Skip to content

Adopted Meeting Minutes
May 19, 2003
Regular Meeting

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m.

Roll Call

Present: Holden, Jeffries, Mason, Pelleran, Rasmusson
Absent: Canady, Heywood

Trustee Heywood arrived at 5:33 p.m.

Trustee Canady arrived at 5:40 p.m.

Additions/Deletions to the Agenda

Trustee Rasmusson asked the Board to review two items. The first item is regarding whether the tax increment finance plan of Lansing Township violates the Hedlee Amendment. The second item is regarding the intellectual property policy as applied to the findings the Board saw at the May 16, 2003 special meeting. He indicated that these items need not be discussed at tonight?s meeting, but would like these items part of the agenda next month.

Chairperson Jeffries indicated that these items would be discussed by the Board next month.

Limited Public Comment Regarding Agenda Items

Diane Waller - My name is Diane Waller and I am the uniserve director from the Michigan Education Association (MEA). I represent the employees who are members of MEA at Lansing Community College that includes the full-time faculty, part-time faculty, the full-time support staff and the part-time clerical technical union. In total they represent almost 1800 of the 2500 college employees. In accordance with article five, section eight of the current contract between the College and the Michigan Association of Higher Education, the union has a right to be placed on the agenda by the Board of Trustees meetings to speak on issues of concern to the employees at LCC. This provision requires 11 days notice. Such a request was made on May 2, 2003 . Although we were not placed on the agenda we've been given an opportunity under the limited public comment section of this agenda and we've decided to go ahead and make some limited comments on the budget under this section of the agenda. We are not, however, waiving our rights to enforce the language of the agreement by choosing to do this and make our comments under this portion of the agenda. And we again renew our request for position on the June 3rd agenda. The purpose of the union?s comments can now be addressed. The unions here, the MEA unions, have had an opportunity to review documents provided by the college of the 2003-2004 budget. MAHE representatives, which is a faculty union, have also had the opportunity to meet with administration officials and receive information about the budget as recently as May 9th. We have taken that information and we've looked it over. As a result we?d like to make the following comments. First, we found that as a result of the audit ending 2002 the College has in its general fund an unrestricted sum of money in excess of $23 million. This is up from nearly $20 million in its unrestricted funds from the year 2000. The unrestricted general fund has grown 10% in two years. This represents a substantial increase in the last two years. This $23 million amount is only reduced by the fact that a $17 million transfer was made taking money out of this unrestricted fund and transferred to another fund for plant improvements, maintenance, and replacement. This $17 million transfer is in contrast with and in addition to the previous year?s, the 2001 transfer for the same purposes of $5.6 million. Certainly some of this year?s $17 million transfer could have been used to save the jobs of the individuals who were subjected to the humiliation of layoffs recently. Second, the total cost to the College of running the school in 2002 was $118 and a half million. Even if with the transfer of $17 million the remaining $23 million in unrestricted funds would allow the school to operate for almost 20% of the year without any money coming in. Additionally, the entire budget for instructional expenses was $32.8 million. The $23 million in unrestricted general fund would cover instructional expenses for well over one semester, actually it represents almost 70% of the school year. And it would have lasted even longer if the $17 million transfer had not been made. This is a very high percentage in the general fund for a school who is conducting a reduction in force. Third, the documents that the union was provided on May 2 regarding the 2003-2004 school year budget projects an 11% decrease in funding from the state of Michigan . This figure is an inaccurate prediction. The community college budget that was introduced in the legislature only calls for a 6.5% reduction in state spending. Therefore, the projections being made for reduced funding from the state of Michigan are excessive as reflected by the legislature?s own action. This 11% reduction needs to be adjusted to show a smaller revenue decrease before a consideration of revenues is made. Additionally, the 6.65% reduction, if it comes to fruition, which hopefully it won?t, is only an approximately 1/3 of the total revenues that come into the college. Making it a reduction of just over 2% rather than the quoted 10 to 11% reduction in revenues. With the College projecting a 6% increase in revenues for property taxes, which also represents about a third of the budget, that result of the increased revenues from the recently passed millage, the revenue projection should show as stable not dropping. If the Legislature increases funding from the original bill as it was introduced, it reduces the amount of any reduction and would result in an overall increase in revenue. Again, such revenue change is not justified with any type of staff reductions. Four, the MEA has been very active in the Legislature to work to have the higher education budget restored to its original levels. In fact, Al Short, who probably many of you know, is MEA?s director of government affairs, has recently testified before the Senate Appropriations K-12 subcommittee and has carefully laid out the financial road map needed to restore funding to all of Michigan ?s public schools. In addition to recommending a 10% increase in the income tax dedication for the school aid fund, for community college budget he pointed out that the $2.2 billion college and university budget exactly matched the amount collected in the single business tax. The natural connection that had been made between the business and community colleges cannot be denied especially given the relationship between businesses and the community college here at LCC. MEA is working tirelessly to get the Legislature to adopt a revenue stream that will fully fund all public schools, including Lansing Community College . We need to work together on these issues as we have on other revenue generating issues like the millage in the past. The employees cannot continue to carry the load for the College to provide revenue streams only because the College uses its monies to build additional buildings. Fifth, speaking of improving revenue streams, Lansing Community College ?s tuition is lower than average and has been for years. In a time where state sources are uncertain at best, now is the time to look at the tuition base as a source for increased revenue. This needs to be addressed before evaluating decisions made in the 2003-2004 budget. It cannot be put off another year. And finally, as if you thought I would forget, the college is entering into contract negotiations with many of the unions next spring. This is the year to set aside some money for improvements in employee salaries and benefits. The $17 million transfer of funds for building and capitol outlay is not appropriate and is not necessary. The need to attract and retain excellent employees who provide the educational opportunities to the students of the Lansing area and beyond cannot be overlooked. By being aware that the salaries of employees at LCC are below the average in the state and their benefits are below average as well, now is the time for correcting these deficiencies. Not the time to be committing to large scale building projects. The unions on this campus are willing to work with Board of Trustees on this issue now and in the future, but we cannot continue to subsidize the infrastructure at the cost of our own livelihood. I want to thank you again for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the excellent staff at LCC.

Trustee Pelleran - Diane, I just wanted to point something out to you that may have been an oversight. In the state budget for 2002-2003 that 3.5% decrease that we just took, was in a supplemental, it was a negative supplemental. So the 11% is exactly from the original 2002-2003 passed budget from the state. It truly is an 11% that we're looking at. And I think with the current revenue estimating conference, I think knowing that the revenues are even down further than anticipated, I think that we're going to see even less from the state. So, it's not pretty at the state level.

Diane Waller - I agree with you. I do believe that the 3% reduction was already calculated into the 2002 budget when the additional 11% was put out. It was put on the budget as projected 11% over the current year.

Trustee Pelleran - But the current year included the 3.5%, the current year didn?t deduct it. The supplemental to the current year deducted the 3.5%.

Diane Waller - I have the 2003-2004 amount, it deducted it for 2002-2003. But they added additional 11% to the 2003-2004 on the documents that they gave us.

Trustee Pelleran - It's a total of 11%, it's not in addition to the 3.5%. It includes the 3.5% and that's what I see over there.

Diane Waller - Then that (inaudible) needs to be corrected.

Trustee Pelleran - The Senate and House Fiscal House agents, I mean they're all?it's (inaudible) and between. And we do agree that we have a fine, fine staff here and the faculty are part of what makes the students enroll at LCC and come back to LCC as well.

Chairperson and Board Member Reports


Appointment of Nominating Committee

Chairperson Jeffries reported that as consistent with past practice he will be appointing a nominating committee. The nominating committee will be putting together a slate of candidates for officer positions that will be voted on in July.

Trustee Pelleran referred to bylaw 1.2.2, Election of Officers/Term of Office/Vacancy. She read a portion of the bylaw, which reads as follows: ?All officers of the Board shall be nominated from the floor and elected by roll call vote at the organizational meeting of the Board.? She said that comes after the election.

Chairperson Jeffries responded that was correct. He explained that what has been done in the past is that a nominating committee will put forth a slate and then it is up to the Board to approve that. The nominating committee will not make that decision and it will be a Board decision that is made at the organizational meeting in July. He said that the future Board will make that decision.

Trustee Pelleran recommended postponing that decision until the newly elected Trustees are serving on the Board.

Chairperson Jeffries stated that whoever serves on the Board in July will be making that decision. He appointed himself and Trustee Rasmusson to that committee and the recommendation will be forwarded before the end of the fiscal year.

Board Member Reports

Trustee Olga Holden - Foundation Board

Trustee Holden reported on the Foundation Scholarship Breakfast held on May 9. There were 320 attendees and to date $176,000 has been awarded in scholarships to 200 recipients. Trustee Holden reported that in March 2003 the Foundation received $51,000 in revenue. She reported that the Alumni Committee is sponsoring a reception for all LCC alumni on Wednesday, May 28, from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. and encouraged the Trustees to attend. The Foundation Board meets for the last time this fiscal year on May 22 and eight new board members will be elected. Trustee Holden reported that she will be serving on a committee that will be updating the Foundation Board bylaws, and staff is working on an operational plan to implement the strategic plan.

Trustee Canady wanted to address the nominating committee agenda item. He asked if what Trustee Pelleran pointed out precludes a creation of a nominating committee if the nominations are to come from the floor.

Chairperson Jeffries responded that this process has been done in the past. He said that the Board may do what it desires in terms of when it puts together its Board next year. Chairperson Jeffries stated that he would be more than happy to have this reviewed to ensure the procedure is appropriate. At this point, a nominating committee will be formed and if there is an issue it will be brought back at the next Board meeting.

Trustee Canady stated that it may be appropriate to ensure it is legal prior to appointing the committee.

Chairperson Jeffries responded that he would be following up on this issue tomorrow.

Trustee Pelleran requested at the June 16, 2003 regular Board of Trustees meeting that the following verbatim transcript be included in the May 19, 2003 meeting minutes.

Verbatim transcript begins:

Jeffries - As is consistent with past practice I will be appointing a nominating committee. At this time this committee will be looking at putting together a slate of candidates for officer positions that will be voted on in July.

Pelleran - Mr. President, I mean, Mr. Chairman.

Jeffries - Yes.

Pelleran - The Bylaws state that that will be done not by a nominating committee, but by the?bylaws officers?the officers, blah, blah?they need to be members?it's bylaw 1.2.2 election of officers, term of office, and vacancy. And it specifically says, ?All officers of the Board shall be nominated from the floor and elected by roll call vote at the organizational meeting of the Board.? So that comes after the election.

Jeffries - that's correct. that's correct. Typically what we have done and it's been done in the past is that a nominating committee will put forth a slate and then it is up to the Board to approve that. The nominating committee will not make that decision. It will be a Board decision that's made at the organizational meeting in July. So, the future Board will make that decision.

Pelleran - I?d like to postpone that decision until we have newly elected trustees who will be seated with those board officers.

Jeffries - The newly elected?whatever the Board is in July will be making that decision. I would appoint myself and Tom Rasmusson to that committee and will have the information back before the end of the year or the end of this term. Board Member Reports. Olga.

Holden - I?d like to do a Foundation update. The scholarship breakfast on May 9 and it was most the highest number of attendees. There were 320 that attended. And to date $176,000 has been awarded in scholarships; 200 recipients. And a lot of delighted?many delighted recipients at that breakfast. They were very appreciative. March 2003 was a very good month for revenue for the Foundation; $51,000.

Pelleran - that's great.

Holden - So, that's very good. April was not quite that?I wanted talk about the really good one. The alumni committee is sponsoring a reception for all LCC alumni. And I saw my invitation in the mail just a little bit ago. I will assume that all of us are being invited. that's Wednesday, May 28 from 4 to 7. I would urge many of the board members who are able to attend that. that's May 28, Wednesday, from 4 to 7. The Foundation board meets for the last time this year on May 22nd they will be electing 8 new board members to the Foundation; they have a lot of openings. And I understand some very, very good board members that are coming on board to that board. And I am going to be working?there's a committee that Chris Laverty has put together; I'll be joining that committee and working on it on updating the bylaws and I think we meet tomorrow?tomorrow afternoon. Then in addition to that the?importantly I think?the staff led by Joan Bauer is working on an operational plan to implement the strategic plan. That is the main focus there is to grow the Foundation something that we as the Board have wanted. So I would ask Joan or Chris if you?d like to add anything to that report.

Laverty - I?d say that was pretty complete.

Holden - Thank you.

Canady - Mr. Chairman.

Jeffries - Yes, Mark.

Canady - I'm sorry I was chewing a cookie and you went through it so quickly with respect to the nominating committee. What Trustee Pelleran pointed out, doesn?t that preclude the creation of a nominating committee, the nominations are to come from the floor?

Jeffries - This is how we've done it and this Board can simply do whatever it wants to do in terms of when it gets together as a Board next year. But this is what we've done?I?d be more than happy to check it out to make sure that the procedure is proper, but at this point we?ll go ahead and form the committee; I don't want to delay that. If there is an issue, we?ll bring it back and deal with it at the next meeting.

Canady - Forming it may create an issue, I guess is the point. It seems to me that we find out whether it's legal before we did it.

Jeffries - Well, I'll make the call tomorrow, but I?d like to get the?you know?

Pelleran - We?d hate to see you go out violating our bylaws Mr. Chairman.

(Laughter. Several people speaking at once.)

Jeffries - Thank you. I always appreciate your support and concern.

Pelleran - Yeah.

(several board members talking at once.)

Rasmusson - Who wants to be the tallest building (inaudible)?who even wants one of those jobs?


Heywood - Mr. Chair, you could (inaudible)

(Canady speaking at the same time - unclear)

Jeffries - At this point, we?ll bring it back at the next meeting to move forward. Go ahead, President's Report.

End of verbatim transcript.

President's Report

Informational Items

Human Resources

Sabbatical Leaves?


Trudy Carpenter, Professor, Language Skills, Student and Academic Support Division, Fall Semester 2003

Ms. Carpenter?s sabbatical leave was changed from spring 2003 to fall 2003 due to faculty staffing issues.

2003-2004 Proposed Budget

President Cunningham asked Mr. Glenn Cerny to highlight the 2003-2004 proposed budget.

Mr. Cerny reviewed the 2003-2004 proposed budget (which is on file with the official Board materials.) He said that the intention tonight was to provide highlights of the budget and at the June 3rd special meeting a formal presentation will be made.

Trustee Pelleran had a question on page 2 regarding the recommendation for a tuition increase by 5.9%. She asked if the Michigan Community College Association voted to oppose the higher education budget, because of the $4 million reduction, and if that included the tuition tax credit.

President Cunningham responded that she was not aware of that information because she was unable to that MCCA meeting due to the Board's strategic planning session on May 16.

Trustee Pelleran stated that if they are going to take tuition tax credits with the $4 million and we've opposed the higher education budget bill, then that is something that is going to play into this also with our tuition. She asked what the threshold is for students with an increase in tuition to qualify for the tuition tax credit.

Mr. Cerny responded that usually the threshold is the inflation rate and currently it is about 2.9%.

Trustee Pelleran said that the College's recommended tuition increase would eliminate the tuition tax credit for students.

President Cunningham responded that there is not a community college that is going to be able to provide that this year.

Trustee Pelleran referred to page 4, the last bullet under the heading, Strategic Initiatives Set Asides, the implementation of a student payment plan. She asked at what other colleges this exists and requested additional history on the payment plan.

President Cunningham stated that a payment plan has existed in the past at the College, and now an agency will be administering it.

Trustee Pelleran asked what the difference in cost would be between turning it over to an agency and having the College handle it.

President Cunningham stated that previously the Board received information regarding the College turning over collecting owed monies to a collection agency. She said that a flexible payment plan has done that before.

Trustee Pelleran referred to page four, under heading Attachment C, second bullet. She asked what the other revenue was.

President Cunningham responded that other revenue includes the Foundation, BCI, and grants.

Trustee Pelleran asked for clarification on the 14.6% for strategic initiatives and set-asides.

President Cunningham stated that the 85.4% includes everything that is not compensation. Without the capital revenue that would be 77%, but everything that is not wages or compensation that is left, 14.6%, this is the balance.

Trustee Pelleran referred to page five, Attachment E. She asked what the other renovations are that are intended for sites not being affected by the Facilities Master Plan. She said that in the packet there was a renovation for the Physics Department. Trustee Pelleran asked with the new Health Services Building , does the College want to spend $120,000 in repairing the Physics Lab.

President Cunningham responded, yes. The renovation of the Physics Lab includes the regular maintenance of facilities. She asked Dean Bill Darr to further address Trustee Pelleran?s question.

Dean Darr stated that in the 2000 facilities master plan the facilities were surveyed. Historically the College would place approximately $1.5 million a year into maintenance for all of the buildings. As a result of that study, which was projected out for 10 years, $30 million were to be set aside and was divided into $3 million per year. He said the Arts and Sciences building is one of the major facilities that would be concentrated on to bring up to date.

Trustee Pelleran asked if the Physics Department would be moving into the new health building.

Dean Darr responded that the Physics Department would stay in the Arts and Sciences Building . He said that a lot of the science courses are the prerequisites for the health courses.

Trustee Pelleran asked for clarification regarding the second bullet under Attachment G, on page five.

President Cunningham responded that the restricted funds gradually increase every year. She stated that two years ago the Board set aside dollars that were part of a surplus.

Trustee Pelleran stated that in the packet there are no numbers on contract positions. She said that there is a lot of contracting that the College does. In order to look at the budget adequately, she requested information on the College's contract positions and the nature of the contracts.

President Cunningham asked Trustee Pelleran to clarify if she wanted information on all contracts, and she asked Ms. Beckie Beard approximately how many that would be.

Trustee Pelleran responded that she particularly is looking for information regarding strategic planning with Mr. Lee Whipple ?s contract. Trustee Pelleran understood from a presentation the Board had a month ago that is still a relevant issue. The Board has to make difficult choices whether to increase student tuition, whether to not hire people, whether to let people go and they need to see the big picture.

Ms. Beard responded that there are approximately 60 contracts. She asked Trustee Pelleran if she was interested in contracts that deal with professional services.

Trustee Pelleran responded, yes. For example, Joan Bauer is on a contract.

President Cunningham stated that Ms. Bauer is not on a contract; she is an employee.

President Cunningham asked Trustee Pelleran what information she is looking for to ensure she receives it. She asked Trustee Pelleran if she was looking for information regarding consulting services.

Trustee Pelleran responded, yes, any consultants. She wants to know what the big picture looks like.

President Cunningham stated that staff would provide any information Trustee Pelleran requests, but it is helpful to know what exact information she is requesting.

Trustee Pelleran said that it is hard to figure out what we want when we don't know where it's at.

Trustee Canady agreed with Trustee Pelleran and felt her request was reasonable. He said that there may be some consulting contracts that can be delayed.

Trustee Pelleran said that she would like information on whatever the College contracts out. She said that the number of contracts is 60 or 120; she is willing to take the time to review the information.

Trustee Pelleran referred to the ASAP-Pie grant funding set aside in attachment D. She said that there is no money for this grant. There was carry-over money that was from the last State budget to this fiscal year, but there will not be any money for ASAP-Pie next year. Trustee Pelleran stated that what the State is looking at is a $3.3 million steel toe to put in the door to keep that program open for future times when the State has more revenues. The other question is At-Risk funding and there was probably funding in the K-12 budget and all of that right now is in question because they're $100 million shy for this current fiscal year and $117 million shy for the next fiscal year. She doesn?t see that the State will be doing any revenue enhancements whatsoever because of elections on both the legislature and the administration and they are some real issues with some of the other State funding. Trustee Pelleran emphasized that the 11% is soft and she felt that the State will go to 12 or 13% next year in reductions. She said that she misspoke earlier when she said that it was the supplemental. The 3.5% decrease in late January was by executive order of the Governor.

President Cunningham reminded the Board that she had stated that if there was another negative appropriation, raising tuition and fees would be proposed prior to cutting positions.

Trustee Pelleran referred to the budget stabilization fund in attachment G. She asked what the recommendation is for using those funds.

President Cunningham responded that there is no recommendation for those funds. Those are for capital outlay funds and the fund balances. There is no recommendation to use those funds at this time. She asked Mr. Cerny to further address Trustee Pelleran?s question.

Mr. Cerny responded that when issues arise like this year where the State appropriation of $32 million is reduced by $1.2 million, you want to build a stabilization fund as part of the fund balance.

President Cunningham responded that the College has been advised by general accounting principles to always maintain at least 1/12 of the general fund.

Trustee Pelleran referred to attachment H and felt that the reduction in State appropriations will be more than 11% and it may be as high as 13%.

Mr. Cerny reviewed attachment H with the Board. He said that the College took the $31,095,200 figure, which is what the state appropriations currently sits at this year, and then took 11% from that figure. Therefore, the total impact from 2002-2003 it is a combination of 11% plus 3.5%.

Trustee Pelleran responded that was unrealistic and what Ms. Waller commented is correct because that is what they are basing their figures on. Instead of taking an 11% from the $32.2 million, which would be exactly what the State is telling us right now.

Mr. Cerny stated that the State has come in at 6.7% and the College is estimating 11%, which is a difference of 4% and is consistent with what other community colleges in the state are planning for.

Trustee Pelleran stated that the College is planning for more than what the State will be cutting, but it is good that we have the buffer in there.

President Cunningham reminded the Board that she spoke about it previously because of how challenging this year?s budget was she did not want to have to go back and look at programs or cut positions again. She has communicated across campus that if there is another 4% reduction the College will be okay; however, if there is a reduction greater than 4%, the College would again look at all possible cost saving measures.

Trustee Pelleran stated that it is responsible to plan for a higher decrease. She referred to the course fees dealing with Flight Training on attachment J. Trustee Pelleran asked if the students are receiving scholarships or are companies sending their pilots to the college to be trained.

President Cunningham responded no, not in every case, and asked Dean Darr to further address Trustee Pelleran?s question.

Dean Darr responded that most Airframe and Power Plant students are on scholarships. The majority of the students in the Flight Program pay tuition out of their own pocket. He said that the College's fees may appear to be high, but are very competitive within the market.

Trustee Pelleran asked what the retention factor is.

Dean Darr responded that he did not have the exact figure with him, but the college does not tend to lose students out of the Flight Program.

Trustee Pelleran referred to the course fees regarding Heavy Equipment. She asked how the course fees are developed in those areas.

Dean Darr responded that the Heavy Equipment Repair is a brand new program the College will be starting.

Trustee Pelleran asked if AIS will be conducting the training for that.

Dean Darr responded, yes. He said that AIS has been doing the training for some time for the EISD and the College will probably pick up a number of those high school students in continuing their training. Dean Darr explained that heavy equipment is very expensive. If you purchase just a set of gaskets, the costs would be approximately between $1500 and $2000. He said that they are trying to structure the program so that there is cost recovery from the supplies that are provided for it.

Trustee Heywood asked what percentage of the Heavy Equipment program course fees go towards instructional costs.

Dean Darr responded that he could provide that information.

Trustee Heywood stated that at this point if they present these course fees to him for budget adoption, he will be voting no on the entire budget. He said that they have said continuously for a year and a half that this administration would be presenting to the Board the choice to explore the option of the contact hour fee. Trustee Heywood felt that it is time for that to come forward. A course fee in the amount of $1500 for a 6 credit class is insane and abusive to him. He said that raising course fees is a back door to raising tuition and he will not be supporting it.

Trustee Pelleran requested more information on the Heavy Equipment Operator and the Heavy Equipment Mechanics programs. She realizes that the Heavy Equipment Operator program is certified by MIOSHA and also by LCC, but where is the national accreditation. Trustee Pelleran asked if the College is having students get training from a local vendor and we are promoting that, what other options or partnerships the College has reviewed. She requested more information on those areas before she votes on the budget.

President Cunningham asked for clarification regarding what exact information she is requesting. She asked Trustee Pelleran if she was requesting information regarding the course fee breakdown and the certification.

Trustee Pelleran responded, yes, and she would like to know why there is not a national certification with these programs. She said that she wants the students to have jobs and opportunities.

Trustee Holden asked if most of the students enrolled in those programs are supported or subsidized by the companies.

Dean Darr responded he doesn?t believe so. He said that many of the students have borrowed the money. Dean Darr stated that out of the 8 students that graduated, six have jobs.

President Cunningham stated that before the program began, it was brought to the Board for their approval.

Trustee Pelleran responded that the program was not brought to the Board for their approval because they were told that the approval for the program was a done deal and it was only informational in nature.

President Cunningham highlighted the fact that the course fees were approved by the Board and without the course fees the program could not have began, which was discussed extensively at that time.

Trustee Holden asked what type of salaries the students would expect once completing the program.

Dean Darr responded that it would vary between $12 and $18 an hour to start.

Trustee Pelleran stated that if they have their own piece of equipment they're bringing in six figures. If the equipment is rented, they could expect a salary of approximately $60,000.

Action Items

Approval of Minutes - April 21, 2003 Regular Meeting; April 29, 2003 Special Meeting; May 6, 2003 Special Meeting

IT WAS MOVED by Trustee Heywood and supported by Trustee Mason to approve the minutes for the April 21, 2003 regular meeting; April 29, 2003 special meeting; and the May 6, 2003 special meeting.

Ayes: Canady, Heywood, Holden, Jeffries, Mason, Pelleran, Rasmusson
Nays: None
Absent: None

Motion carried.

Public Comment

There were no comments from the public.

Trustee Pelleran stated that everyone received an article regarding questions they may have on the project labor agreements issues.

President Cunningham reminded the Board that the groundbreaking ceremony for the Healthcare and Administration buildings will be held on Tuesday, May 20 with a breakfast at 7:30 a.m. and the ceremony at 8:30 a.m.


The meeting was adjourned at 6:26 p.m.

Lansing Community College Trustees

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

Facebook Twitter YouTube