legislative history, what happened next in the federal government was that everybody in Washington went into a complete state of panic because there was a sense that the United States had let down its young people in math and science education. And we were quite literally falling behind in the space race. And this was a source of incredible concern to President Kennedy. The president challenged his agencies. He said, folks, come up with some solutions and come up with them fast. The chair of the FCC, Newton Minow, very well-known guy, you may remember his name, who had been lambasting commercial television as quote, a vast wasteland. He raised his hand and said, Mr. President, we have this idea we've been working on. Commercial television is incredibly popular. We have this idea that school districts could create their own television networks. There could be a teacher. And by the way, we might be facing a shortage of teachers because of this thing called the baby boom. So we would have a great teacher of say, geometry or English literature. Like Michael O'Kama today, speaking to a camera at one part of the district, maybe in a central office, and the video signal would be broadcast to the class, to the elementary schools. Maybe there were six or eight of them. And within those schools would be distributed by closed circuit camera equipment to the classrooms. And there would be 25, 26 students sitting peacefully in the fourth grade, learning about geometry on a television about half the size of that in black and white. So pause for a moment, your evaluation of that. I know we have a superintendent of the Rutland Public School System with us. So you can imagine, you could project the success of that possible vision, but the president said, this sounds fantastic. The ITFS was created, later renamed EBS and the instructional television fixed service came into existence. The FCC allocated 2,200 of these licenses, which are circular and have a radius of 35 miles. So hold that in your mind for a few moments. The licenses were distributed to small colleges, state colleges to act as kind of administrators or custodians for the spectrum. And it was envisioned that the school districts would step forward and say, we'd love to have our school network here. And we have, you know, we think it'll work. Well, the licenses were issued and for 40 years, guess what happened? Absolutely nothing. Because it is really expensive to build that kind of a school-based television network. The equipment was enormous. You couldn't just put a videotape of a math lesson, plus that would be really, really boring because there were no videotape machines in 1963. So the idea was there would be IT professionals, there would be equipment transmitting, receive equipment. There was none of that money was available. As well, educators began to ask, will a classroom of 25 to 28 students learn effectively by watching a television set with a one-way video feed? Remember, these are one-way channels. The teacher in the central office can't tell if somebody is raising a hand or misbehaving. So the licenses sat in the drawer for a very long time. Unlike commercial television licenses, which were used to great profitability all across the country and other kinds of FCC spectrum licenses. You know, Vermont was just looking up some records. Vermont Technical College has a two-way radio license that the public safety division uses. Many, most of those licenses are in productive use. In the late 70s, cable television companies thought they could deliver movies to people's homes. That didn't work out. In the late 90s, small wireless firms felt, you know, these are very good frequencies for data transmission. And they thinly capitalized companies, traveled around the country, making fairly modest offers and scooping up these licenses. That was in the late 90s. They sort of held them, rarely utilizing them. As the decade, as the years went on, the wireless companies said to the FCC, these are great circular licenses, but you know, we'd like to roll out statewide a national nationwide service. So could you make available all the spaces between the circles? And after an extensive rulemaking, last July, that is exactly what the FCC did. There was a massive transformation or rezoning, if you will, of this band, because there's a very good analogy to real estate that went into effect in July. Another element went into effect in September and then in April. Frankly, in April, the FCC encourages us not to think of them as EBS anymore because as of April 28th, any educational use requirement was removed from the spectrum. So the intention, it was a Republican led FCC, the intention was to release as much of the spectrum as possible for commercial use so that the wireless providers could provide better and more comprehensive service. That's created a potential opportunity because 97% of all of these licenses have been secured by the wireless companies. And whenever there's a change in FCC regulation, there's inevitably a small group of license holders that are in a position to do well economically. And in this case of this change in regulation, it's those 3% of the license holders nationwide. So I'll pause for some questions. I think I'm into my seventh minute. And that's a lot of technical and historical information, but I'm very pleased we're assisting the general council and the chancellor with a strategic evaluation of these licenses. There'll be a big auction in December. There was an auction in August, which give us indicative values for very similar spectrum. And we're proceeding extremely methodically to determine if the licenses are potentially a good long-term investment for the system, or if in fact they would yield very significant value to a wireless provider. If I might make one observation since I'm the newbie here, I've just finished nine years of service on the board of Vermont PBS and I understand this stuff, believe it or not. Terrific. Any questions? Any discussion? I'll have one. Go ahead, David. You go right ahead. So Michael, thank you for that. So we have licenses that were essentially given to us that may now have value. Is that the short summary of this? That's right, they could have significant value because they're in what everybody calls the sweet spot of frequency ranges. They signals propagate very well. If you were to set up a wireless network, you'd only need base stations about every 1.8 or every two miles. And they have the ability to carry high capacity data at high speeds. And there's a lot more to the physics of why it's advantageous to have three because one can carry more data if one can create a wider carrier wave. And to do so, there is a acute need to have adjacent spectrum blocks. And do we have that? You do, you hold what are called licenses A, C and D, A, C and D, I believe, yes. And so, and these are actually, as I said, it's a circle with 35 mile radius. They're allocated by the FCC in groups of five that are called A, B, C, D and G. And it's almost like five extremely large pancakes on the map. I just wanna confirm, but yes, you had, and they're not strictly speaking, they are A, C and D and they're not strictly speaking separate from one another because they interweave. You have elements of the spectrum that are grouped together. Those six megahertz video channels that the cable television industry thought it would use to deliver movies. And then there's another little grouping called the guard band where A, C and D are next to each other on this layer. And that's supposed to be the quiet layer. So you're in a very good strategic position. Thank you. Karen, you're muted, Karen. I know absolutely nothing about this. Absolutely nothing. I'd appreciate the wisdom of anybody who can weigh in. Do these have intrinsic value to us as educators? Nobody is really using them for that. It's difficult to create a network if, because nobody would have the receiving equipment. Nobody would have to get those into people's hands. So that's been the difficulty through all these decades. Is this a possible solution to Vermont's needs for more rural broadband? Well, that would be, that's definitely one application, one very important application of certain of the purchasers. For example, one thing we do for clients is we tune into T-Mobile's investor calls. And we just have an annotated transcript that maybe Patty can send over to you or the transcript's available. T-Mobile speaks in great detail of fixed wireless services in which people would have this high speed 5G signal simply with a device about the size of a dictionary attached to their homes and base stations would be on average 1.8 to 2 miles apart. Serving those homes with these, this sweet spot, basically home broadband and home telecommunication service. And T-Mobile talks in great detail about taking away customers from Dish and Direct. So they very much see this as a very profitable avenue to pursue. We just get more information every month or so from the trade journals about how they intend to deploy that. But if you tune into that quarterly call and just listen for the idea of fixed wireless, all the three carriers will be seeing that as a very, very fertile ground for them to literally take away customers from the satellite providers. Particularly- I'm sorry, I got back from my break, just a couple of minutes after you started your presentation. My question is, is it clear that we, that this is an asset that we own as opposed to something which was licensed to us for a certain use? And I guess I don't know who to turn to for this, but I just wanna make sure that there's clarity about whether we own this as an asset or whether this is something which we are somehow in care of until we no longer use it. Well, it is viewed, it is- I think there's no questions whether it's a public asset versus an asset of us. And I think, well, I'll leave it there. No, that's very interesting. For example, television stations received licenses in the 50s for free through auction or otherwise. And today they're able to sell their licenses for $50, $60, $80 million. It's interesting how the concept of a license has evolved into a property right. You've touched on something about- Some people continue to raise that question. I think that's what I'm asking. No, it's a very valid philosophical question as much as a practical one. And I can tell you that there were 2193 of these licenses. And 96% of them have been in some way the subject of a disposition for value. So those, you know, there are many precedents of educational institutions. And frankly, that was the point of the FCC's rezoning and revision of the restrictions on this particular spectrum. And it's fairly unusual that something which had been limited for educational use is now completely unlimited for transfer. And they have encouraged it, frankly, because this change in the rezoning was specifically brought about through the applications of the wireless providers. I think we have Ryan. Thank you. So you mentioned, Michael, that there's an auction coming up in December for some of these licenses, but that there was also another one just recently in August. And I was kind of wondering, based on we have, you said we have three of these licenses, if that's correct, just ballparking, what were these, what were similar licenses getting at auction in August? Well, I should clarify. These licenses per se were not auctioned in August or December, but these particular three licenses are in what's called the 2.5 gigahertz band. In August, there were licenses in the 3.5 gigahertz band. If you Google CBRS, that's what they were called. And those were quite interesting because they were actually shared licenses. It was kind of odd. You didn't buy what we lawyers call the fee simple. You bought the right to query a database and if that spectrum was available, to then utilize it. It was also subject to incumbents, the Navy and satellite base stations. So if you were near Oprah's production facility that was broadcasting to a satellite, there was a quiet zone. If you were on a coast and the Navy was nearby, you had to shut down your operation. And there were power limitations and county borders. So those things I just described were significant impairments. And we adjusted for that. We came to, we looked at the top 100 counties per state and the top 200 per country. I'm gonna tell you kind of a weird price because spectrum is priced as dollars per megahertz pop. Megahertz pop, if you read the literature, is a product a lot like kilowatt hours. Some people will write it megahertz per pop and that's not correct. So I'm frequently sending emails, but a megahertz pop is a measure of volume. And so pricing is dollars per megahertz pop. And we came to about $1.19 per megahertz pop for that CBRS auction in August. In December, we're gonna have spectrum in the high three gigahertz band, 3.8 to 3.98. And that'll be clear fee simple spectrum. The blogs and the trade journalists think that Verizon will be the dominant bidder. That auction will start in December 8th. So that'll give us another really good data point. And if I may, I just wanna just point out that we are gonna talk some in our executive session about appraisal type of issues. So just to make that clear, at least that's what I anticipate. And Patty, you're going to tell us when we need to do that. Yes, yes, these are, this is fine. I just wanted to make sure that we understood that because of some of the values are part of our strategy. So, is there anything else that we need to know, Michael? Not at the moment, we're gonna keep everybody informed every step of the way. And there's plenty of time ahead of us in this evaluating process. Okay, we do have a motion for executive session. Megan, do you wanna read that? Yes, thank you. I move the board of trustees to enter executive session pursuant to one VSA 313A1A to discontracts to which VSA may be a party. One VSA 313A. Are you still there? You froze up, Megan. E discuss pending or probable civil litigation. I need to start over later. Can I continue? We've gone. One VSA 313A1G to negotiator secure lease options and one VSA 313A1F for the purpose of receiving confidential attorney client communications made for the purpose of providing professional legal services because premature general public knowledge of these discussions would place VSC at a substantial disadvantage. The resolution B921 board invites the chancellor, the presidents, the VSC chief financial officer, VSC general counsel, director of external and governmental affairs and consultant, Michael Alcamo to attend. Okay, we have a motion on the floor. Do I have a second? Mary, Moana is seconding it. Do we have any discussion? All those in favor of entering executive session, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposition? No's. I think we're in executive session. We'll go to the breakout room. Okay, so we have everybody. One, two, three, four, five, six. Do we have a quorum? One, two, we have eight so far. That's a quorum, isn't it? Yes, it is. Okay, we have a motion on the table. We have a motion on the table to deal with change to policy number 427. Do I have someone who's willing to make a motion to that effect? So moved. And a second. Second. Okay, any discussion or any questions about the leasing and sale of educational broadband services spectrum in the change in policy? Okay. Seeing none, all those in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Seeing none, we have passed that change in the policy. That's your video frozen. Mine? No, I don't think so. Is that better? Lynn, I think it might be an issue with Bill's computer. Oh, okay. Well, okay, we now have a presentation from the Vermont State College students on diversity equity inclusion at the Vermont State College system. We have Kathleen Mason here and welcome Kathleen and the students and we'll turn it over to you when you can begin your presentation. Thank you very much. I appreciate you having the time to hear us today. I wanna introduce myself. My name is Kathleen Mason. I'm the coordinator for diversity, equity and inclusion at Vermont Technical College. I'm a member of a group of faculty and staff from across the BSC who have been working to address racial and social inequities on our campuses. We have prepared for you the opportunity to listen to the experiences and perspectives of students of color and students who have been deeply engaged in racial justice work on their campuses. I would like for you to listen as our students talk about their experiences in their classroom and across their campuses. I asked that you listen as our students explain that they have asked their professors and campus staff to incorporate a more diverse range of reading materials and content topics into curricula, campus events and opportunities. I would like for you to listen as our students explain that when they have asked for these changes to curricula and campus programming that professors and staff don't always pay attention or respond to their requests. This cannot be our students job. This cannot be our students burden. When this happens, we open our students up to being vulnerable, dismissed, marginalized and invisible. As you listen today, please also recognize the courage those that it takes for our students of color to have to talk about, explain and educate those of us in power about what it is like to be a student of color in the Vermont State College system. With that said, we have provided questions that students will respond to that helps frame this discussion today. Each student will have the opportunity to be the primary respondent to a particular question and others may make additional comments or statements. Students will then end with a concluding remarks and call to action for the Board of Trustees with recommendations. Following the list of recommendation if there's time, students could respond to questions that the Board of Trustees may have. So with that said, I'd like to start with Ayo. Welcome, that's great. Ayo's gonna start. How you doing? I'm doing well, thanks for being here. No problem, no problem. So I'll just say our first question Ayo and then I'll have you go ahead and introduce yourself. Okay, sounds good. Great. So Ayo, what are you getting or not getting from your academic programs that help you to understand racism and multiculturalism? To be honest, there aren't any classes at all since I've been here that actually give me an understanding of our history or where our people come from or our background. The most I learned about diversity is during our team discussions that we had with our basketball team on Fridays. And Ayo, what campus are you on? I'm on the Johnson campus. And what's your major? I'm an INT major. Great, great. And I'm sorry to cut you off. No, you're good. Go ahead, Ayo. And I have another course this year where I asked the professor, when are we gonna start learning about different theorists of color because that's a theory class and we only learn about, I don't really learn about anybody that looks like me. So when I asked her when we're gonna start learning about theorists of color, she kind of looked a little uncomfortable with what I asked her. Thank you, Ayo. Did you wanna add any more? No, that's all. Okay, the next person that's going to speak to this question is sincere Watkins. Sincere, go ahead and introduce yourself and tell us your major and what campus you're on. Okay, my name is Sincere Watkins. I'm a junior here on the Vermont Tech Randall campus. And go ahead and talk about your experience with what are you getting or not getting from your academic programs that help you to understand racism and multiculturalism. All right, so I've been here at Vermont Tech for like three years now and I'm a business major. And they take us through the usual stuff about how to go about running a business and starting a business. A lot of classes we watch videos and talk about, we talk about business owners like Warren Buffett and Steve Jobs and Elon Musk. But for me as a person of color, it's kind of hard to really not pay attention but kind of relate myself to those type of people. See how I'm a person of color. And for me, for my route and going about starting a business it's gonna be a little bit different. So for me, the biggest thing is just, I never really get a lesson about African-American history with the business and black owned businesses unless I'm talking to like, by having a conversation with Kathleen or one of my teammates or I call a family member. So my biggest thing is just trying to incorporate some type of way to talk about African-Americans with some business, along with the absolute whites as well. Thank you, sincere. I appreciate that. Ayo, you're gonna lead our next question too. The next question is, what would it mean to you to have a more racially diverse staff and faculty at your institution in Johnson? Okay, wait, before I answer the second question I actually forgot to introduce myself. I'm Ayo Shokai from the MVU Johnson campus and I'm from Yachters, New York. And my national, I'm Nigerian. And so the second question, what would it mean to have more racially diverse staff and faculty? It would mean the world because we only have one person who is that right now and that's just our master's basketball coach. If we have more professors or teachers or other people of color in different professions, we can see ourselves as that. That gives us an opportunity to look beyond athletics and give us a whole new avenue on where we should be going as people of color. And it will also make everything feel at home. I will feel real comfortable if I could walk around campus and see somebody that looks just like me. Thank you, Ayo. Did any of the other students want to respond and chime in about that question as well? I can. Oh, Devin. So why don't we go with Devin? Devin, go ahead and introduce yourself and then we'll have Bryce. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. I'm Devin Thompson, an African-American woman from Southern Maryland. I attend Northern Vermont University Johnson campus and I'm a sophomore secondary education major. And to just chime in on the second question, it's exactly what Ayo said. We only have one person of color that's a staff member here and that's Coach Miles Smith. He's done everything he can to create a safe space for us, but it can't all be on miles. It starts with the board of trustees, hiring more diverse people of color, more diverse staff. So that way when I'm in my courses, I can connect with someone who looks like me. Someone like me can understand where I'm coming from. We can get that diversity in our curriculum to where it's black bearers, black educators, black philosophers. Thank you, Devin. I appreciate that. Bryce, would you like to say some words? Hi, my name is Bryce. I'm a student at Castleton University. This is my third year here at Castleton. I'm from Southern Vermont, just an hour away from Castleton. And the experience at Castleton is we've had faculty members who are people of color who have left our campus, professors who are people of color that have left our campus because they have faced issues on our campus from both faculty, staff and students and have not felt supported and don't have people on our campus to help support them through their issues and have left our campus. So it is not just students of color that don't feel supported, it is also faculty and the lack of support has caused them to leave campus. Kathleen, you've been muted. Yeah, thank you. I think we'll go on to the next question. I'd like to introduce Sabra. And Sabra's going to introduce herself and where she's from and what programming, Sabra, what programming have you seen or attended that has given you a sense of hope in terms of racial justice? My name is Sabra Ann and I am a Celtic, Hispanic, African woman studying applied psychology and human services at NBU Linden and when it comes to programming that I have personally attended that gives me a sense of hope in terms of racial justice. There's none other than race and racism taught by Pat Shining at Northern Vermont University Linden, formerly Linden State College. This course is touched upon the historical and still withstanding institutionalized racism that runs very deep in our nation and actually seeps into every corner of our lives where unfortunately not even our college campuses are innocent from. So this course has not only helped affirms the very real experiences of people of color as it dives into the multi-generational inheritance of pain and oppression that white supremacy has caused but it also helps us understand how we could actually put aside our fears of having these difficult conversations and actually engage in them so that we can actually learn from our past and then move forward into our futures. So race and racism at NBU Linden teaches us that race and racism are two totally different things actually and we learn more from that as ourselves as individuals and human beings in this world together. So this course actually stands out from so many other psychology courses and courses in general at this campus. It actually provides a place for common ground where similarities can actually become a beacon of teamwork. And this is a really interesting time for turning points in American history. So this course gives me the hope that people will set aside their fears of having to talk about race and racism and actually break out of their inherited silence to move forward into the future. So as one of the very few students of color attending this class as well as the very few attending NBU Linden, race and racism has provided a level playing ground for learning opportunities when we think of trying to work together as one race of people. So when I see and listen to my peers, I actually come to understand their desire to unlearn their judgments and prejudices and at the same time, I actually am able to overcome my own. This course is offered all of this. So we know that racism is, it's a human issue. It's not absent from who we are, what we look like and what we do. So therefore educating students about the hundreds of years of real American history is a civil right that every student and person deserves to have and achieve. So this course and people like Pat Shine provide us a platform for putting aside our differences and it makes positive and life-defining change. I have been a witness to this. So in summary, it recognizes how we can proactively become better human beings. It helps shape a higher learning standard, something that the VSCS already commits to providing for Vermont students. So if there's any hope of maintaining student enrollments, inclusion, and most probably important to me, success rates of graduation, VSCS must recognize the value of courses such as race and racism and work earnestly to incorporate this education into general education requirements, not just making an option, that way we can actually create true, meaningful and long-lasting impacts for the future of our children. Sabra, thank you so much. Devin, go ahead and it's your turn to respond to the questions. What activities, clubs, services would help you as students of color to feel more at home on campus? Thank you, Kathleen. To start off by answering your question, excuse me, within the VSC, 80% of the demographics among each college are all white students. We all as students of color understood before coming here, we weren't going to be the majority, but most of all we knew in the back of our minds, this demographic would possibly compromise our safety. As of now, the only safe space is the coalition of minority student athletes organization, Coach Miles Smith created this year at NVU Johnson. But again, that's it. Students of color at NVU didn't have that support years past. And after conversing with students at the other colleges, it's come to my attention, they still don't have that capable support. Students of color within the VSC don't have anywhere or anyone to go to after experiencing the racial prejudice, being racially profiled, attacked and degraded by white students and staff on our campuses. It starts with taking the initiative to create organizations on each campus for students of color to feel safe in their own skin, preferably directed by students and staff of color. Creating this type of safe space gets colleges the stepping stones to be more culturally responsive and inclusive to all their students rather than just the 80%. Imagine when we all got accepted to college. Imagine when we were all still in the recruitment process. We received welcome letters in the mail. We went on visits. We went to our colleges websites, the whole thing. But imagine the impact on an incoming college freshmen to see people that look like them in a positive light. Imagine to have a campus that not only acknowledges diversity in a positive manner, but has specific procedures set in place that ensure zero tolerance or prejudice. Imagine experiencing classes that we can culturally relate to. Experiencing a campus orientation week where they're exposed to clubs and on campus activities that connect to our culture, holidays, foods, music, even movies we can have on campus. So if people don't know where to start, they can ask me, they can ask I or they can ask any of these students here. Just to get our say, just to how we can be more safe, more inclusive. We can't begin to consider any of the VSC campuses being safe if we don't even feel seen. One of the biggest steps to creating a positive change is acquiring a diverse wellness center staff, which has experience with multiple cultures, counseling and therapy experience. People of color in America experience trauma and violence more often than people of color in America, excuse me, people of color in America experience trauma and violence more often than the white counterparts in this country. And most of that trauma is racially motivated and it impacts emotional and mental health of young adults on a daily basis, which we all know leads to physical harm. N.V.U. Johnson lost a rising sophomore student, mom of doing diet this past July. He's African, he's a basketball player and he's a hardworking student. Students of color here at N.V.U. Johnson have our wellness center, but yet we can't get the support needed because white staff couldn't understand the level of trauma experience when a black student athlete is murdered and law enforcement doesn't care. I can't call N.V.U. a home if my emotions aren't understood. My black peers can't call N.V.U. a home if their emotions aren't understood. Students of color can't call any of the colleges here a home if we're not understood, if we can't see and be ourselves. It starts with the board of trustees taking the initiative to make Vermont State Colleges a home for 100% of their students, not just 80%. Thank you, Devin. And Devin, I just wanna piggyback over what you said. For those who don't know, Devin and I are actually the presidents of the Coalition of Minority Student Athletes and I just wanna say like, we're really like a brotherhood, a sisterhood. Like we really try and provide that safe space here on campus for students of color or athletes of color, like it doesn't really matter. So like he said, like anybody can come up to us and contact us if they feel out of place or they just need someone to come to. Absolutely. And our final question today is going to be led by Bryce. Bryce, go ahead and introduce yourself again or just re-familiarize us with where you're at and what changes would you like to see on our campuses and in the BSC that would make our institutions more diverse, inclusive and equitable or more welcoming to students of color? Thank you. So my name is Bryce. I'm a student at Castleton University. This is my third year. I'm from Southern Vermont. So piggybacking off of what Devin said, when someone is looking into a college, it doesn't matter if it's the BSC or any other college, we start with going online, we start with visiting, we start with talking to recruiters. And it is up to admissions, people who admit us and people who are at college fairs, people who talk to us as high school students to give us a good introduction to their college. If we do not hear from them or if they are not representing students of color or mentioning anything of any support systems or groups of support on campuses, that is where it all begins. If students visit our campus, especially Castleton, we have current students be tour guides and talk to students and talk to their families about potentially visiting our campus and walking around doing a day in the life following students around campus. I know I've hosted many of students within my three years here that have come with me through all of my classes. I'm a women and gender studies major, the only women and gender studies major at Castleton. And when students follow me around and we go to classes, we have no discussions about race. We have no discussions about any of that until it is in class. And even then the discussion is very minimal. And I, as someone who has been involved in these discussions with my professor, Linda Olson, who has many of classes like race, ethnicity, class and gender, which is a sociology class. That's the only class or experiences that those students would ever have. And so I talked to them and introduced them to those classes. But that is just me. That's not every tour guide. That's not every student on campus. And so our thoughts with Linda Olson's class is that it all should go down to admissions, that students and people in admissions need to have a better understanding and have better support systems in way for our students and who are potentially coming to our campus. If they're not presented with the information or they're not having a good exposure or those conversations are not being discussed, then we're not presenting our campus right from the get go in a good way. How are we supposed to do? We're not supposed to lie to these students. We're not supposed to bring them to our campus and play a good show and say, yeah, no, we have all of this, this and this. And then they come to our campus and we don't. That's not fair to anybody. So we have come up with that admissions need to, with students involved in admissions and also just admissions staff need to have better supports and need to have those discussions with students. Just like Devin was saying, you go to websites, you talk to people, you visit campus. And if we don't have those support systems or we have those conversations from the get go, right? When those students are in high school or visiting our campus, we're not setting a good present set of our campuses. Another way, another way, another change I'd like to see within the campuses to make it a more diverse staff is actually give the faculty and staff an understanding or a training on the history and background of people of color. Because the better they understand our background, the better it gives them an approach to a better way. It gives them a better way to assess us. Like, if you don't really understand where someone really comes from, how can you, it's not gonna be as easy as you think it would to teach them. So take Coach Miles Smith, for example. He's educated in this topic. So that's why if a student of color comes up to him, he's easily able to assess them or help them in any way. He's also seen it through the lens of white individuals too, because he's been up here and he actually was a student here. So he's seen it all. So he actually has knowledge in white background and black background. So he's able to assess both identities. So that would really be one thing I like to see change. I agree with Ayo. That's often why a lot of students transfer. That's often why a lot of teachers leave because they don't feel supported. And I think that it should be mandatory that we have these programs, these workshops for our faculty. We often like, we have a couple inclusive classes with Kathleen Breniger, but it needs to go beyond that. It needs to be mandatory. It needs to be a part of training. It needs to be a requirement. Like you said, Deb too, how we don't have anyone to come to in the wellness center. My, you know, Coach Smith is that guy. We need to see more people on campus like that. That you could, that could be an advocate for you. Absolutely. Thank you. So we're going to end our discussion today with Sabra providing a concluding statement and making some recommendations and then Ayo will complete it from there. Go ahead, Sabra. Thank you. In conclusion, racial justice should not be a revolving door. It actually should be a consistently just open one. So we have spoken to you with compassion and truth in hopes that you will take sincere heed and act with viable integrity. We must work together to achieve our goals and ensuring our communities are continuously open and to these deep discussions about race and equity that lead to actionable change. So it is our firm belief in order to do this, we must first recruit, hire and retain more racially diverse staff, administration and faculty members. We must also provide regular education and trainings for staff, administration and faculty members on issues of racial justice and white supremacy. As Devin noted, they have someone knowledgeable but it cannot be just the bare shoulder responsibility of one individual on their college campus. Also established groups and spaces on each campus specifically for students of color and also have them included in that creation process. So you know that everybody's working together to make the best place possible. And also offer more courses that specifically address diversity, multiculturalism and anti-racism. More recommendations include Make Racism, Multiculturalism Courses, a core requirement for Gen Ed programs, especially if the VSC establishes a unified Gen Ed program. Help all faculty members to incorporate more racially diverse materials into the curriculum. Have the chancellor's office and the board of trustees keep racial justice as a priority in all of their work and increase the racial diversity of the board and the office of chancellor. And lastly, we recommend that board of trustees have each campus create an anti-racist pledge for all faculty, staff and students. So that anti-racist pledge would be similar to the COVID pledge. NVU made campuses fill out before they got here. Filling out that COVID pledge would make sure you would do everything in your power to stay safe, healthy and alive during this pandemic. This racial injustice issue has been going on longer than the pandemic. So creating an anti-racist pledge for all faculty, staff and students would make sure students of color would stay alive, healthy and safe while they're here on campus. And in conclusion, the recommendations that we are presenting, we believe will not only help in educating faculty, staff and students on the struggles that people of color have on all campuses, but we hope for a change in the near future. We request that you take these recommendations into serious consideration. James Baldwin, an African-American novelist and activist once stated, not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it's faced. The recommendations we have presented can allow the Vermont State College system to be a product of change. Doesn't the Board of Trustees want to be a product of change? Thank you for your time. Do you have any questions? I'll just quickly jump in and say thank you very much to all of you for speaking and it looks like some of the trustees do have questions. So thank you. I just wanted to say thank you. I very much appreciate the concreteness of your recommendations. Thank you. I think things that are very actionable. So thank you. Any other questions for our students or for Kathleen? Just a comment, Lynn. Thank you. And thank you. Thank you all of you who spoke, I guess I could say this evening because it's getting late. There are several of us, at least two of us on the Board of Trustees, white guys who have suffered extreme abuse and prejudice in our lifetimes and we might be able to have a conversation. Those of you who spoke this evening and a couple of us who choose to but how you deal with this sort of stuff. There is the sort of broad approach, which those who spoke this evening support with regards to the SC policy system-wide and also just the issue of waiting in one person at a time and figuring out how we deal with this sort of stuff. And I'd be happy to participate if such a session could be arranged. Thank you. Thank you. When else have a comment? I know Adam had one. Adam, go ahead. Yeah, thank you. This has been very good to hear firsthand. I appreciate everybody taking the time to bring this forward today. So thank you. So, since Sarah, what kind of business, I'm just curious, are you interested in starting? Do you know? I'm not exactly. I have ideas like a type of like sports shops, like spending jerseys and stuff like that. That's great. Well, I hope that we are able to take some action based on your input today and find ways to connect with all students on the campus. So, echoing the concrete nature of your proposal I think is very much appreciated. All right, thank you. Hey, Lynn, can I make a comment? Sure, well, Bill and then Michael. Bill's on. Again, thank you. And I want to say thank you for waiting so long. You should not have had to wait as long as you had to wait to present to us today. I apologize for that, but I'm glad you did and I'm glad we got to hear you. I want to say that I'm also, I mean, there are very concrete suggestions, some of which will take more time to implement, but I'm very particularly taken with the anti-racist pledge. Which seems very actionable. And I'd be very interested in language if it exists, where it's been implemented, or language if it hasn't been implemented elsewhere, language which we could take a look at and think about adopting. It's, I think that has very exciting implications. And I thank you for bringing that as well as your other recommendations forward. Thank you. Okay, Michael. Yeah, so I just to add to what Bill said, I mean, you know, in Vermont, you know, back in May or June, you know, we said that racism is a public health crisis just to go hand in hand with the discussion about COVID and the COVID pledge when students came back to campus. And I think it, you know, I think it would, you know, it was a powerful, for me, it was a powerful connection that you all made that, you know, if we can make the COVID pledge because it's a public health crisis, there's no reason a similar pledge can't be made because we have all recognized that racism is a public health crisis, or at least many of us have across the country. And the only, the other thing I wanted to add before Bill mentioned that was, you know, how a decade, a decade and a half now since I've been in high school or college, you know, I was fortunate to go to a high school that was very diverse in many different ways. And that's like, that's one of the only things I remember from my experience is how powerful and rich and enjoyable that was, you know, many things happen in high school, but that is the thing a decade plus later that has stood with me all this time. So I think it is a really important thing for us to, particularly for how, you know, how non-diverse generally our state is to try to put that as a point of emphasis that I think is really important. Thank you. Dylan, go ahead. Yeah, thank you all, really appreciate the input and hope that we will have more opportunities to continue the dialogue, but also do our role as listeners for the system, collecting information. And I hope that we can be partners in that. I do wanna ask, and I'm sorry if I missed this, all the speakers today, I think you said you were from NVU, VTC and Castleton. Is there anyone who is taking classes at a community college or Vermont campus? And this might be a question for Kathleen, but just curious. I don't think there's any, we weren't able to get a student to join us today. It had just been difficult scheduling that. So that was the intent to have someone today. And we had a faculty member who was trying to do that, but given the remote nature of things, that was more of a challenge. I know that VTC students often take CCV classes in the system as part of fulfilling their degree requirements. And I'm not sure about NVU and Castleton if they do the same. We do have a student on board who works 40 hours a week. And she was gonna try to submit written testimony, of which you got written testimony from other students, I believe, of alums. But yeah, we did wanna include CCV very much. Great. All right, well, thank you. And look forward to continuing the dialogue and hearing also from CCV students. I certainly think there's a lot of work this board needs to do and hope that we will all commit to taking the pledge and can work on that together. So thank you for spending time with us today. Thank you. I did have one student, Sabra, would like to say one more comment. If that's okay. I just wanted to offer this to the board. Now that I have seen your faces, if you really want to create actionable change, I don't know when we'll be able to actually sit at a table together with everything going on in our world. But since things will continue virtually, I'll just say this, that maybe think about the faces in which you're seeing and look at each other and recognize that maybe even your own board could use a little bit more diversity. And that will help you in achieving your goals together, having all those different perspectives coming together. So that will help everyone in the long run. Thank you, Sabra. Is there anyone else who has a question or is a comment? Well, I just want to say on behalf of the Coalition of Minority Student Athletes, thank you, guys for listening. Thank you, Ayo. I just want to say thank you. Again, I repeat what Bill said. Thank you for your patience. We have been having many, many meetings every month. We try to keep them to four hours and we're just a little bit over that. That was with some executive sessions thrown in. So I really want to thank you for your patience. I especially wanted to thank Pat Shine, who's been a leader in trying to put this together for us over the past couple of meetings, and Kathleen, it's been really helpful. And we will be continuing the discussion. So if he has made some arrangements for I believe our next meeting. So it's other people from other campuses that we will be talking to. So, you know, you were very articulate. It was very good to listen to you and I really appreciate your input. And we're going to see what we can do to continue this conversation. Thank you very much. Very impressive. Is there anything else anyone wants to say? We seem to be at the end of the meeting. I just wanted to add, we will be, you know, we will be discussing sort of action steps that we can do at the next meeting. That'll be something that we're addressing and we're going to have a guest speaker to talk to us about that as well. Someone that's got experience of working with students of color in Vermont and the challenges, you know, that you face and that the colleges and institutions face in trying to do a good job of retaining and supporting students. So again, thank you so much all for being here and for getting the conversation moving it along. And then hopefully we can continue to have conversations with you also. And as Saber says, it's kind of great to see everyone's faces. We don't get to see too many student faces these days being remote. So thank you all for taking the time to come. Yes, thank you. And good luck with the end of your semester. I hope you all stay healthy. Yes, stay safe. And your travel travels back to wherever you come from and stay safe and healthy. Thank you. Thank you. We now have the approval of the additional board meetings in January, February and April. Sophie, do you want to go over those quick plan? We can... Yeah, it was just to add, we were just looking to add regular, additional regular meetings given the significance of all that we have in front of us. So we've already identified Friday, January 15th and Monday, February 22nd as potential dates. We don't yet have one in April, but I would appreciate if we got a vote to approve the January and February date so we can get those on our regular board calendar and post them on the website. Go move. We have a motion from David Silverman. Do we have any... I will say, Ryan. I think Ryan Cooney beat out Mary by a fraction. Any conversation or any discussion or questions? Can you repeat the dates again? And there's so many dates flying around for various commitments. You can't say them too often to make sure that we actually have them. Right. So it's Friday, January 15th. And Monday, February 22nd. And then we already have scheduled, previously scheduled Saturday, March 27th. So just so if you don't have that in your calendar yet, that's a date that we already have set. So I hate to ask, but could someone send an email with those? We will. Yes, please. Thank you. It's... Thank you. Okay. So any more discussion or questions? If not, we will vote on the approval of the board meetings in January, February. All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Seeing none. We have additional business. Seeing none, we, what about comments from the public? We have always had public comments. We welcome any public comments from the public. Suzanne, I'm cooking. I thought it ended in five. I mean, there's an email from... Yeah. Yeah. Okay. There don't seem to be any more public comments or I'd like to thank the students once again. They were very, very educational to listen to you guys. You know, like I say, good luck with the end of your school days and school year and travel safely. And we'll be happy to talk with you again. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any, if anyone wants to make a motion to adjourn? So moved. Mary and Bill. Okay. We've got a motion to adjourn on the table any discussion? Any, we'll just vote. Anyone who approves of adjourning, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. And a post. I think thank you very much for your time and we'll be talking to you again. Thank you, Sophie. Thank you. Thank you.