Board Meeting: October 27, 2011

Uploaded by SBCCBoardofTrustees on 01.11.2011

We'll call the meeting to order, welcome to you all. The roll call is accomplished,
everyone is here. We are going to take a few items out of order, including the
presentation by the community college league on redistricting as soon as Paul
gets here, so we will do that when he arrives. We have a presentation by human
resources. >> Sources, in terms of classified longevity. Do you, Sue, would
you like to do that? >> Good afternoon, members of the board, Dr. [inaudible].
This is an ideal time. At this time, I would like to invite Eileen [inaudible],
Financial Aid Technician, to come forward, and be recognized for ten years of
service. And speaking, for her is Brad [inaudible], Director of Financial Aid. >>
[sound] >> Good afternoon, members of the board. Brad [inaudible], Financial Aid
Director. It's my honor to be here with Eileen. And she actually started in the
Financial Aid office, I believe in May. Of that year. She's being recognized for ten
years, but she actually started as an hourly employee. She, she'll probably talk
about his in some of her remarks. But she was known [inaudible] college. And, Marsha
Wright, the OPS director, says. I have, I know this person, she's looking for some
work. Do you have any work in financial aid? And I said, yeah, we have an hourly
position. We're needing to reconcile some spreadsheets and do some balancing. So
Eileen took that job on. It's probably not her most, desired type of work, but she
actually did a pretty good job with it. And she did that for a couple months, and
at that time, our, financial aid technician. [inaudible] Coordinator and I
asked Eileen if she'd be willing to apply for the job. We had her in there for an
interim and she did, and I would say that the job she does as the front desk, as a
work city coordinator and work at the front desk. It's probably one of the
hardest jobs in the finance office because she talks to every student. Every parent
that comes by our office. And repeats the same information time and time again, to
students and parents over the telephone or in person, but she always does it very
happy and upbeat like it's the first time she's talked to somebody. >> And that's
very difficult job to do. I worked up there. And sometimes I am just saying, I
dunno if I can say the same thing again and again, again. >> [laugh]. >> And keep
the same attitude. But Ilene always does. So, she is a wonderful asset to the
office. She is very funny. She brings a lot of joy to the office. And she is a
wonderful employee. And I think its great that she has been here ten years. And the
college has really benefited by having her work in our office. And contributed
financially also. With that [inaudible], Ilene to say a few words. [sound], I'll
try to be very brief and thank Brad for hiring me, it's been a honor and a
pleasure to be able to work here and be a part of such a great Junior College, and
without Brad, our Financial Aid Department would not be where it is today, and we're
probably one of the best in. The nation. And I would like to say that I have been
here for 52 years, because my father is retired. Dick [inaudible], came here. 52
years ago, and I remember skating. Here, [laugh], in this building so I have a lot
of great memories, great times, and hope to be here a few more years so, thank you
very much. >> Oh, okay. >> [laugh] >> Yeah. >> Cuz we need to get charged. >> I
think it's nice of you, giving you stuff when you said you're giving us a check. >>
Uh-huh. [laugh] ... >> Okay, great. [sound]. >> Thank you. [sound]. >> Thank
you, Eileen. Somebody I want you to tell me how you were skating. Were you skating
in this room? >> [inaudible] skating right here on the tile. [sound]. [inaudible]. >>
As long as your weren't skateboarding. >> Nope, no way. >> [laugh]. >> Okay. Let's
see. Vanessa Patterson is here from the foundation for Santa Barbara City College,
to give us what I hope to be a, a kind of routine report on the workings of the
foundation. >> Thank you so much. Okay. Expand and grow our community of support.
Good afternoon, I'm Vanessa Paterson, the executive director of the Foundation for
Santa Barbara City College. And I want to thank you very much for inviting me to be
here today, and I also want to thank each and every one of you for sharing your
personal interest in supporting the Foundation and the efforts. So, thank you.
I led with expand and grow our community of support, because that is really our
theme. If there's one thing that stands out today it's those words, expand and
grow our community of support. But I'd like to give a brief overview of the
foundation and what we're doing to support the college and our students, and then
answer questions that most everyone has asked repeatedly, throughout this year,
how can I help? The Foundation is the means by which the, our community can
support our college and our students. Basically it's clear when you hear it from
a student perspective and Anna Aguilar our first year student here at Santa Barbara
City College said it best. I said, Anna how has the student, how have you been
impacted by the foundation? And she works in our office, so it's very easy to get
the answer. She said, well. I study at the library on the weekends. Because I work
full-time during the week. And I also go to school full-time. And the Foundation
funds the library being open all weekend. I research on the Internet using the
Cybersec, CyberCenter. Because I don't have a personal computer. And I don't have
Inter Internet access at home. The foundation funds the cyber center. My
books were purchased by the foundation, averaging $180 per textbook this year.
Over $300 worth of support for just two classes. My books were purchased by an
emergency book grant offered by the foundation. The Running Start program
found me and my parents when I was in high school, and invited me to participate. And
that's how I found Santa Barbara City College, and the Running Start Program is
funded via the foundation. And I'm also a student in your Express to Success program
because I want to be a doctor, someday. I want to transfer to UCLA but I wasn't
college ready, and so I'm a part of your Express to Success program which has
helped, supported financially via the foundation. And these are just five ways
that one student has been impacted here, and we have the privilege of supporting
thousands of students in that way here every year. It’s a collaborative effort,
how those processes happen. We do that in conjunctions with Dr. Friedlander and also
our board of trustees, and the college Deans and their faculties. So it’s really
a pleasure to represent such a great institution. From fundraising, we closed
our fiscal year 2010-2011 raising just under $4 million dollars and that was
$500,000 above our goal. The Campaign for Student Success was held in the last six
weeks, and you participated. And I wanna [inaudible] say thank you for that, too.
Thank you for coming to our training sessions, leading call nights. Really,
your presence there was very appreciated. And during that last six weeks, we grew
our donor base by 38%. And that's huge. Over all this time, 38% in a very short
period of time, and I wanna say thank you. I have a question and you don't have to
answer but the question is what is the biggest difference between UCSB and Santa
Barbara City College in our fundraising efforts. >> I know the answer. >> Okay.
[laugh]. Attack. [laugh]. No [laugh]. All right. Well, of course, dollar amount via
the Foundation is probably what joints, jumps out at us. But what's interesting to
know is our donors actually give more per donor by a thousand dollars via the
average donor of UCSB. The only difference... The only difference is the
size. Last year we had 1,438 donors support the foundation. UCSB had 17,500.
Taking it at a national look. The average donor gives the exact same amount to a two
year institution as they do to a four year institution. Volume is really the answer
to our fund raising efforts. Expand and grow our community of support. George
[inaudible], from UCSB, said to me, that his most important resources, because
they're uniquely qualified to help him in his efforts to grow the foundation is the
college trustees. And I am so grateful for your enthusiasm and your support, because
I need you, we need you, we need your help. I'd love for you to all be
spokespersons and ambassadors for our foundation. I invite you to our guest
who's coming to lunches. We host them every Friday at noon in the gourmet dining
room. I already came to one, it was a wonderful opportunity for you to interact
and engage with faculty and our donors and our board members. Also thank you for
attending our events. The Presidents Council Garden Party- it's incredibly
powerful. People notice that your there. They now, they now. They look and the say
wow it's great, you know, and oh, I saw so and so, it's wonderful. And please we
invite you to join our committees. We have eleven committees. Our newest committee is
our alumni committee. But please participate. We would love to have you.
And our campaign for student's success. This is an annual initiative that we're
going to be doing each and every year. This year, it's running March fifteenth
through April thirtieth. I invite you to be the champions of our cause, please help
us. Let's get talking now. We'd love to talk to you more about that. And again,
last year, your support was so powerful. Expand and grow our community of support.
We had 1,438 donors last year. My goal is 5,000 in the next eighteen months. And all
my training says you're never supposed to say that publicly, but I feel so strongly
about it I have to share it with you. Please help me. I need your help. I have
my business cards because, as you're out in public and you run into people, please
pass it on. Also, I'd love to, you know, join you, my board president would love to
join you. My team would love to join you. Any one that you need from the foundation
is there to help facilitate relationships that you have. Please, thank you, thank
you for this. I look forward to, hopefully future opportunities to meet with you and
share with what's going on, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Any
question? >> Yeah, where, where do you get your enthusiasm? [laugh] ... >> Well, you
know [laugh] ... >> What, I, whatever you're, whatever you're drinking, I want
some of that. [laugh] ... >> Well, thank you, but I went to school here. >> No, no,
no, Vanessa, you said, for a donation you'll give it to him. >> [laugh] >>
That's right. That's right, but I was a former student here and I just owe so much
to Santa Barbara City College so anything that I can do to help us grow and help
more students and help more college, I'd love to help. Thank you so much. >> Thank
you. >> Yeah, and, just to Give you a update. Vince and I, we each agreed that,
through the college planning, counseling processes, they were going to update the
college priorities for the foundation, and also make a concerted effort to have more
of the faculty, staff and students, you know, be ambassadors as well, and managers
to, Identify peop-, you know, people they know to help contribute to the foundation
to help our students. Especially now more than ever. It's, that extra support that
she talked about, that one student receiving. Students are really strapped,
you know, more and more, for, Just to live on and stay in school. And with fees going
up again, $10 this summer, it seems like it’s only $10 per unit more but it was $10
on top of $10. And, just some of the students that I have visited with, they
don't know if they can take as many classes anymore going forward. It's just,
a day by day situation for far too many. And so what the foundation is doing, their
efforts, the more we can support. [inaudible] For this is goals to get the
5,000 increase that would be our students would benefit tremendously from that. >>
Also, Dr. Haslan, Paul Mitchell's here now. >> Oh. >> Good, but, but before we go
on, the rumor is that it's really okay for members of the board to become part of the
president's council. Is, is that true? >> Oh yeah, yeah, that's true. [inaudible]
love to facilitate that. >> Yeah, the president's council supports the
foundation in its operations [inaudible]. Actually, I think membership is open
pretty generally, isn't it? Anybody here can join the president's council. >> Yeah,
that's very true. >> Oh good, I'm glad to clarify that. >> [inaudible]. >> Paul
Mitchell. >> To join us. Paul is going to talk about our redistricting process, and
respond to questions, [sound]. >> Thank you very much for having me here today. I
sent a e-mail to Jack just a few minutes ago because we were at Kinko's for about
half an hour trying to get printouts. Didn't work out so we have the overheads
and I trust that many of the trustees still have the printouts from the last
time. They're exactly the same, we didn't make any changes, although we did. >>
Think through some emails that I think you received, provide some clarifications. And
I'm happy to talk about those in more detail. >> That's good. >> And what I was
going to bring up on the slide, the, the original presentation I have, I also have
the big blow up of each of the individual districts and a big blow up of the
overview. Just so that everybody who's in the audience can see and the same
materials that you have printed copies of. [inaudible] ... >> So Paul if I recall
correctly through our last conversation, you're going to tweak some of the
districts, or areas, such that ... >> The one on the far right. [sound]. >> That the
original, [sound], the original patterns would be changed just a little. >>
[sound]. Yeah I think the [inaudible] was looking at option one and the concern was
about having enough. Longer term residence in the Isle of Vista in a district.
[inaudible] And what we found and some of this is reflected in the conversation that
we had, was that option one actually achieved some of what was the main point
of my question. In option one, Ila Vista is divided and in that division there's
980. Voters under the age of 24 in Isla Vista on one side, 962. Voters that are
under 24 in Isla Vista on the other side and then in. So I think even in the under
35 population, it's 1,500 on one side 1,600 on the other. So really that
division is about as good as you're gonna get with regard to that key point which is
a significant point and that is, how many permanent older residents that would be
willing to serve on a community college board are going to be able to come from
that area, and the only way to further address that would be to introduce a third
district. But that's probably not gonna be feasible. >> So each of the districts
you've depicted here has approximately 29,000 people. >> Yeah, between 27, and
29. 27 and change, 29 and change. In fact the actual number is right there. >> And,
we didn't even rehearse this. >> No we didn't. >> Okay. >> I have, I have a
question before we go forward, because option three, did option three put all of
Isla Vista into a single district? >> There was an option that put all of Isla
Vista into the single district, that probably, I think that was option three,
and I could go to it if we need to? >> Three? And so that was, obviously,
appropriately, allocated? >> Yeah, this is a, this really is, is something for the
board to decide. The board could decide on. You know, that it's important to keep
all of this together. The board could decide this other criteria that it's
important to keep of, an equal number as much as possible of. >> More permanent
residents in each district. So that's really a decision for the board. It's not
[inaudible] that process, but not to help you really make that decision. >> I guess,
I guess my assumption is since you created this option three that had met the
criteria that you feel needs to. >> Each of the plans except for the four district
plan that was presented is. >> [inaudible] is viable. >> It’s the [inaudible] plan.
>> Yeah I believe so. >> On the note you sent to us you said that two-thirds of the
population under option three is under 24 years of age. >> 67 percent I believe was
under under. >> 24 years old, or 60 to 70% was under 35 years old. 81% was under, 81%
was under 35 year old. 67 was under 24 year old, sorry, yeah. >> Okay, Marsha,
and Maurie is next. >> The first step, as I understand it in what we've been doing,
is to balance population. >> Yes. >> And then we looked at polarized voting issues,
... >> Yeah, be-, [inaudible], okay. >> Okay? Am I. Yeah because of the results,
because of the results of the racially polarized voting study, we made the
suggestion that it'd be best to go to seven districts, and then once we decide
seven districts, then we have our now goal population of around twenty-eight thousand
people. Yep, the population becomes the key criteria. Okay. >> But when you
originally presented it to us, you were talking in terms of population first. >>
Mm-hm. >> And there was a population for single member which is the one we have up
there for double, for two members and for three members. >> Mm-hm. >> And then we
went to the racially. Polarized voting questions, to analyze that. And one of the
questions that you got, that we got an email on, I think was, the statewide races
were analyzed but not the local races. And we have quite a number of, what I would
consider high-profile local races. I think Santa Barbara has a real interest in its
local races and, I for one think it would inform our discussions to have the data on
at least a significant number of those local races, particularly the ones
pertaining to us. When I got that question, the way we've generally done
these is that we start with the large races that are generally what’s used in a
California voting rights case. In each California voting rights cases interests
similarly they use prop 187, Prop 209, Prop 227 which was, you know, a decade or
more. So we use those in our first look. If in cases we don't find any racially
polarized voting in those races, we will sometimes dig deeper. There are a couple
community colleges, three in particular, where we didn't find much at the statewide
race. So we had to look at the local level. The local races, show more racially
polarized voting, that's what the research shows repeatedly. Because, in local races,
where there's maybe less information, they know less about their, you know, local
judge or a local city council member than they do about President Obama. And those
local races surname becomes a, a, a stronger factor. Looking at the precinct
by precinct announcements of one race in particular, I was able to find a Latina
candidate who got extremely strong support out of the three most heavily Latino
districts in Santa Barbara and very, very small support out of the less Latino
precincts and it was a wide variance. In the three precincts that we have a lot
Latino. She was getting 45 to 50% of the vote in a multi way race. And the other
districts she was getting 19%. She was going from being first place in the Latino
precincts to third place and out of contention in the in the wider precincts.
So when we can do that? Usually we do that when the top layer of stay wire braces
doesn't [inaudible] ... >> If we do that, my absolute expectation is that it's gonna
be very strong or stronger for those local races because of our look at the precinct
level data already. >> Well. >> Well, if I may, the ... >> We could do scatter plots
and stuff just for more work. >> All right. So right computation you respond
to. I said well, we have one of the board members said ... >> With respect to our
local school board election you had two Latinos you know, elected on the board.
And I think in your response to me which I forwarded to the board today or yesterday
you address that. You said here's the analysis of that. Do you want to review
that? >> Yeah the. >> There is a, a misconception with regard to the
California Voting Rights Act specifically that, that having representation from an
African American community or Latino nation community is itself the proof that
their isn't racially polarized voting and no potential for a California Voting
Rights Act claim. >> That's not what I am getting at. >> I'm, I'm not saying that's
what you’re saying but that's something that comes up quite a bit. But you know,
as an example like you cited there are Latinos, Latinos that have been elected in
different parts of the district. >> We could analyze it, but I don't think it
would change the over-arching point that this district, would fall under really
some scrutiny under the California Vote Rights Acts, because of the over-arching
polarization. >> I'm really not interested so much in, I, I accept that you might
well get the same result, but we're looking at drawing lines here, and my
thought here is twofold. One that I do erroneously or not believe that Santa
Barbara does pay some pretty close attention to its local races. [sound] They
are not just names, they are people that many people are pretty familiar with or
have, you know, paid attention to the local elections, and, I'm also thinking
that, as we draw lines, what you learn in looking at those races could help us,
because, the divisions that you're talking about are probably not the same in all ...
>> Census blocks. There are probably variations in the census blocks. So you
may look at a, predominantly white census block, and find a relatively low or a
relatively high proportion of votes for a Latino candidate. >> Mm hm. >> And that
might inform drawing a line, because, as I understand it, we're not getting to a
majority situation. I mean, the actual voting population here. >> Is even less
than the numbers we're considering, correct? >> The, are you talking about the
percentage like in this slide right here? >> The percentage Latino. >> I can. >>
Which one are you looking at? Look at Option two. >> That's way at the back of
this. I, I would have to go through at the end of the session. >> Option two, I
believe, you managed to get to 43 percent. >> For one Latino? Yeah, I do recall that.
That was very tightly packed around the most Latino proportions. >> Correct. >> Of
Santa Barbara. >> And it was my assumption that was the best that you could do. >>
That was the best that we could create. >> But if, I'm thinking, if you had a
finer-grained analysis of local elections, you might well see that you could... >> Do
better. [laugh]. I don't know. >> Well the numerical number of 43% Latino as I
remember in drawing that, it was not higher, it was not possible to get higher
than that 43% Latino no matter where you moved those lines. And one of the
interesting things about Analyzing local elections, is that local elections use
consolidated precincts, which are huge relative to our ability to do census
blocks. So we navigate, when we draw these lines, they're a lot finer grain than the
big chunky precincts that you look at in, in the local election results. So,
especially with off cycle elections. When an elections held in 2007, nine or eleven,
those elections in particular, use big consolidated precincts, hence they have
less polling places. >> How are you correlating the precinct then with the
census block in terms of vote? >> It's very technical that what actually happens
is that with statewide races we're able to not only get the election results for the
individual precincts. Not the consolidated but the individual polling place
precincts. But also we're able to look at the voter file after the election and
determine which actual people voted. And then we disaggregate that population from
the census. From the precinct down to the census block level, based on a waiting of
the people that actually voted, either absentee as one data set, or pole voting
as a second data set. So we're actually able to directly correlate about 80
percent of the actual votes and then twenty percent of them are distributed
evenly among that precinct. So there is a much stronger correlation back to the
census block for that data than you would ever find just doing precinct analysis.
It's very technical, sorry. And of the 43% that you got with option two, what number
would it be if you applied actual voting percent? Another wards the percent of
people not who are eligible to vote, but the people who actually vote. That would
require switching to a different metric. I could provide that. That would be
interesting potentially because what I would do is look at surname based voter
registrations, and that would allow me to determine that area is maybe 37 or 50
percent Latino surname voters. We could do Latino surname voters and Asian surname
voters, we can't do African American surname voters, because Paul Mitchell, in
one community, is African American and other communities he is white. >> But I'm
inclined to think that, that would be helpful. >> I think that would be very, I
think that could be something that would be very helpful and we could provide that
maybe even by might even be able to provide something like that to you before
the end of the meeting. >> Okay. Well, Jack, correct me if I'm wrong we're going
to have a study session as well? >> Well a week from today the board will be
discussing the options. >> Mm-hm >> So yeah whatever you send to me I'll forward
it to the board. >> But, that way, they can have it in advance of next Thursday's
study session. >> And, in thinking about this, [inaudible], what I actually can
provide is gonna be, maybe, too detailed. But what I can provide is voter
registration by ethnicity, by district. I can also provide voter turnout by
ethnicity, by district, for each of the last, even [inaudible] elections for the
last decade. It's because I have ethnic turnout for even years. I don't have
ethnic turnout for the odd year elections. >> That if I could provide that, it would
be a lot. But it would be a nice little spread sheet to look through. >> I mean
what I am looking for here is the best data to allow us to draw the best lines
that maximize Latino influence or the majority/minority, if you can get the
majority, it sounds like you think you can’t, but I'm looking for the data that
lets us draw the best line that we can get the furthest down the road, to what I
understand the law to be asking us to do. >> I understand that, and Maury you were
next I think. >> Well I just wanted to point out, in splitting Isle of Vista, the
idea is, there is only about nine or 10,000 so called permanent or adults,
eligible to become a trustee and I just wanted to point out, that thats as much
population as Carpentaria has or Montecito has and we've been electing trustees from
those two areas with that population, [sound], so going along with the idea of
compactness. I, I, I would my personal view would like to keep Vialavista
together and I think with 10,000 so called eligible people to become trustees that's
more than enough. >> And that's part of the board decision. I, I want to provide
the information for every view point. Just to make sure everybody is armed with the
information. >> Okay. And Louis is next and Jones after him. >> Only if we go back
to the point that Marshall is making. And that, if you. >> [cough]. >> I want to
make sure that I understood, understood it, you know? >> That if you drove down to
that, won't be that, won't that be skewed simply because of the at large elections
that you will be looking at? All those elections that are taking [inaudible]. >>
I mean, because typically when you have district elections, there's more of a
tendency for people to go out and vote, potentially, because they're voting for
individuals that represent their area, live in their area and they'll be
encouraged to vote, whereas the way we have been people say- it's a done deal. >>
Yeah. Hm-mm. I think, ... >> I'm wondering if ... >> That wouldn't be reflected, you
know, in those numbers. Say you have x number of registered voters, then only x
voted. Well, the question is why? >> [inaudible]. >> That's what we're trying
to get at by looking at district elections versus at large, right? >> If I, if I
might just add, Most of the elections that take place in Santa Barbara, as I showed
you earlier on, were ... >> District-wide elections, as opposed to, you know,
individual district. But I'm not sure if that influences your analysis or not. I
mean, it's just an interesting observation, but I don't know. >> I'll
provide the data raw, and you will know locally, what races were really engaging,
maybe which ones weren't. Clearly, the 2008 general election is gonna be off the
charts, and, But other than that, you're gonna see little variations. 2004 and'06
were relatively low turnout. So you'll see, and what you'll see that's gonna be
most interesting is when turnout rises, if Latino percentage of the vote rises, or if
turnout drops, if Latino percentage of the vote rises or drops, depending on. >> It,
it's different in different parts of the state. >> Right. >> Joan was next and then
Marsha. >> Yeah it was a discussion I hoped we would have but we didn't have of
looking at the district. Neutrally as communities of interest. And we raised the
issue, and to not have identified by name. But even to look at it without any lines
at all. Where we would look at this particular district, and think about
neutral. What are our communities of interest? What kind of map would that look
like? To be the guiding principle, rather than slicing and dicing it from the, the
bottom up. But what would it look like? With what we have a consensus about, that
are relative communities of interest, and then work with the data and the profiling
that you want to accomplish. So, was there a way that we could take some sort of
natural instinctive communities of interest that exist already, of which Isla
Vista is a community of interest, and it does, it is a legal district according to
Option three, but we didn't have that discussion, we never looked at the
district as a whole. And I wonder now if it's too late to do this. But I'm a little
concerned that we're down at the level of such fine tuning now, not having had that
discussion, and rejecting it, maybe. But we never even had the discussion, so I'll
throw it out again, that, what I was thinking of. These are communities of
interest for Santa Barbara City College, this is our district. We have a north
interest, we have a south interest. And that's simply because the distance from
the college. We have a mesa interest, because the college is located up there.
We have. A [inaudible] because it is an intact community. We have three High
Schools that are Feeder High Schools. Those [inaudible] to be communities of
interest, they have parents, they have students. So if we looked at these various
communities of interest that already exist in our District and we gave them some sort
of radius and then, then worked with, well how can we make these appropriately legal.
>> Jurisdictions. >> Well, one of the things that's interesting, is, that in
first drawing these lines, we didn't have incumbents when we were, at the staff
level, first drawing these lines. And there's some things that draw themselves
in these plans. As an example, the district on the southern end, or the,
based on South Basin Beach. But the, the western end. >> That district basically
draws itself, because it's a population... >> [inaudible], backing up to us as a
board, [inaudible] a blank map... >> [inaudible]. >> First. And then you can do
your work on top of that, if we agreed that there were these natural community
[inaudible] interest. >> Mm hm. >> And then you could draw it without reference
to incumbents or whatever. >> Yeah. >> But just draw them, because this is the, the
is the district we are handing down to the voters, at least for ten years, and who
knows? Maybe for 30 years. And I think it just needs a little more thoughtful
consideration about what makes a natural cluster. For Santa Barbara City College,
which You're presenting natural clusters by certain criteria to meet voting
regulations but are we? Totally ignoring that these are natural clusters that might
have some sort of influence on the district itself. That it would be better
to have this particular group of voters together because they share a common
interest and, we just haven't had that discussion. So I'm sorry and, I don't know
if it's too late to, that would throw it way back to the drawing board, again? Or
maybe we can't reach any consensus, maybe that's the stumbling block. But I have to
throw it out there. I think ... >> That is the most neutral way to start this process
and ... >> I think is there a particular from your perspective community of
interest that's not. >> Accurately being represented with the options? >> Well I
don't, I don't know the high school districts cuz we're struggling with Isla
Vista. We've got Dos Pueblos, we've got San Marcos, and we've got Santa Barbara
High School. So do those tend to create. >> Carpinteria. >> Carpinteria High
Schools. >> Well, no. Carpenteria is in the south. >> County, and I. >> It's in a
District. >> So Prepandrea is in a Southern? >> It's in the surfaces. So does
Bishop High School. >> Oh, okay. Okay. >> So does La Quesa High School. >> What? Who
are our local feeder high schools. >> Right. >> That's, that's a good point. So
is there a community of interests that lives around there? Where the students go
to this particular high school? That a trustee would have more relevance reaching
out to a local population... Because they become our clients. And they, therefor,
there would be more of a direct interest in who their trustee was. And as I said, I
think north and south need some sort of recognition because. They are the distance
problems. They can't get to campuses easily, so they have interests that are
unique. The mesa, I know, is unique because we impact it so heavily with
housing and parking and campus expansion, whatever. That really is a community of
interest and then, if we have entities, [inaudible] being. Intact community of
interest. [inaudible] being an intact community of interest. >> In our team. >>
I wonder, I wonder if it would work. I mean I, I, I, I appreciate your, your
idea, I think it's, it's a good one, and I don't, I don't see any reason why we
couldn't discuss it at the, at the study session upcoming and it would be
interesting, Paul, if you could supply sort of a sense of whether that's being
taken account of in any of the existing models, or whether it would generate a new
model. Er, I, you know, I think it's something that we should be discussing,
because Joan is right, we are gonna to be making a decision that will have long. >>
Reaching impact. And Marsha was next. >> Morton, were you responding to Joan or
should I... >> Go ahead. >> The question I was going to ask is. Can you in studying
your data distinguish down ticket offense, effects. >> Versus >> The drop off you
mean. >> Yes, I mean the general effect that people fill out the top of the ticket
first and then get tired and don't get to the bottom. I can determine that on
statewide ticket thru legislative. I can determine it, if I went down to, local
election in the even number years. I could look at presidential versus, like a local
school board drop off. Generally drop off begins at the legislative race. >> And
it's. >> And does it affect the assessment of pulverized voting or is it sort of
neutral. >> It does, it's actually neutral actually who votes really doesn't affect
much of. The assessment of racially polarized voting, in a way. Because it,
the racially polarized voting, can take the form of dropoff. You know, it can take
the form, even of nonparticipation. It can take a lot of forms. So, and I can't show
whether or not Latinos drop off more than. >> Then white voters or other groups. It's
not possible to dis-aggregate that. >> Mm-hm. >> Okay. >> Okay Marty I think you
were next. >> Yeah Joan you brought up the communities of interest last time at our
at. Study session and I thought about that, I thought that was a good point.
Looking at it, the problem from my point of view is that each of the high school in
a high school district have a great number of transfers. I think if you and I looked
at it and saw how many people, like from my, my place, my neighborhood on the Mesa
go to Santa Barbara High School, go to St. Marcus High School, go to They go a block
or two and the problem is solved downtown and go to [inaudible] you'd find a huge
number going to both of those. So we have a community of interest with high school
students. >> Who go to public school, but that' true of the whole South Coast. It's
kind of, that would be a difficult thing, to try to put circles around all the
people that go to Dos Pueblos and where they live. You wouldn't have. >> I'm
thinking of their parents, the residences. >> Well, parents where they live is
usually where the student lives. So, then you've got, you don't have that
contingent. You have to have borders that look ... >> They don't look like they are
jerry-mandered around one house or a couple of houses, or something like that.
So from my point of view, I'm looking at A and G. I guess those are the two. Well,
not really. I'm looking at the furthest north and the furthest south. No, it's the
furthest east and furthest west. That always gets to me. >> Hm. >> And those are
the two that, that, you know? Those, the borders of those are gonna kind of be set
in some ways. All though I know... >> On that one C. Could be up or down more
instead of flat out, so if I'm making in sense I'm looking at option one and option
two and, and here's my question that option one up there right. >> Mm-hm. Would
it be possible, talking about communities and interests, Isla Vista is one that
maybe shouldn't be split up. I'm kinda thinking along the same lines as Maury.
And if not then. If it not split up then can we take ab and c from option two. It's
like it's like a Chinese menu here. Take AB and C from option two and then maybe a
little bit different DEF and J but you would have the Latino area in the downtown
of Santa Barbara from the other option. >> Wait, I'm mixing myself up here. >> I see
what you're saying. >> It's option, option two is the one that has the Latino in it.
>> It's the idea just to keep [inaudible]. Yeah, I know. >> Maximize Latina. >> Is to
keep Isla Vista whole like Morley said and pull [laugh] and on the other ones have a
Latino voting. So is that option two? >> I think option three is the one that keeps
it together. >> [inaudible] >> And the more I look at option three with
communities of interest the more. >> Option three spreads out the Latinos the
most, I think. >> Yeah, it does. >> And that's not what we’re trying to do. >>
[inaudible] look at the numbers. >> Well, it's E, and, and Isla Vista's another
concentration of Latino voters. I mean isn't that what we were discussing, the
downtown area? >> Isla Vista, and then there's a concentration of [inaudible],
that, that, if we covered downtown, and we covered Isla Vista, we would be picking
the two most concentrated areas. Was that... >> That's what I was trying to
say, thank you. >> I think that, first off, the question of whether or not you
want to. These can be dealt with independently. If you said I want, we
wanna have the downtown district drawn like it is in one plan. We want Isla Vista
drawn like it is in another plan. It's likely that since those are rather far
apart, we could make the rest of the district work. Generally, when you make
Isla Vista whole, you have a better opportunity to make [inaudible] whole. >>
Okay. >> That becomes the immediate after effect of, of that decision. The you're
not going to under any of those scenarios really affect the southernmost district
cause that southernmost district basically draws itself. >> Right. >> You would
significantly change the districts within Santa Barbara, the more you concentrate
around the downtown core population. >> Right. >> The more you affect in a, you
could think of that as, like, a little ecosystem. And that little ecosystem will,
will shift and adjust it based on how you draw that. And you can think of the Isla
Vista [inaudible] areas as a second ecosystem. >> Yeah. >> Can you look at
option two? Here. >> You can all just keep clicking. >> Alright. Sorry. >> This is
like Memory Lane. >> [laugh] >> Any other questions? >> That does show, by the way,
the... >> Latino [inaudible]. >> Latino portion, and then the heavily voting
Latino interest portion. >> Well, can you go back to that thirteenth slide you just
showed? [inaudible]. >> [laugh]. >> [inaudible] one? That's the one we're
talking about that splits [inaudible]? >> Mm-hm. Refugees. Option two is a more
densely populated downtown core. It maintains Isla Vista whole, or it
maintains [inaudible] whole. And you see how when you've maintained [inaudible]
whole, then Isla Vista has to come across into the second half of Santa Barbara.
Remember there's a. >> Little funky part of Santa Barbara in the middle of
[inaudible] sea there. >> Mm-hm. >> So. >> I'm sorry, I don't know what the. >>
[inaudible] >> I don't know what the neighborhood's like. But from a
demograph-, from a mapping perspective, [inaudible]. >> Where I live. >> It kinda
just pops up out of nowhere. >> [laugh] In the funky zone. >> Is that the, is that
called the blank spot on that previous one that we were looking at? It that's
unincorporated area, but... >> Yeah. >> Yeah, Santa Barbara... >> [inaudible]
where the, where the letter C is right now on the previous slide, you had a kinda
blank. >> Yeah, there's, Santa Barbara basically has, it has a noncontiguous
part. >> Right. >> Santa Barbara, and then, you go a mi-, a few miles, and then
there's another part of Santa Barbara again. >> Right, correct. >> But,
everybody votes. >> In the Santa Barbara election, yeah sure. Yeah and then. >> And
in our elections. >> Mm-hm. Absolutely. >> They have been voting because it's been at
large. >> Yeah. >> Absolutely, absolutely. So. >> Making [inaudible] whole and
[inaudible] Vista whole creates that horizontal relationship. Making D whole
creates a very different set of lines for the districts around. D in this scenario I
would guess, although the data's probably back here, creates the largest inf,
influence Latino's see. >> That's the 43 percent. >> 43 percent. >> Which is
definitely much larger than Option two. >> Now what's interesting is ... >> Or
option, option one. >> If you look at ... >> I'm sorry. >> I need a thing under this
to hold. >> If we look at the, kind of the midpoint between C and E, that line, that
horizontal line, that's kind of, it's almost like it's the waist of the
district. That line is not very dissimilar from the line in. >> And, option one. That
waste is pretty much the same. So you could theoretically say we want the A, B,
and C of one plan, and the remainder of the other plan. >> Yeah. >> [inaudible],
like I said, they, they kind of exist as two separate ecosystems. C and G are
unchanged in both essentially. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Are there other questions at
all? >> Are you coming to our study session? >> [laugh]. >> I don't think so.
But I think I'm double-booked, triple-booked. >> Yeah. [laugh]. >>
Community colleges need to start having morning meetings and meetings on
Saturdays, so that I can make all these. I have nineteen Community College Districts
I'm working with. >> Wow. >> And I'm often triple-booked. >> Wow. Yes, sir. >> A
phone call possibility? >> Yes. >> I think that'd be very helpful Paul. Cuz they'll
meet a week from today at four o'clock in the board for study session, but is there
any time between like four and, yeah, five, five-thirty that would work for you
that we could call, you could call into us, cuz. >> I can make that work. >> Okay,
so Why don't we plan, I'll just set it now, a little after, about four, about ten
after four we'd, you give us a call. We call you, okay? And. >> If that works for
your calendar. >> Wherever you are. >> Yeah. >> I mean last time you were
driving. You pulled off the side of the freeway and you were able to. >> It
worked. >> It worked. To address Marcia's question from the Latino percentage voting
of those districts, we ran the numbers, and unfortunately Latino turnout is rather
low, in that area, so the, the percentage we've created in terms of its total vote
in that district was 30, in terms of turnout, it fluctuates anywhere between 25
to 21 percent of turnout. >> Given a couple different, that's for the 2010 and
2008 elections and primaries, we can look at the other options that are more densely
concentrated, that gets 43 percent Latino that you would expect at least a five
point drop off, in terms of actual voter participation, percent of the vote. >>
Okay, just to be clear then, you ran the numbers on a 30 percent voter eligible,
correct? >> Yeah [inaudible] we are on option one. >> On voter on voter eligible
and on the voter eligible what percent voted. >> It was ranging between 21 and 25
percent. >> So of the 30 % you only getting. >> We're losing five to 8%, five
to 9%... >> Oh, okay. Yeah, that makes more sense, because I, you know? If you
say 25% of 30%, that's a much smaller number than 25%. >> Oh, absolutely. >>
Instead of 30%. That's a much better number. >> It looks like we have option
two, as well. And in option two, the most Latino district, that was at 43%. It drops
down to 35 is the high and 30 is the low in terms of Latino voter participation. >>
Oh, I, I'm a little uncomfortable with just numbers flying by. >> Oh sure, yeah.
>> Let's, let's put 'em on paper so we can have a chance to really look at them, so
we know what they mean. >> I didn't mean to put, make that in lieu of sending
[inaudible]. >> Yeah, no, no. But I, I think rather than continuing this
discussion, Louise had a final word. >> Yeah, you're kind of along the same lines.
The different iterations of the options will get, or have we... >> You have the
different [inaudible], you have each of the... >> Newer ones, [inaudible]. >> You
have... >> [inaudible] one. >> There's no newer maps today, it's that same maps we
discussed last time, it's just more clarification on them. We've also put them
up on Goggle Maps and I believe I sent a link maybe that's been sent around so that
you can look at the maps in further detail and then we'll be able to be on a call for
... >> Hey Paul can you send me that again, the link? >> Yes. >> Yeah forward
to the board of Toson that might have got lost in. >> Sure. >> You know it was a
while back, it was a while back and I, I. >> If you're there and you consider more,
more recent update. >> Absolutely. >> Good. >> I'll send it to you. So next time
we, we look at this, it's gonna be at our study session. And we will, we will try to
approach this. Now what? What is our decision-making model? I mean, we this is
not going to be submitted to voters for approval. This is something we decide. Is
that correct? >> It is something that we're gonna have you decide. But then also
the Board of Governors is gonna provide a waiver to allow you to change election
systems. >> Right. >> Right. >> So that is a process that was approved by Marty
Block's bill being passed. It's been signed by the governor. The board of
governors is gonna start approving these. >> Right. >> New models. >> Mm-hm. >> I
believe in January [inaudible]. >> Yeah. Yeah and I received ... >> The boilerplate
for that to take place. Which it came from the chancellor's office. >> Okay. >> And
so I have it in my office but there's no point, at this point until we make a
decision. Following up on [inaudible] question, my understanding was that. We
will be reviewing, discussing the options on November third. Then the board meets
again November tenth. And at that point The plan was to put it on the agenda for
vote, but let’s say they don't do that in November ten and the Board doesn't meet
again until December fifteen, so really getting to [inaudible] Deagas question in
a little bit more detail, what is the last date. Would December fifteenth be too
late? Should we aim for November tenth? [inaudible] What does your timeline to get
everything approved. >> But do we need to meet? >> I think that Your accounting
registrar is gonna want to have this stuff in place sooner rather than later. Most
accounting registrars have been telling people that they want it by November which
isn't happening. In most places, but they're, they'll be flexible until it gets
to be about January or February, when they're going to start getting very
anxious about being able to get the lines in place for the elections. Now what's
going to happen is the county not only needs to know what your lines are for
where you're running, but if we put a line down a street where they don't have a
separate precinct line yet, they're going to have to reshape their precincts to
adjust to your boundaries, so that's some technical work on their behalf. So the
earlier the better. Is. >> Is what I would suggest if we were able to do a November
that would be great. But if it's December we'll still have the time to get it done.
>> Thank you Paul. >> I'm sorry Paul. Are you suggesting that. >> The [inaudible]
shape its precincts because of S P C, C selection as opposed to anyone else's? >>
No. Well, what happened in. This is the burden of the registrar. And it’s a
greater burden. Needs more people to go to districts. It's that when somebody walks
into a polling place, they need to know that everybody that walks into a polling
place is voting for the same city council, school board, legislature, whatever. >>
Well, that makes sense. >> So when a boundary goes and splits down in a, area
that used to be unified, they know how to reshape their precincts. Sometimes, they
will split a precinct. And you walk in a polling place and you will say. >>
Precinct 255A on that side of the room precinct 255B on that side and that's
because somebodies district is. >> Oh I see. >> Split that precinct. >> So when
influence or districts it just means it, it's. >> We're working their part to
comment in terms of. >> The registrar has [inaudible]. >> Right. >> Which, which
does raise the question of cost. Is there a way of guesstimating a, a, a
differential cost between what we're doing now and what, and ultimately, I guess who
pays? >> The registrar would be paying for re, rebuilding their shaped files and for
the administering of that election. I don't believe that there'd be a different
cost for you, based on. >> Transitioning districts, but that's something that could
be check out. >> Sure, okay... Good. >> That's good. >> Thank you so much, Paul.
>> Thank you very much. >> Could you check that out? >> Thank you, oh yeah,
[inaudible]. >> Thank you, Paul. >> [inaudible] credit [inaudible]. >> Thanks,
everybody, for coming. It's very helpful. >> I think we need to ask the country
registrar what, what they need, and, and, in terms of dates and filing, so forth. >>
Yeah, I still wanna suggest that, [inaudible]. >> Okay. >> [inaudible]. The
item 1.4 is our next item, hearing of citizens. I do I have any we have no slips
for hearing of citizens? All right. So we move on to item 1.5 which is approval of
minutes of the regular meeting for September 22, 2011. Is there a motion to
approve. >> Hm. >> Okay. These. >> All of them are? There are three? >> There are
three. Are you comfortable approving all of them? >> I have a, a threshold
question. >> Yes. >> I believe in May in the maintenance, did we not have long form
minutes in? So is this? Are these the minutes that were drafted in May? Or? >> I
don't know. >> Well, they were. >> Angie, can you answer that? >> Those sessions.
Which one was it? >> The May, the May minutes, the May 25 and the May 23, and...
September, we obviously didn't have long form, but. >> Did we have, have them in
May twenty-third and twenty-fifth? >> I wanna say we have them in minutes, if this
is toward the. [sound]. [sound]. >> This is not the ... >> It’s a closed session.
But we had, did we have verbatim comments? We didn't okay. >> [inaudible] >>
[inaudible]. >> Well, the twenty-third, did we have verbatim comments in any
minute? Okay. >> So is there a motion to approve all of the minutes? >> Peter? >>
Yes. >> Two things about that. One I was not there. >> Yes. >> For one sec ... >>
Okay >> So I think it needs to be separate in the second list that I have minor type
of correction ... >> Good. >> In one of the other. >> Okay. >> So, we return to my
first query which is "Is there a motion to approve the minutes of September 22nd?"
This have moved ... >> On second. >> [inaudible] six seconds? Is there
discussion of those minutes? I think it's the twenty third. >> Did you say the
twenty-second? >> It says twenty-second ... >> Of September. >> September. >>
September twenty-second. Okay? No discussion, therefore may I assume that
those minutes are approved. >> Regular meeting of May twenty-third. Is there a
motion... >> Well, that's, the first one was the one I can't vote on, because I
wasn't there [inaudible]. >> September twenty-second. >> September twenty-second.
>> Okay, so, we have to, we need to take a vote. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay, we're
back to September twenty-second. All in favor, say aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed, nay.
Abstentions? >> I abstain. >> One abstention. We move to the minutes of May
twenty-third. Is there a motion to approve? >> Motion. >> Motion is made to
approve. Is there a second. >> Second. >> Second. Is there a discussion or
corrections. >> [inaudible] none, we move to a vote, all in favor say I. Speakers: I
... >> Oppose, nay? Abstentions? >> Sustained. >> Sustained, one abstention. A
regular meeting on May twenty-fifth, a continuation. Is there a motion to
approve? >> Motion to approve. >> Motion to approve and. >> Should there be And
attendance. Roll, roll-call on that meeting that is included? I, I think we
were all there, but should that also be included in that one? On the continued
meeting? >> Since there was a. >> Hm. >> Period of time difference. >> On May 26,
there is. >> Yeah. Hm. >> 25. >> 25? >> 25. >> Okay. Let's, let's add that. >> Do
a roll call. >> Okay. Let's, we were looking for a second. >> Oh, second is
correct. >> Okay. >> And, and I have another minor correction. >> Good. >> And
that is in 1.6, the second sentence. I believe it says they conducted an
evaluation, not a self-evaluation. >> [sound]. I'm sorry. Tell me again where it
is. >> Item what? 1.6, second sentence. >> On the twenty-fifth. >> They conducted an
evaluation? >> Right. >> Okay. [sound]. >> Okay, is that acceptable, [inaudible]? >>
So, move as corrected? >> It, it is been moved and. >> I second. >> Seconded and
corrected. >> And amended. >> And amended and all in favor of this final version say
aye. >> Aye >> Appose nay. >> I'm abstaining over here. >> One abstentions,
abstention, yes. Okay. We move on to, communications, 1.6. First is a report by
our president of our academic senate, Dean [inaudible]. President Hasland, Members of
the Board of Trustees, acting Superintendent, President Friedlander, the
senate continues to work on the variety of issues that impact the college and the
faculty. The first item is, we are discussing the impact of the 21 TLU cap.
As you may know there is a board policy that says that a regular load for faculty
members of fifteen TLU, and you can go up to 21 TLUs with approval. There was a
movement by the Senate to reduce the number of faculty who were over 21 TLUs.
Approximately 25% of our full time faculty teach over 21 TLUs. And the Senate last
year felt that was an excessive number. And so we had asked the EDP to. Enforce
that board policy a little more stringently and so they did which is
excellent. Then what happened was is, it had some, of course, unintended
consequences [laugh] as these things seldom, always, often times do, and so we
are reconsidering that cap and that, the language in that policy. So we're talking
about that right now. We're also concerned with the response to student, student
success task force recommendations that came out. They came out from the student
success task force, and they're wide ranging, there's a lot of them, and the
response time is very, very short November ninth I believe, is the first cutoff.
There's some noise about maybe they'll. We'll have some additional meetings to get
more input but as of right now November ninth is the cut off there's probably not
going to be enough time in the senate to come up with a unified response so what
we’re doing is were talking about it encouraging senators to. Go and give
individual feedback. >> [inaudible] just for clarification, that's the statewide
[inaudible] task force not local task force. >> Yeah. That admire our own
[inaudible] so as we're talking about that obviously has. Very large application for
so we were discussing, and then yesterday we finished the first part of our process,
if you know remember we have been working on this process to replicate till use and
we were talking of the bottom up approach now so many kind of recession between the
deans and EVP's acting Superintendent President, that was completed yesterday so
as the process goes and it’s going to happen is we are going to give to the
harbor Chairs a worksheet for them to fill out to do their records and if you
remember, the overall process is we are asking to department Chairs to do two
scenarios, where they're cutting 8% of their TLUs, and about 12% of their TLUs.
The 8% reflects the college's target, and the 12% is kind of a little more. The idea
behind this is we want departments, first off, to make the cuts real to everybody.
Because that precipitates a conversation among all the [inaudible] in the
department about what's gonna happen. So it makes it very real to everybody. Also,
what it does is, it provides building blocks, for, the dean's and EVP,
[inaudible] president, to actually make these cuts, in a way, [inaudible], will
work. For the students. So that's the first part of it. The second part is a set
of recommendations for the folks having the conversation. What kinds of things are
the faculty would like to emphasize? So those are the two parts of this thing. So
the first part of, of the departments doing their preliminary cuts. And by the
way, the cuts are just proposed cuts. They're not, obviously, gonna happen,
necessarily. That's gonna be decided by the administration. But it does give them
something to, to work with. So we're gonna do that part first, and then, When that
concludes, I'm gonna work with Dr. Freelander to figure out maybe some way of
presenting the whole process to you guys. So you guys can see this thing from
beginning to end. There's a lot to it, and it's involved an awful lot of
communication with a lot of faculty members. Literally, literally hundreds of
faculty have participated in this, so it's been a very big deal. And, now, we push it
out to department chairs, and get the response back. It's going to be very
interesting to see how that works for us. And, it was nice because the Senate
concluded actually two weeks early which was really nice because we wanted to give
the department chairs the maximum amount of time to work on this. So, are there any
questions on this? >> Yeah, Joan. >> I'm, again, reading, reading these minutes
because it is fascinating what, you're engaged in right now, the, the confusion I
had on, the minutes of October 26, was the number of replacement positions. >> Oh
yeah, that, [inaudible]. >> There were, I mean it was all over the place, so are we
settled on what your. >> [inaudible] on that, do you have confirmation... >> Yes.
>> That it's appropriate number to be working with? And... >> This is actually,
that's a very fascinating discussion, actually, it really is. Because what
happened was, we started out being, targeting eighteen reductions. And that
was gonna be six this year, and twelve next year. Well, it, it turned to ten, and
I was very surprised at that, cuz it was, that's quite a significant drop. And it
turns out... >> [inaudible], and it turned to ten by what process? How did it go
from... >> I was in CPC, and I saw ten on the screen. I was, like, [inaudible], that
was the process. In fairness, though, what happened was, there was a law change which
says that after a certain reduction, if you [inaudible]. Below your frozen level
of faculty obligation, it becomes a penalty. >> And that was new. So that was
something that was new information for us. >> Also, the eighteen as initially put in
there was based on a higher state reduction of funding than actually
materialized in the state budget. So, at the time. We put the worse-case scenario
which didn't occur in our budget consumptions which is call for eighteen
then. They settled on a state budget taking into account the trigger which we
think would be pulled it dropped to ten. That we wouldn't replace. >> And, that's
over the two year period. Okay. So ten over a two year period ... >> But, the
much larger driver was that full time [inaudible] obligation, that was by far a
larger driver even in the budget. >> And, that is new, cuz I mean they gave us a
waiver on that and now it's back on again. >> And, they might give us a waiver again,
but we don't know that, so. Just this last week, we got the communication from the
chancellor's office saying, here is your full time faculty obligation. And so,
that's new information to us, and new information to, well, us [inaudible]
includes the [inaudible]. And so I passed it on to Dean, and he took it, they took
it, that into account. >> Dean, I want to be sure that everybody understands what,
what a full time faculty obligation is? Could you help us? >> Sure, the full time
faculty obligation is essentially a few years ago, the number of full time faculty
teaching a percentage of courses was frozen and then that number, if we get
additional money, we have a commitment to hire certain number of faculty members to
keep that proportion. >> Full time faculty ... >> Full time, yeah, but that get
waived in turn when the budget cycle is [inaudible] funded. Then they waive that
obligation [inaudible]. And also as our the number of 50th shrinks our, our full
time [inaudible] obligation goes down because it's proportioned to how many
people how many. Classes are being taught. So what's happening to us is we're losing
classes, so our numbers actually going down. And the state projects that number
forward every year, and, and they take a guess as to where were gonna be. And the
2011 number just came out, as Jack, Jack mentioned. And so our full time faculty
obligation had actually been going down. But if we cut faculty. If we don't replace
faculty, we will be right near that number. That's, that's the thing cause
we're. If the numbers dropping slowly but then also we're gonna cut. And there's.
We're gonna be just a little bit above that when we get thru the ten faculty
members. That's why we couldn't go to eighteen because we would actually be
below that ratio. >> As far as the cost savings that we're hoping to reach. >>
It's a ... >> Now that our hands are tied again, by the state. >> Right. >> Where
are we? >> What was in the budget was ten, so we'll reach the ten. What we asked the
senate to take a look at, prior to getting the full-time [inaudible] obligation
number, and we're still asking them, is can, given the magnitude of budget
reductions. That we have to make in the next two years. Could we? Go higher than
ten, we should take pressure off the other parts of the budget. To save programs
that, would otherwise have to be, You know, curtailed just one degree or another
and so that was the discussion that we were having with the senate and then we
got these numbers. Now. Everybody's predicting that the Board of Governors
will waive. The requirement, but they haven't done that yet. >> For right now,
we're going on best information. >> And ten? Is that okay? >> And ten, so ten is
what we established in our budget. >> Thank you. >> It's, it's actually not
okay, but we have to do it because of the budget, [laugh]. >> Right, yeah. >>
[inaudible]. And so what we're gonna do is, we're splitting up into two years, six
and four. Six was the long term. I mean, people have been thinking about six for
quite a while, so we're probably gonna go with that. However, we're gonna have a
conversation... >> First year. >> The first year, for this year. We're gonna
have a conversation at the Senate when we decide on the number of replacement
positions to fill. Whether we should stay at six, or go higher than that. So we're
actually gonna have that conversation. We wouldn't go above ten, though. >> Because
of this penalty. >> Marsha? >> Going back to the task force on student success you
said that you don't think you'll have enough time to form a academic [inaudible]
response or comments. Have you considered just sending in the comment that we'd like
more time? >> [laugh] >> We could do that I mean I think as far as the whole state
goes, I mean, people, everyone saying, this is really, really short but on the
other hand there is a legal requirement for them to respond quickly because this,
this student task or its recommendation is close to general legislation and so they
have to fit legislative calendar and that's the hard deadline of the house,
that's why they are going so fast. There maybe be another meeting or two where they
will accept a ramp up but they are not gonna put it off until you know March end
like that. >> It'll be interesting today as this afternoon they had a southern
California. Open, you know, forum where people could comment. To the task force
members and. Chancellor's office staff on input. I'll be talking to Peter McDougall
you know he's at that meeting today, tomorrow about what, what they What kinds
of comments were made and I suspect everybody's gonna be asking for more time.
But as Dean said. The board of governors has to begin discussing proposal at its
January meeting. It has to, by legislative mandate finish their discussion, send
something to legislature in April. So they need the time to get on the agendas and
discuss it, so run a very, very tight. Time track. And I've read that report for
the second time. And each time I keep on catching more things that raise questions.
What's also happening now is each of the consultation, each of the constituency
groups have recently met or meeting this week or next week. For example, the chief
construction officers are meeting this week. The chief business officers just
completed their meeting. And go, and so forth, and so forth. So they're all
providing input into the chancellor's office staff, regarding this task force's
recommendations. So [inaudible] tells us being collected. What's. [sound] What I
don't know is, so I'm gonna try to find out is it. Where we all go to. Most of us
go to. CLCC. At the state level, I'm sure this will be a major topic of
conversation, and the request is can, what input to get from trustees and all the
people who are at those groups, at that meeting, including all the state-wide
group meetings take place on a Thursday afternoon or morning. If for that November
seventeenth, not to be too late. For input. I think, that's what I was gonna
ask Peter tomorrow. Cuz I don't want, I think that's an important meeting, to get
input into these, long list of very challenging, recommendations. Some of
which will have a huge effect on us, which I'll talk about in my remarks,
[inaudible]. >> And the state senate actually wants to take a position where
they would like the Board of Governors to detail how they handled the input they've
gotten and how they've responded to it. So we're hoping to get that pushed in front
of them. Any other questions? Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Okay, J.J. Had
to go out to town, don't believe there's going to be a student senate report today.
There's no state shoot and senate report okay, report from plasfight employees Liz.
[sound] [sound]. Good afternoon Dr. Hassle, members of the Board, Dr.
Friedlander. Our consultation group met last week and the members of the CPC, that
are on the consultation group, discussed the budget cuts. There is nothing concrete
yet, so we really can’t get into details, just kind of overwhelmed by the amount
that needs to be cut out of operations. In November we are going to be looking at the
new proposed email systems, Gmail, to see how it will impact. The way we do our jobs
and see if it can be adapted so that we still do what we need to do. So that's in
the consultation. CFEA we're bring to you today our initial proposal for our
contract renewal. It's on the agenda so we're just doing what we need to do to get
that ball rolling. Also you'll notice on the agenda we've. Trying, in order to keep
people employed. You'll notice there's involuntary transfer. So we're trying to
work with the district and district works with us and the departments to try to, for
areas where grant funding may be going away, trying to find positions for that,
we were able to do it for this case. So, we'll be continuing to do that. I think
that's one of the things you had in your budget proposals, that we try to reassign
staff that may be losing their jobs in other areas, so we are trying to do that.
>> Any questions. >> Great. >> Okay. >> Thank you very much Liz we move onto Jack
Freelander [inaudible]. I just received correspondence today, which I wrote you an
email but now I got an official letter after I wrote the email, from the
accreditation visit will take place Wednesday, November ninth. And Thursday,
November tenth. And John Nixon, who chaired our last site visit will be
chairing this one. And he'll be bringing two other team members with him to conduct
the interviews. And he and I are speaking Monday, late Monday morning about the
logistics, Yeah, for that meeting. He just needed some more time to prepare in terms
of who they want to interview. For that. So I'll pass that on to you as soon as I
finish that conversation with him. Yeah, I'll have it either Monday night or early,
early Tuesday morning. [inaudible], I'll give you the specifics. And the two people
coming along with, Dr. Nixon, who has since retired from his, superintendent
president position at [inaudible] San Antonio College. So he's retired right
now, but he's still, actually, he got hired by the [inaudible] commission this
year, to be, to help work with them but it's doctor Armean. Acopian is the
President of the Board of Trustees for Glendale Community College. And Mister
Brian Thebau, who is a Professor of English and Business English, Business,
and Institutional Research at Palo Verde College in Blythe, California. So these
are three individuals who would be conducting the site visit. With John Nixon
being the most familiar with the college, ... Since she's been here. [inaudible]
last visit. So that's where that is, and I included the correspondence to your p-, in
your packet. But that's basically what it says, to do that. The, students assessed
task force recommendations, which, report, which I sent to you, which we talked
about, contains. Two. Kate has many reputations too which good have a enormous
effect on this college. They pertain to our continuing education program. And one.
Is it? At the end of chapter four of that report and it's on page 37, of the report
I sent you, I, we gave you last time. And it basically says that Amend statute to
limit the scope of allowable non-credit classes to only those identified as career
development or college preparation. Which means, that the core response [inaudible]
funded, which means that all the other classes that we offer in state funded
right now in continuing education if this were to be supported and, legislation
carried next year, would no longer be funded. Peter and I had email had a voice
message exchange were I asked him Peter McDougal that is based on his knowledge
what. Does he think that the chances are that, recommendation, those, that
recommendation and the one I'll read to you in a second, would go forward to the
board of governors as a recommendation? And if it did, what is his sense of
whether the board of governors would be supportive or not? And so this is what he
and I will talk about tomorrow and I will let you know in an email what the outcome
of that conversation is. And if its not tomorrow he and I will talk on the
weekend. We just tried to arrange a time when both of us were available. But I will
have his general sense of where that is. The second one is, real quickly, I gave it
to you as an attachment, but to explain it to everybody What happened last year was
in California, the K-12 districts, for the most part, have responsibility for adult
education. Some community colleges... Like Santa Barbara City College has that
responsibility for their community. The state gave as, as funding adult education
and K-12 through what they call categorical funding, you know, block
grants And because of the budget cuts that they had to make, the state said we'll
give you flexibility on how you spend your categorical dollars to use as you see fit.
Given, you know, the budget cuts that you're facing. Well it turns out that More
than half of the money that was allocated for [inaudible]. Categorical funding for K
through twelve adult education got reassigned by the school districts to meet
other needs, and so that drove a recommendation which basically says that
State leaders need to determine, if the current flexibility of a K212 adult
education funds, is consistent with State and Economic social needs, whether these
funds should be re-allocated to serving basic skills needs, this is what is
pertinent to us. They should also determine whether these programs would
best be placed in K212, or community college systems providing funding
commensurate with the test, so what that recommendation is saying is that if. Or
what the state will find is what we're calling enhanced. Noncredit. It's saying,
then, it should either all be in K through twelve, or all be in community colleges,
so you have better coordination of the pre-college level of basic skills, in
career preparation training. As opposed to having. So, you know, that is centralized
and focused. So that is basically what that recommendation calls for. Obviously
that has tremendous implications for the college. And one scenario would be that A,
the Board of Governors would [inaudible] Afford these. Those recommendations to
Legislature. Some legislature say Tore, Tore would carry out that legislatures.
Next year, they're going on fact the following year or who had ever. So that's
basically weren't try to get read on in terms of work planning. Doesn't affect
anything for this year or next year. But instead we do have keep into account as we
plan [inaudible] afford [inaudible]. Such policy. >> I had another of other items
that ... >> Jack, Jack on that particular issue ... >> Yeah, yeah, yes, yes ... >>
What is the differential now between what K-12 gets for F.T.E.S and what we get? >>
I, I can research that and find out for you, it's a good question. >> Off of your
head, I mean it's three thousand dollar difference. >> Well I never knew that
number. But I know, I know what it is for us here, if, but I don't know what K-12
gets, and I'm, so rather than speculating, [inaudible], do you know? >> On these two
it effects all of us I don't know either, I'll find out yeah that's a good question
actually because especially in light of this recommendation. >> Because it was
something that we raised Peter you were at the ... >> Trustee [inaudible], you were
at the meeting when we talked to the current secretary of education. >> Right.
>> We did raise the issue, is it cheaper for us to do it at our differential than
K12 to do it? Cuz there is a significant amount of money... >> Yeah. >> And it
could be, maybe, why somebody's... >> I think.. >> Playing football with that
issue. >> Yeah, what's interesting, I think. The way I'm understanding it now
K-12 they get [inaudible] funds. They distribute it. But I need to find out if
but the category for funding we based on head count just like our categorical funds
or based on how many students or being served in the program with, with kaps. >>
The state puts on based on budget. Lemme try to find out, I can make a, a quick
phone call and find out. >> That was one of the issues when we were dividing up
non-credit, is that K-12 was getting reimbursed at higher rates. >> Right. >>
Than community colleges were. So. >> You're right. >> Turf wars were starting
over that so just to be alert. [inaudible] ... >> Well, I think it's important even
to have that information for the board of governors and As they consider this
recommendation. So far it's a very, you know. Stumped me on that one. I don't know
the answer. >> Never did. >> I thought I remembered. I had them all memorized at
one time between the UCC issue. As we are always on the bottom. >> Right. >> Yes. >>
UCC is probably on the top. >> Yeah. >> The K12, I think, was second. >> Oh, no,
no. We're, we're always on the bottom. Yeah, we're the low-cost. >> No, no, but
K12, I think was maybe below UC? Or was it third? Was it below CSU? >> I almost think
there are. >> I almost think it was. >> That translates. >> UCC is. >> It was like
maybe 9,000 a student. >> It translates to making us the best educational deal. >> We
are. >> On the planet. >> That's right. Also. >> We also have. >> The governors
in, in states and... Yeah. The congress [inaudible] everybody loves community
colleges. >> They don't love us. >> But I can see the money follow the. >> The >>
[inaudible]. >> Affection because what's happening ironically is everybody's
talking about the importance of community college and how important they are federal
and state funding has gone done. So the redirects for us has gone up at the same
time the funding has gone down. >> Yeah. >> So >> So is, is there any political
meaning to act in the fact that the print on this page is almost evaporated. >>
Yeah. >> And it's, I remember reading about invisible ink years ago. But. >> I
was [inaudible] at that time. So ... >> Didn't view? >> Yes. [inaudible]. >>
[inaudible]. >> But yeah, when we just made copies now, because it is made from a
copy of a copy of a copy. >> Okay. >> Okay. I think what the, the really
interesting part here is that K through twelve apparently had the flexibility in
terms of how it would apply the funds. >> Correct. >> Whereas we never had that
flexibility. >> Well, that's not true. It's true. It's not true. It's in that we
had the flexibility of saying. Here's how much of our funding we're gonna
appropriate for non-credit, and here's how much for credit. So we had the flexibility
that way. We had no flexibility in saying how much the state is gonna pay us. And
reimburses and so Joan's question really was how is their funding rate established
and what is it? >> And I, that, that's what I need to research. >> Okay. In the
interest of time. I had a number of items that I wanted to call to your attention, a
lot of accomplishments and significant events. But I'll just email that to all
the board members rather than my reading it to you now. And you know, the comments
I was gonna make I'll just include that. So we can get. >> Done at a decent hour.
>> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Report from board members? Joan? >> I've got
several, so, Marty, if you wanna go ahead. >> [inaudible], okay, At the study
session, I, we were looking at the college plan, and I saw two things that had been
left off from the previous college plan. And one was, had to do with a goal for
recycling or a goal for diversion. And the other one was using, best sustainable
practices when it comes to main-, maintenance or building. I since have done
some research and looked into it and I've been surprised that the college SPCC's
diversion rate, if you don't look at the huge amounts of concrete that are taken
out with building things, you know with the construction, but if you just look at
the diversion, meaning that things are being recycled instead of being diverted
from the landfill, it’s a 34 percent, whereas the city itself is at 70 percent.
And, to me, that's an astounding difference. It just shows me that, that
there's no, hasn't been a huge effort here to, to divert. And, and, probably most of
our garbage here is paper. >> When you look at it, so. >> Yeah. We. >> We should
be able to divert more. But my whole point is just that. >> Great. >> I would hope
that the, this college plan, which left both of those out, would have something in
it that would be a little bit broader and just say that I'm, I'm making it up on the
spot here, to explore drafting... And sustainability plan or green plan
especially as long as it saves the college money. [sound] And, I can show different,
areas, that it would save the college money. But I don't wanna be spending more
money, obviously, in this. >> Thing but, I think we can save a lot of money if we
did. Don't you know. >> Yeah, I think what I can do is ... >> Distribute to you,
meaning you being the board. What our efforts have been, and to successfully
have. Cuz, and we have that in writing and documented. And the rationale, but we'll
revisit it. That's why we gave it to the board early enough now where we can add
this kind of input. >> Okay. >> Into the college plan, was that we've embedded that
into how we're doing business now. And therefore, it was. In cars plant, we
weren't listing every. Item that we're engaged in those that where we felt that
attention ought to be done and so we achieved in the plan we just finished was
developing a plan. >> So then we have to achieve this, now it's nothing, that plan.
>> Oh, okay, I didn't see a, a green planner [inaudible] the building. >> No,
it's a little folder we gave to you. >> Okay, thank you. >> And these, you can
look at that and say based on what I read I think, you know, here's some ideas what,
what you might wanna you know, consider putting that in as a goal. >> Okay. >> So
that this will get to you. >> I just remember Santa Barbara School District
claimed that they had a lot of green, you know? They do a lot of recycling. >>
Right. >> In the classrooms and so on. And we, we, we partnered up with them. And we
saved them over $80,000 a year. Because recycling doesn't cost, whereas the, you
know? >> Right. >> The landfill stuff does, so. >> Sure. >> It just seems to me
there might be room to save some money. And I'm not sure. I know. >> I don't know.
>> Joe Solvent said... >> We people all the little hanging fruit. >> Right. >> But
I guess I want to look at that and just make sure. >> Yeah and that would pick you
up the scraps off the plates we ask students and staff would go just to sort
but ... >> But rather than take up time here, I think it's a reasonable,
suggestion, and we'll follow through on that. >> Thank you. >> Okay, Joan... >>
Hey, I'm just thinking, didn't we make a report when we had the joint meeting with
the city? Cuz I remember the city put on an extensive report, and I thought we had
countered with what our efforts were. >> [inaudible]. >> Yeah, it might be in the
minutes from that meeting, [inaudible]. >> And Joan, didn't you give a presentation
to the board not that long ago? Maybe it was longer than I think, but, Yeah. Okay.
Just send it to me so I can see. An email. Powerpoint of something. >> Thank you.
Okay, two things, one thing, I don't know where we are on the CEO search process. I
just wanted to get updated on what our calendar, we left it that they were going
to do some background check. So do we have a next date on that? >> I spoke with Sue
Erlich a little while ago and the plan is to bring the recommendation, not
recommendations but the, the checking that we asked her to do to the study session.
>> Okay. >> And then we will. >> Okay. [inaudible] ... >> Put that on as an
action item at the study [inaudible]. >> Yeah. >> Yeah cause aren't we up against a
time. >> Right. >> They were all wanting to get started on that. Okay so I just
didn't know what happen to that one and then I have prepared for information. Item
on the cost that board has expended and I wish that I shouldn't use the term board
because that means it is a collective decision but on the, we will contract that
the President of the Board of Trustees has entered into since a pro this goes back to
the board vote to higher outside Counsel or they use of the board, prior to that we
the board relied on the legal services of in house Counsel. Vice President
[inaudible], and we had never engaged, an outside attorney exclusively for our use.
We used outside council, but it was done as a board operation, usually under the
direction of a superintendent president. Starting with the contract that was signed
in, I believe it was March. We did engage the services of Craig Price. And then
sometime during the summer, the services of Mary Dowell were engaged under the
authorization of Board President, Peter [inaudible]. So, I have requested, I
requested it in the. March meeting that I would like to get a running account, on
that. I never got it. I requested again in July, I never got it. So I had to file a
Public Records Request to get this information, which I think is really
unfortunate, that a board of Trustees member has to file a Public Records
Request to find out what the Board is doing. Through that, I did find, that the
Board President has authorized $85,000 to, $85259.28 worth of legal services, split
between Mary Dowel and Craig Price [inaudible]. I have the, the break down
between the two attorney but the issue is that this is been authorized by the board
president none of which ever went through any sort of. Review process. Nor was it
necessary, apparently, under the contract. The reading of the contract that was
signed gave the board president authorization to engage this
singlehandedly. So that's, [inaudible] report, I wanted to find out, how much
were we spending as a board. We went from zero to $85,000. And this is just up
through August thirtieth. I have another public information's request for the
period from September to the present. This raises obviously a number of issues. We're
running a very tight budget. We've never really talked about our board budget. We
have expenses going to conferences, and we should know what that, those are. We maybe
need to relook at what is our stipend that we get? We raised it a few years ago. Is
it time to drop it down in interest of budget. Austerity and then also our role
or we is it appropriate for us as board members to be receiving the same health
insurance allowance that. Full time faculty are getting. So, as a board we
never really looked or bring any sponsor for budget. Nor do I even know where
exists in, the college budget. I dunno where to go look for board expenses. I
dunno where this $85,000. It might have gone under just simply college legal
expenses. But I think because of [inaudible] the action of a single
individual on board and not a board collective. Expense. We need to find a way
of keeping track of this. $85,000 out of the budget for five months is a very, very
large amount to be. Authorized by a single person, so I was curious when we, If you
go back and I've included the minutes on the Feb, February twenty-fourth meeting of
2011, that’s when we took a vote, when we had a discussion it has a close to a
verbatim discussion and certainly some of the issues that we raised then, what does
this mean, should we, how do we keep track of it, what is this going to look like, so
this is kind of our mid-year report, this is what it looks like $85,000 being
allocated for outside legal counsel for on the authorization of. Ford president. So,
I'm reporting that and we can take that information with whatever else we want to
do with it later. >> Yeah, Marty? >> Yeah. I just wanted to, reiterate something in
what Joan just said and that is when we look at a budget we should look at the
president's office budget, if we come under that budget and I think we probably
do, like we're a department looking at that budget so that we can analyze how
much for conferences and so on. I think that's a very reasonable thing to do. >>
Yeah. >> So thank you for bringing that up. And then secondly, I think a $100 a
meeting for a stipend. You can cut it in half if you want to. That's, I mean,
that's. That's almost. >> Pitiful, but it's okay, I mean I don't plan on making
the money here but, you know, a hundred dollars a meeting is what we get I just
want to make it clear because it sounded like when you were saying it that we got
some huge amount. >> Well I think that's all we get and I'm fine with that. Of the
legal, the legal limits which is 400. >> Dollars. >> I think it's my turn right
now. >> It's $400 no, not to exceed $200 a month for regular meeting. >> Let, let,
let Marty finish. >> And then the other thing is you said, you've been asking over
and over for something and, and I, I don't think you should have to put in Freedom of
Information Act request to get something. So that doesn't seem. I think you should
be able to get the information and I know I asked over and over to find out how much
the court reporter was costing us. I think you remember that in all the meetings I
kept asking and asking. Never got an answer and finally. When I made my first
ask of Jack, I have the answer right here. It cost us $11,800 for the court reporter.
So that's, you know, it's good to have the answer. But within an hour or two, I had
it back. Which is what we should do, and you should be [inaudible] that too. So I'm
just saying that. So, I think we're. [sound] We may be of an era of having. A
little bit more re, reaction. To what we ask for and I don't think you should have
to put in any more Freedom of Information Act requests. Other comments? >> Okay, I
received a, I received a communication from a constituent concerned about the
safety issue involving skateboarding on, on our foot bridge. We have huge signs on
this foot bridge that say: No skateboarding ... >> That's wrong
[inaudible] ... >> No bicycling. And some years ago I had a very personal encounter
with somebody on a skateboard. He plowed right into me. I fell down. He fell down.
He laughed. I didn't. He was not apologetic for what he had done. In fact
he was somewhat irritated that I had been in his way. Not everybody does that. Most
people would stop and say gosh I'm sorry. But the fact remains, we have a problem.
The constituent was saying we are liable. If somebody is rolling down the hill at
twenty miles an hour and pops into somebody, it’s likely that at some future
point, somebody is going to hit their head and be in serious trouble. I understand
the argument for doing nothing. The argument is, we don't have police force,
we don't have people who are authorized to confiscate skateboards, we, you know,
there are some really good reasons why we haven't acted. But I think it's time that
we have a very careful look at some options so that. It's sort of like waiting
for... If the earthquake hits. It's not if it hits it's when. I, I communicated my
concern and my constituents concern to President [inaudible] and [cough] you very
kindly responded that we are gonna take this seriously. But I think more than just
padding on, on the fo- on the foot bridge or some something that would make the
skate border not to [inaudible] be happy about it. I, I think I really like to
engage the whole college community including the students. Because there is
an issue here, about a culture that says it's okay. We have these big signs- they
are meaningless. Well they're not meaningless. They're there for the purpose
of, of helping people understand that there's a safety issue here. And it isn't
that, that some people are just better at ducking than others. I mean some of us
have a little slower movement getting out of the way. But what, I think it's our
community college It's our community. We need to help each other do this. That
alone won't do it, I understand that. But I would like to see, I don't know, some
action taken by, by the student senate or by the student body, to help us affect
this culture. It didn't happen overnight. It's not gonna go away overnight. [sound].
I'm, I'm painfully aware of the difficulty of doing something. But I think talking
about it may help and seeing if there isn't some kind of action in the future
that we can take, together, that would affect this, I think would be a really
good idea. >> Marty? >> I think that's a good point, Peter. And now that we've
discussed it, I think there's a, an urgency here. Because we do have liability
insurance. However, if we know something is inherently dangerous, they may not
wanna pay us for that, unless we take corrective action. And, you're describing
one incident where [inaudible] [inaudible] yourself, I'm a I'm assuming other
incidents. And, I think it behooves us to enforce that rule, and there's probably a
number of ways to do it, but I think we should not take it lightly. >> Good. >>
Yeah. >> Marsha? >> Yeah. I, I do support both what you said and Maury said. And I
would add that I think that there's a damage issue as well to the surface of the
bridge which ultimately led us to a situation where it had rotted away. And we
had to spend a great deal of money to rebuild it. So from that perspective as
well we should... >> Try to work with this issue. >> Okay. [sound] ... >> Don't? >> I
just want to say this is a topic that's come up any number of times, and
particularly in facilities, because we always ask, how can we build in ways of
preventing this? And there was a period of time where we did add things, bumps on the
edges of various things, and certainly the bridge, when we were looking at it that
was the main concern, could we put something in there that would stop it, and
what we ran up against was handicap access. So, it's something that is a
concern. We've tried to put in physical barriers for it, so we've probably done as
much as we can on that. So it now does became a, A matter of enforcement and
personal choice on it but I would have to say I don't think it was skateboards led
to the problems on the bridge but certainly there are other problems except
skateboarding on the bridge including being. >> Charged with being rude and
intrusive when you make any comments. So, I haven't been hit yet but somebody
probably wanted to hit me whenever I look at them and tell them lock your bike or
get off that skateboard. >> Well, it's ... >> So, it isn't, it isn't a pleasant
situation. >> Yeah. It's a bitch. But it's also other parts of the campus and it's
been, an enormous problem and You're right. [inaudible]. We've over the years
tried to figure out different strategies. The most recent one, and this is where I
wrote back to, Peter [inaudible]. Was [inaudible] about ten or so [inaudible]
devices that make it more difficult for people to, skateboard fast. And we're
putting 'em in strategic places where we can on campus, with that adversely
affecting, access issues. But, [inaudible], I appreciate, Peter's
suggestion is a campus wide effort. Cuz right now, I remember last year and the
year before, I would tell [inaudible] skateboarders [inaudible]. He could be
doing what you’re doing suddenly get off, walk up yo go bought six yards ahead of me
and then get right back on it and others just. Looked at me. He didn't care, and,
Get them going. But, I think it's amazing how much pressure peer pressure can. I
mean, look at smoking sensation, we're all, and it's the same thing, people look
at you know, you're, you're putting us in danger, which they are. You're damaging
our facilities, which they are. And if we have a collective effort, we can probably
do more that way than strict enforcement, which we don't have to capability of
doing. So, I think it's a very wise, smart approach. And you know, I'll bring it
forward to college planning council. We'll begin a discussion on that. >> Thank you.
Was there any other Board member wishing to make a comment? Alright, we move onto
item two, Governing Board, we have done item 2.1, we move to 2.2, recommend
approval of collective bargaining agreement between the instructors
association and the district. Jack? >> This is, each of you, is the result of a
lengthy negotiation of the [inaudible]. And this is what the instructor
association and administration tentatively you know agreed to as being presented to
you today. We reviewed it. In past, you know, study sessions or [inaudible]
sessions with the board, as, as we were negotiating, you know the various items,
and this is the culmination of, of that so there shouldn't be any surprises in what
we agreed to. What is unresolved is Article twelve. Article twelve is what was
in the contract, previous contract, regarding giving taking account of
seniority of [inaudible] instructors in course assignments. And that's turned out
to be a very controversial you know, provision. So, the instructors association
is working with their constituencies to try to look, come to come up with a
revised version of Article twelve. And, and this contract calls for re-opener on
that item as well as if there's any change in salary and benefits in terms of
[inaudible] in the next two years. So that article twelve will come back when the
[inaudible] Yeah. I. Working with the constituents to the faculty, come up with
a revised proposal and that's so at that point they can ask for [inaudible] ask for
a reopener to get that in here. So that's, short of that. I don't know Sue if you
want to say anything. Sue [inaudible] and Joe [inaudible] and I were involved on the
negotiating team. Bruce [inaudible], was our, negotiator on that and. For the
district side, NIA had their representatives there. So at this. >> And
Lynn Stark is here. Do want to have. >> Lynn was like [inaudible]. >> Right >> And
Cornelia was there head negotiator. She's here as well. >> And this was submitted to
the faculty for approval and what was the, what was the approval vote. >>
Approximately 40, 60. >> 40, 60. >> 40, six, 60, 40. >> Yeah, for approval. >>
[inaudible] was very controversial. >> I see. Okay, so, and that's the part that is
gonna come back to us. >> If, if we can arrive at some [inaudible]. >> Yeah. >>
[inaudible]. >> Okay. >> [inaudible]. But you’re up to it good [laugh] okay [laugh]
good or there questions of, of Jack or anybody else from the diocese. >> Yes. >>
I was curious. The, the agreement references a number of district policies,
which I was unable to find on the website, and. >> I'm not surprised. We're still
writing on it. [laugh]. >> And I was wondering when I was going to be able to.
[laugh]. >> Yeah. I would be happy to provide you with copies of those prices.
We are working most days to get this mostly. Originally, they were up on the
website, prior to the accreditation of the book. What we're... >> Trying to do rather
than wait until each policy has an opportunity to be reviewed and just get
the existing policies up there. >> Mm-hm. >> It's easier said than done but we're
working on it. >> Okay. >> If you have any specific question please ask me. >> Well
I'm, I'm interested in maybe, mainly in being able to find them and then correlate
with the agreement. So if we're going to get them up there that would be great. I
know it came up in our December orientation meeting and it would be great
to see some of those going up. >> Okay, is there a motion to approve? >> So moved. >>
It's moved, is there a second? Maury [inaudible] seconds. Further discussion?
>> Yes, I'm just going to announce that I am going to vote against this. In nineteen
years, I've. Voted against this. It's never come to this close of a passage, so
I'm not going to change now. My primary feeling is, there's one criteria when we
hire people and that's student success. That's the one criteria, and that should
be the only criteria when we make these choices. So, because that always was our
motivating principal, we never felt that granting re-hire rights to become superior
to the needs of students success. It was never comfortable. I think we have a good
track record of valuing. The person that we hire is the best person for the job. So
I've always been against extending rights out to people just. To cross the board
that might not work I don't care how you write this up it still is. Giving rights,
to first of all, non-employees. A. A. Part time person is no longer an employee of
the district. And we're extending rights to a group of people that are not even
employees anymore. Which just leaves us in this shadowy area of potential exposure to
any sort of litigation, follow up, follow through. I think it puts a tremendous
burden on down at the dean level, the department chair level. To be weighing and
balancing with such scrutiny, to have to take that burden on, rather than being
dedicated as they always have been, [inaudible]. One, the best person is that
one that's going to. >> Be the best person for student success only. So, with that in
mind, and certainly, you've got nineteen years of me never approving of this, so
this shouldn't come as any surprise. I will be voting no on this. >> And you're
referencing article twelve in particular, right? >> I'm sorry? >> You're referencing
ar-, article twelve. >> I'm sorry, article twelve. >> [inaudible]. >> Motion? >> So
to, to put it in as vague of a term [inaudible] we'll talk about it later, I'm
reminded of when President [inaudible] told us in February. I can assure that
this board of. President of the board of trustees is not going to do anything on
his own as far as engaging counsel, eighty-five thousand dollars later
obviously our President did engage counsel, so what we've put in writing is
what counts, not what we say we're going to do in the future. So I'd be very happy
to take another look at, at Article twelve when it comes back, but at this point, I'm
not going to accept it. >> Marsha? >> I was gonna suggest that perhaps it's a
suitable, time in the next few months. I recognize the, the duration of this
agreement, but at some suitable time the board might have the opportunity to
discuss it's. >> Priorities in thinking about the future agreements that we
negotiate with our various unions. And that's not something I've been through
from the front end, and I think it would be useful for us. I assume that Joan is
getting to the question of the evaluation type issues. You know, how do you decide
that someone is the best teacher? And, and how well they're doing at student success,
and, and some of those interesting issues. And, I'm, there are many issues that we
might be interested in discussing in the context of union negotiations. >>
[inaudible]. [inaudible] What you will find in next round, is [inaudible] ... >>
What we do, you know, management, we bring to the board early on. What our positions
are and we ask the board for input and then we come back during the process at
times, so the board is engaged from the very beginning what is our opening
position to any changes we're making or new, new requests from the [inaudible] and
so you'll find [inaudible] when you're involved in [inaudible] that you'll be. >>
Okay. >> The board is consulted. >> Well I appreciate. >> And we actually get our
direction from the board. >> I think it's important to note their Issues that are
not. >> I contracted sheets there. Does that make sense? >> Sure. >> And those are
not issues about which, which we're bringing to the Board in the context of
getting direction from you for you to charge negotiators with any. >> That,
that's true. >> Correct. >> That is in the contract as, as you pointed out. >> Sure.
Yeah. >> I'm just suggesting at a conceptual level, we might have a useful
discussion. And... >> Yeah, Cornelia was waving her hand. >> I'd just like to
reinforce what Marsha was saying because I think there were a number of issues, at a
policy level, because some of this is policy, where we have chosen our core
principals, our core values, and that is where this type of discussion, and
including a number of other issues when it comes to what drives us in allocation of
resources, which then does go down to contract negotiations. So, I think I would
like to reinforce that discussion. >> Cornelia? >> Speak quickly cuz we're. >>
Very quickly, thank you so much, president Hasman for recognizing me. I just wanted
to make sure that to clear up the confusion here. Class assignments I made
starting in the very beginning of, for example, fall semester, for the next
spring, they usually like 90% finalized during the semester, and yes Prestee
LaDixon during that time agenda faculty are ... >> Employees of this college.
Thank you so much. >> We move to a vote. All in favor of the motion say 'Aye.' >>
Aye. >> Opposed, nay. >> Nay. >> Abstentions? >> Abstain. >> One
abstention. Okay, we move to item 2.3, presentation of CSEA's initial contract
proposal. Jack, do you wanna say anything about this? >> No, just... Liz? >>
[inaudible]. >> Yeah, in my discussion with Liz, go ahead Liz. [inaudible]. >>
[inaudible] >> Right. >> Yes, there's really no presentation today just
introducing. >> [inaudible] >> All right. >> Just like the last one. >> Okay. So,
there, there needs to be a motion to approve? >> Yes. >> Okay, I hear no
motion. Therefore, it's defeated. [laugh] ... >> Start over. >> Yeah, please. >>
Okay. Shall we. >> I'll second it. Did you make a motion? >> No. I'll make a motion.
>> It's a motion to recede. >> Isn't the action only for a notice? >> Motion to
recede. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> It's to recede. >> Yeah, You're not yet voting to
approve it. >> Yeah. >> Yes to receive. >> You accept this [inaudible]. >> You're
accepting, you're accepting that you received their proposal. >> Right. >>
Acknowledging. >> You're acknowledging receipt. >> This is the same motion. >>
Nate makes the motion. Marty seconds. >> No. >> More. That's More. >> More. Sorry.
All in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Oppose nay. Abstentions. >> [inaudible]. >> They
are not. >> Okay. Unanimous. We move to point two point four. >> [inaudible].
[sound]. >> 450 47. >> [inaudible]. >> So we are asked to approve the [inaudible].
4600. Correct. This policy we discussed at a study session. And we reviewed it. It's
pretty straightforward. It's just cleaning up language. >> And updating it to make it
accurate as to where. Yeah. We are organized. >> Is there a motion to approve
Board Policy 4600? >> Move approval. Second? >> Go in groups. Second
discussion. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Oppose, nay. Motion. Abstentions? Sorry.
Motion is carried unanimously. Item why don't we go to item three? Human Resources
and Legal Affairs? >> [cough]. >> Thank you very much. I have... One slight
addition on page five. >> Classified change in assignment. The middle of the
page, the start date will be, Lauren Roberts, the start date will be November
first. And with that I submit the consent agenda for your approval. >> The motion to
approve? >> Move approval. >> Jill approves, is there second? >> Second. >>
Lisa seconds. Discussion? >> All in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed nay,
abstentions? Thank you, Sue. >> We are on... I can't flip that fast. >>
[inaudible] Al Sharper... Miles [inaudible] is at a conference so Al
Sharper is filling in today. >> Welcome Dean [inaudible]. >> Great. >> So, Bruin
is the acting EDP. Are you ... >> I'm acting, acting. Hello everybody, good
afternoon. >> Or, you're the understudy. Yes, they understood. There are two items
in four, report four, 4.1 is recommended approval of new course proposals and
course modifications, new programs and program modifications and you can see in
your attachment there are program modifications for four programs.
Administration of Justice, Law Enforcement Emphasis, Administration of Justice
Criminology Emphasis, Administration of Justice Legal Studies Emphasis. They are
three certificate of achievements that underwent some program modifications.
[sound] our Associate in Arts and Animation and Gaming. One other program
[inaudible]. Went through, modifications, through our, [sound] curriculum committee.
CAC. [sound] So, we're recommending approval of these, course mods. >> Through
CAC. >> Is there a motion to approve? >> Move approval. >> Joan is moving. Is there
a seconder? >> Second. >> And Marsha seconds. Discussion? >> Hearing none, we
move to a vote. All in favor, say 'Aye'. >> Aye. >> Opposed 'Nay'. >> Abstentions,
motion carried. 4.2? >> 4.2 is recommend approval of the, to [inaudible]
verification agreement for educational institutions, between SBCC and the
National Student Clearinghouse. And there's a two page, attachment for this
item 4.2, which just goes over the terms of the agreement that SBCC is offering.
Jack would like to speak [inaudible]. >> We, we have a, we had an existing contract
with the, [inaudible] Clearinghouse. When the aspect, Committee asked us for more
information about transfers, specifically they wanted to know of the students who
transferred to a four year institution, how many completed their [inaudible]
degree within three years, two years, and so forth so that's not, that's [inaudible]
we hadn't contracted with this clearing house to receive and so we had to do a
contract real fast to get, ask them their data, which we did, and actually it was
very impressive. So it's something that we'll include going forward to see how
well our students are doing once they transfer. >> And it's why you, you this,
this contract is on the agenda. >> Is there a motion to approve? Marsha? >>
Actually I was gonna ask a question. >> Well, let, let's have a motion on the
floor. >> Motion. >> Motion is made. Is there a second? >> Second. >> We have a
second. Lisa seconds. And go ahead. >> You reminded me, Jack, that I had heard that
some schools, UCSB for example, may provide feedback to us about how well our
students do when they transfer, compared to other institutions. And I was wondering
if that is occurring? Or is there... >> A way to encourage that? >> Yeah, they're
providing is That, that it usually with a long lag time, as were certain, certain
CSUs. And. >> I'm not sure for what reason, I just, I'm glad you asked me,
because starting about two, three years ago maybe when they started cutting their
budgets, we stopped getting those reports. I used to get 'em and now I don't get 'em
anymore. So I'll follow up with that because it's something that is valuable to
have. >> Yeah. >> And CSU is very sporadic; some did, some didn't. You'd
think the system office would give it to us. >> And so, um... >> This should be
what computers are for, [laugh]. >> Well, they're there, I mean, it's just a matter
of, you know, somebody's gotta just, you know, do the programming. But it was
already done, because we used to get the information. So that's a good [inaudible],
because, you know, [inaudible] loans the data where [inaudible] are doing. And
actually broke it down by, institutions. They went to and they gave, us, you know,
three, or four, or five years, one, year, two year. And it also gave us longitudinal
data. And last year, we took this huge leap up, it was actually great timing. It
so happened that's what we're giving to the Aspen committee. But I'll follow up
with that in sum. So. >> You'll get your policies posted on the web and then we'll
get some information how our students or doing and you should be happy right. >>
Right [laugh]. >> Okay thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. >> Thanks
Alex. >> Did we. >> We, did we take a vote? >> No. >> No. >> No, we didn't take
a vote. Okay. We move to a vote on item 4.2. All in favor say aye. Speakers: Aye.
>> Opposed, nay? >> 4.1? >> 4.2. >> We already voted on 4.1. >> Yeah. >> That was
continuing education. It's not. >> No, no, no. >> Oh am I reading my numbers wrong?
>> Yeah. >> Sorry. >> [inaudible]. >> Yes. And we. >> I stand corrected. >> We have,
I asked for the nays. I asked for the abstentions. I heard none. Motion is
carried unanimously. Welcome Doctor Areano. >> [inaudible]. >> Incoming Doctor
Haslan, [inaudible] Board of Trustees, Doctor Freelander, [inaudible] I have for
your approval, 5.1 Recommend [sound] Approval of New or Modify Community
Service Courses. [sound] ... >> Is there a motion to approve [sound] Item 5.1?
[sound] ... >> So moved. [sound] ... >> Lease moves. Is there a second? Lease is
seconded. Discussion? [sound] Hearing none, we move to a vote? >> All in favor
say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Appose, nay. >> Abstentions. >> Dr. Freelander I was
gonna ask for some clarifications from the board. If you know on the second page we
bring before you minor course modifications and this means that some of
the directors are meeting with faculty, they want to decrease hours or make some
minor changes. So my question is, do I have to bring, each and every time we
make, minor changes for your approval or once the course is approved. Does it give
me that flexibility to Change hours, etc. >> I would think one answer would be that
the term minor is a little flexible itself. I'm, I'm not sure how flexible it
would be, or need to be. Marsha? >> Yeah, I thought I remembered reading something
that required us to approve it. Not that we're, I'm saying we want to. But that
there was some, statement that we needed to approve those changes. >> And I guess
[inaudible] clarification. So would this be a. Of course modification because these
are P based courses. There's no state approval. We're not under any obligation
... >> Because it is not state reimbursed. >> It would probably fall under the
broader board duties maybe. But I am happy to have someone look at it and see. >>
Yeah, okay. Hopefully they will discuss it with me... You've given... It's a matter
of judgment. And the ones she called to my attention where the ones that didn't rise
to the level where you bring through a board, your meeting for approval, and
we're. It does. Then we, they would bring it. And it's always on a case by case
basis as relevant. And the rationale for it that a lot of it is just minor tweaking
it just doesn't seem that's something the board needs to, ... >> To deal with. >>
Just as one individual, I'd be satisfied if the two of you had, had a discussion
about it, and that was it. I, I wouldn't wanna, I wouldn't need to see it. >> But
you... >> [inaudible]? >> But you, could you give us an example, so we can get a
picture of what minor means? >> Sure, yeah, Fay, go ahead. >> Yeah, if I can get
Ken, cuz he's the one that's been working with these, course outlines. >> An example
would be a class called a culinary tour of the Mediterranean. >> Mm hm. >> It
originally was set at, a 30 hour, maximum. >> [inaudible]. >> Yeah. >> We then, ...
>> A consultation with the instructor decided, let's give it a range from
fifteen to 30 hours so we can accommodate shortened quarters, the summer. So it,
that's the kind of change we're talking about. >> Yeah. >> Maybe a couple of words
in the description to better clarify what they're looking for. >> And these courses
are not state subsidized. >> No they're not, they're all. >> Community and yeah.
>> Peter, that means, that means they’re not approved by the state. >> That's
correct. >> Chancellors office. So it seems to me in conjunction with the
President's office if there's anything that's more than. >> Tweaking. You can let
us know. Otherwise. >> Yes. Yes, the arrangement that Dr. Ariana and I. >>
Discuss, and I felt I was very comfortable making that recommendation. >> Okay. >>
Okay you don't need that level of detail here, but at some point, it's a judgment
call, and I'll err on the side of, you know, informing as opposed to not
informing. >> Well we're gonna pile more on you, I love it. >> Yeah, I've got a
little list here No, no, no. They do. >> We'll move on to. >> I just want to
underscore that certainly when we're looking at state apportionment is when we
have our highest degree of certainty, which we have appreciated, the efforts
that you have done on that. >> I'm trying to move back to our agenda, thank you.
Joe? [sound] Yes, you did, you did. [laugh] ... >> [inaudible] Take that vote
and run. [laugh] ... >> We have a fairly long closed session as well, that's why
... >> Try to rush us a little. >> I'll be very quick. [laugh]. Item 6.1 is the
consent agenda. >> So motion to approve the consent agenda. >> I move to approve.
But I did have a couple of questions on A and I. >> Well, move to approve. Excuse
me. One thing at a time. We have a motion. Is there a second? >> Six. >> Second.
Discussion? >> Pulling. >> Joe. >> Out A and I on ... The purchase order which if
you go down the middle of the page when it comes to the commemorative or signage at
the drama music. Do you know what that sign is it? I know typically one has a
commemorative plaque. >> So do you know if that's part of it, or is it just simply
signage for direction? >> It's in the middle of the page, Joe, it's, um... >>
Well, actually, I can, I can tell you what we're buying. I mean, the signage... >>
Yeah. >> Let me look at the amount, and I can tell you what it is. >> It's $37,000,
so... >> [inaudible], it's in the middle of the page. It's, um... >> That's the
signage for all of the rooms, like, the room numbers... >> Okay. >> You know, any
signage, the [inaudible] in our contract. We took, we pulled responsibility for that
out and brought it back to the district because we wanted to manage it. >> The,
the reason. >> Yeah. >> The reason I brought it up was, if there's going to be
a commemorative plaque, my suggestion was that we include the board of trustees that
passed, helped pass measure V in any sort of commemorative plaque. I just wanted to.
>> It's not a, it's not a commemorative plaque. >> I wanted to raise that issue.
And then, A, I was just curious. There's a special continuing education trust fund
for doc-, David Yosun's classes. And I'm just curious what classes he teaches. And
obviously, somebody cared to make sure that he was available. Here comes Andy.
[sound]. You should take his class, everybody loves him. [sound]. In order to
give money to. >> So Joan, did? Was your questions satisfactory answered? >> No.
The first one was. Yes. >> The first. The second. >> And the second one. >> Okay.
I'm just checking through the other winter schedule at the moment. >> Huh. >> Doctor
Yelsin has a three classes that are being sponsored by a an anonymous donor in town.
And the courses are. The first one is called, Are You Prepared for Retirement.
The second one is called, going it alone, assuming financial responsibility. >> And
the third course is called manage your own portfolio. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> So he
managed his own trust then, getting a gift [inaudible] that's just what he preaches.
>> Yeah. >> So. >> Pretty good. >> So it is there a concern with the consent
calendar. >> Those were my only concerns. >> Okay any other concerns we are ready
for a vote all in favor say I. >> I. >> Appose nay extensions the notion is passed
unanimously. >> In our business action items Section 6.2, we can take the
adoption resolution number fifteen, authorizing routine internal budget
transfers. And in option resolution, resolution number sixteen, providing for
2011-12 budget revisions. Did you receive the unbudgeted revenue together? >> Mm-hm.
>> Is there a motion to approve item 6.2 A and B? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Murray
and Masha, discussion on the motion. >> Here now we move to a vote. Oops. We don't
move to a vote do we? We go to a roll call. I almost stole Angie's big moment
away. >> Trustee Alan. >> Aye. >> Trustee Durham. >> Aye. >> Trustee Kahynan. >>
Aye. >> Kathylene. >> Aye. >> Trustee Jeckowyth. >> Aye. >> Trustee Remington.
>> Aye. >> Macyth. >> Aye. >> Trustee Diego. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Let's close. >>
Item 6.2C is the adoption of resolution #17, which is the delegation of governing
board powers and duties. >> Is that also to the same claimant on nineteen? Was it
not the same? >> No, I'm sorry. The, we're one before that. This is 6.2C. Resolution
#17, the delegation of governing board powers and duties. >> Is there a motion to
approve item 6.2 C? >> So moved. >> Lisa had her hand up and seconded by Joan. >>
Second >> Discussion? >> Hearing none, we move to a vote. All in favor, say aye. >>
Aye. >> Opposed? Woops... I'm sorry. >> I know it's a resolution. >> Sorry. >> It's
so easy to do. I'm sorry. >> Trustee [inaudible]. >> Aye. >> Trustee Bloom. >>
Aye. >> Trustee [inaudible]. >> Aye. >> Trustee [inaudible]. >> Aye. >> Trustee
[inaudible]. >> Aye. >> Trustee [inaudible]. >> Aye. >> Trustee
[inaudible]. >> Aye. >> Trustee [inaudible]. >> Aye. >> [inaudible] 6.2D
and E together. The adoption of the resolution #18, providing for the payment
of an outdated warrant. And #19 is providing for the payment of an outdated
warrant to the same individual. Okay, is there a motion to approve? >> So moved. >>
Should we raise, I mean, this is, this is a good point. >> That's cool. >> We'll
raise hands instead of orally saying it. >> That's cool. Lisa and, who's going to
second? >> I'll second. >> Okay, Joan seconds. Is there a discussion on any of
the component parts? Hearing none, we move to a roll call vote. >> Trustee
[inaudible]. >> Aye. >> Trustee Bloom. >> Aye. >> Trustee [inaudible]. >> Aye. >>
Trustee [inaudible]. >> Aye. >> Trustee [inaudible]. >> Aye. >> Trustee. >>
Livingston. >> Aye. >> Trustee [inaudible]. >> Aye. >> Trustee
[inaudible]. >> Aye. >> [inaudible] item 6.2F is the adoption of resolution #20,
for authorized signature. >> For the California Department of Education 2011,
2012 contracts, is there a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> Louise approves.
Is there a second? >> Second. >> Marsha seconds. Okay. Discussion? Okay, none. We
move to a roll call vote. >> Trustee [inaudible]? >> Aye. >> Trustee
[inaudible]? >> Aye. >> Trustee [inaudible]? >> Aye. >> Trustee. >>
Havolon? >> Aye. >> Kristy [inaudible]. >> Hi. >> [inaudible] >> [inaudible] >> Aye.
>> Trustee [inaudible]. >> Aye. >> Trustee [inaudible]. >> Aye. >> Thank you very
much Joe. We, we will suspend the meeting for the purpose of going into a close
session to discuss the items. Item 9.1 conference with labor negotiators and 9.2
conference with legal counsel about anticipated litigation. >> Mr President
[inaudible] note that under 9.1 [inaudible] one of the [inaudible] will
not be unattended. >> Okay, English will not be unattended. >> Yeah this will and
also 9.2B, a tort claim, as indicated in your agenda. We will come back and report
out as soon as we're finished with the closed session. [sound]. >> The
[inaudible]. >> With special thanks to our technicians who are here. >> Hang out
there. >> Taking video of all of this. >> Hm. >> You guys deserve a medal. >>
[laugh]. >> You really do. >> Yeah. >> It's my intention to report out for close
session, with respect to Item 9.1. We provided guidance for our labor
negotiators. With respect to Item 9.2, we provided guidance with, with respect to
litigation, and... We passed a, a motion. This was with respect to litigation, or
anticipated, or possible litigation as a result of the agreement with Dr. Serban.
The motion reads as follows: This board of trustees has determined that the agreement
we have with Dr. Serban requires that her current salary payment from us be offset
by the amount she receives by way of salary payment from the position with, or
her position with ... >> Coast community college district for that portion of the
contractual period between October third, 2001, and June thirtieth, 2012. This
motion was passed by the board of trustees with a unanimous vote. Finally, with
respect to 9.2B, we took no action. Is there a motion to adjourn? >> So moved. >>
Motion is made to adjourn, is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor.
>> Say aye. >> Aye >> Apposed nay. Do or you guys disappointed that were not going
to stay longer. >> Do you want to just hangout? >> Yeah we were ready to stay til
midnight. >> No okay we are adjourned.