Board Meeting: August 1, 2011

>> ... are missing Lisa and Morrie and I knew Morrie was going to be gone.
>> And Lisa's on vacation.
>> Lisa's on vacation.
So, we have a quorum and we'll move forward.
Hearing of citizens we have alas, unlike previous times we only have three.
Linda Nelson would like to express her greetings too.
 
>> Linda Nelson: Honorable Trustees, on behalf of the community of Santa Barbara,
we wish to thank you for your hard work and the long hours spent in deliberations.
Students of all ages appreciate what you have done to preserve educational opportunities
for their generation and future generations.
Please accept these tokens of our esteem.
Sincerely, Linda, Olga, Sara and Anna.
Thank you very much.
[applause]
>> That was great.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Dandy is right.
Alright, thank you so much and next is Mark Alvarado.
Mr. Alvarado.
>> Mark Alvarado: Good afternoon.
 
I appreciate the opportunity to come before you today.
Specifically, I understand that my name was called last Thursday at the meeting
and I think what had happened is I was approached by the Students
in Continuing Education, specifically, the Spanish speaking [inaudible] students
and they have given me some concerns that they were trying to work
out through Continuing Education and so I had -- some of you might remember, I came and I spoke
at a special meeting that you guys had down the hall and I was running late to that meeting
so I had asked one of the students to put my name on the list in an event there was a lot
of people speaking at Thursday's meeting that same practice was used again.
Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the meeting and so I think that was the confusion
and so I wanted to make sure that it wasn't some kind of, you know, ploy just to put my name
out there or, you know, use our organization.
I'm the Executive Director of Pueblo and we have a valuable reputation in the community
to getting involved in community issues and political issues and I understand what occurred
on Thursday, that there was a lot of people in the room and I just wanted just
to reiterate though that, you know, that if there is a concern with Continuing Education
and the Spanish speaking students, I hope that you guys do take a strong look at that issue
and hopefully the students won't feel like, you know, there might be some issues
of them being taken advantage of or hostility or whatever it is
and I'm sure you guys are well aware.
I don't want to go into any details, but just, you know,
I just wanted to reiterate that so thank you.
>> Thank you so much.
We move on to -- we have one other speaker wishes to speak to issue of Item 5.1, 5.2,
but we move on to -- shall we take this one out of order Sue?
It's listed out of order.
It's a very -- probably a very lengthy item having to do with recognition
of Jack Friedlander in terms of a longevity recognition.
 
>> Thank you.
[inaudible] order.
If I may and the remarks that I'm going to read is from Dr. Serban,
who would have made this presentation and I didn't have to provide those remarks
so that we can officially -- oh, I always thought I was
so loud I never needed a microphone -- so that we can officially recognized 25 years
of service to Santa Barbara City College.
So these are Andreea's remarks.
I am very pleased to be able to acknowledge Jack for his 25 years of service to our college.
As Executive Vice President of Educational Programs, Jack oversees the credit,
academic and student support programs and services.
It's a big job and one that Jack has been responsible for since 1999.
When the decision was made to merge the functions of the Vice President
of Academic Affairs and Vice President of Student Services
in the newly created position of Executive Vice President.
Before becoming Executive Vice President of Educational Programs,
Jack served as the Vice President for Academic Affairs and before then, as Dean for a variety
of college divisions and programs including Business Technologies, Fine Arts,
Social Sciences, Foreign Languages, Library, The Study of Rock Program,
the International Students' Program
and the Vocational Technologies Education Act funded programs.
Jack is active in numerous local and state organizations and activities
and has received statewide recognition for his leadership
in implementing student learning outcomes at our college.
He has also authored or co-authored a variety of published articles, monographs and books
and giving many presentations at regional and state conferences.
On a personal note, I have known Jack for many years and have enjoyed
and appreciated our collegial working relationship.
We've worked closely in my prior positions at the college
and during my tenure as college president.
We have co-authored a book together on student learning outcomes way before SLOs were the trend
in California community colleges and have made many presentations together at various events.
Our common background and interest in research
and evaluation have provided us a unique opportunity for professional collaboration.
I have appreciated Jack's expertise and input.
He often cracks one of his many jokes.
Some of his jokes are better than others, but he never gets tired of trying.
Jack, congratulations on reaching 25 years of service to the college.
I wish you all the very best.
>> That was nice.
Thank you.
 
[ Applause ]
>> If I may, we have -- Angie and I have a difference of opinion about this.
She thought that flowers would be appropriate.
I frankly, thought a gift of a head of lettuce would be [inaudible], but we compromised.
I believe these are edible.
>> [inaudible]
>> Don't, don't, don't.
That's a disclaimer.
I have no idea whether they're edible or not.
>> I don't think we've had [inaudible] this is my first and last meeting.
>> And this is a gift certificate very appropriately for Jack to the Natural Cafe.
Well done Jack.
Well done.
[applause]
[ Inaudible ]
>> Sue, are any of the other recipients here?
>> If I may please say a few words.
Yes, of course, first of all Andreea, Dr. Serban
and I are meeting tomorrow as part of the transition.
And so I will have a chance tomorrow to thank her personally for the very kind remarks
and then she and I have had a good relationship over many years and we'll continue to do
so because we do have a lot of shared interests.
So in that relationship, Andreea has offered to help me as much as I need
and I'll certainly take advantage and take her up on that
and make this transition as orderly as possible to do it.
And I do want to acknowledge everything that she's done for the college, you know,
in her former position and for the past three years that she worked tirelessly
and the college was her life and she did everything she can to contribute to the college
and again I've told her that, but I'll tell her that again tomorrow
and again thank her for 25 years of service.
A few things I want to say about my 25 years and I won't take 25 years to say it,
is I have to get my -- I want to thank Peter MacDougall and John Romo for hiring me.
My background was not a background that one would normally hire a dean for.
You know, my resume didn't look like a dean, I didn't look like a dean, I probably didn't sound
like a dean, but when they offered me the position I turned it down twice.
Also, that's sort of lacking in my confidence, not in terms of what I can do, but being a dean.
John Romo was very persistent and asked me to give it more thought and I'll never forget I was
in San Francisco attending a World Fair's counsel meeting and I had to 5:00 that night
and it was 4:55, so I went to a phone booth, that was before cell phones and told my wife
that I was turning it down and when I talked to John I said,
"Marcy we're moving to Santa Barbara."
My first meeting on campus was with the Social Science division faculty,
at the time was the most senior faculty at the college.
Peter Haslund was there and every single one of them has since retired or have left the college.
But I'll never forget my first question was from John Kay and John is disarming,
but brutally frank manner says, "Dr. Friedlander, given your background,
how could you possibly be our dean?"
And so I gave him an answer of complimentary skills
and at that point the Social Science faculty after its staring me down,
gave me a standing ovation and I knew I was in a very special place and all I can say is
that when Peter and John brought me in it was after the college had gone
through some very painful budget cuts, the state had defunded all these courses
that the college relied on and it was a very disruptive period for the college which,
you know, I wasn't part of, I joined it right after and we were under 10,000 students
and they said they'll give me a role as dean, you know,
please you've got a lot of creativity whatever.
Just do what you can to make things happen.
And over the years and the last couple of years that I've been hearing
about all these accomplishments and sitting there it just create pride knowing
that one had a hand in it, but it's not about me.
I didn't care about who got the recognition.
That wasn't important.
What's important to me is I sit there at this very day and I go we have
such a wonderful faculty and staff and management team because, if anything,
these accomplishments get done through others and to this day, everyday,
people come in with bright ideas, wonderful ideas
and anytime ideas come forward there's always people
who once say they think it makes sense to take a risk.
They just do it here and that's what makes this college so special
because it's a talented faculty staff and management team that is always willing
to make the extra effort and think creatively and take a risk.
And to me I feel like I just started here
because to me [inaudible] to be in that environment.
And so my new role as long as I'm in this role, I'll do everything I can to keep
that environment going and foster it because that's what keeps us alive
and that's what makes us so different than all the other community colleges.
Every college is a library, every college has talented faculty.
What makes one college better than another?
It's having the people come together and utilize each other and work together
and the environment they create and I think I'll do everything I can to keep
on building on that strong tradition.
To keep us viable.
Plus it makes it a more interesting place to work.
So again I want to thank the Board, past and present, for all the support.
I've always felt I had tremendous support from the Board, from past Superintendent Presidents,
mainly from the faculty of staff and management team.
Also, on Friday it wasn't on my agenda when I woke up in the morning that I'd be
in this role for 30 days, whatever it is.
But I walked into the management meeting, we had a management retreat that day and, you know,
people, you know, reacted whatever they do to the news as I did, you know,
look at my private thoughts, but everybody
within five minutes said Jack we're moving forward as an institution
and the universal support that not only the managers expressed for me,
but since then Dean Nevins and staff and foundation of board members
and the community members and it just -- I spent all day Saturday just thanking everybody.
I was just sort of overwhelmed with that support.
It wasn't about me I don't think.
It's just about how important this institution is and how important it is
that we go forward as an institution.
So I didn't take it as a personal compliment or anything.
I said, "You know what?
This is the college and this is our community both internal and external
and I'll do everything possible to keep on building on that
because that's what makes us special."
So that's all I want to do and I want to thank everybody.
I want to thank Agnes and Bev in supporting me tremendously, the deans are here and Ignacio
and his past role as president
and all [inaudible] presidents, Peter when he was president.
I've always maintained very close relationships with the [inaudible] so in fact,
many years ago they did something that was unusual at the time.
They had me actually be a member of the [inaudible] my role and I invited them
to just sit down at dean's counsel meeting.
So these relationships, it's all about relationships.
And with the Board I hope you think I've developed relationships with you
in your new role that you have the trust and confidence in me and I'll do everything I can
to have that so we just have a great relationship so we all can focus
on doing what we all are here to do and that's serve students.
So thank you very much everybody.
[ Applause ]
>> Move on to approval of the minutes of March 24th.
Is there a motion to that affect?
>> So moved.
>> It's moved?
Is it seconded?
>> Second.
>> All in favor say aye.
>> Aye.
>> Aye.
>> Opposed Nay.
Abstentions?
>> It's past unanimously.
Is there a motion to approve the minutes of June 9th?
>> So moved.
>> Second?
>> Second.
>> I hear no discussion.
We move to a vote.
All in favor say aye.
>> Aye.
>> Aye.
>> Opposed nay.
Abstentions?
>> It's approved unanimously.
A communications of Dean Nevins, President
of the Academic Senate is first to tell us all about the Senate.
>> Dean Nevins: First of all, I'm going to start off saying to Jack that I wanted
to take exception to your comment that it was about the office.
It was definitely mostly about you.
I have a lot of personal confidence in you.
I think you're going to do a great job leading us forward.
Also, congratulations to you.
I was thinking of telling a joke, but I'll leave that to you.
>> I wanted today, so bad that I said, "You know, I'm going to rest until tomorrow."
[laughter]
>> So on the seventh day you rested?
Okay. So I'm looking forward to working with you in your next 25 years
and I anticipate you'll be here long after I've left.
What's it seems like a long time ago, I've been pondering this question for awhile
and it was articulated to me by Trustee Croninger [assumed spelling] and she said,
"What kind of college do we want to become?"
And as I expressed on several occasions,
I feel that this issue is the most important issue facing the faculty
and the college as a whole.
While I don't have the answer and none of us will,
until many kinds of conversations have been held.
I'm here to report that we have bitten off one small part
of this issue and started working on it.
This small part will be first of many conversations that we will have from now on.
I'm at the end of the last academic year.
The Senate authorized the creation of a summer work group, which would come together to arrive
at some common understanding of some large scale principles for cost reductions and compilation
of a list which would indicate what information divisions
and departments would need to have those conversations.
In other words, kind of kick starting the process a little bit.
Group meetings were held last Wednesday and Thursday
and I invited all full time and part time faculty.
Unfortunately, I invited our CE colleagues too, but unfortunately,
there was a snafu with the email system, which much to my regret.
What was nice is I had 36 people who were interested and 25 -- excuse me --
26 who actually showed up to participate.
So the meeting was very well attended by people from all over --
big departments, small departments -- it was very nicely attended.
And we decided quite a few things actually and I'd like to thank the deans,
Dean McLellan [assumed spelling] and Dean Scharper [assumed spelling] for coming
on the second day and giving us opinion.
Also, personal thanks to Jack because he was there for both days
and he was a very valuable resource which helped us reach the bar conclusions.
The results were some general agreements about some overarching principles and an excellent set
of data items that we'll bring forward to -- like Dean McLellan and I will work on this issue
of what kinds of data the divisions and departments can have
so when they discuss their courses they know, they have some data to backup their discussions.
So this was again, the meeting's purpose was to kind of get the process started --
not to decide things then, because we need to go out to the faculty as a whole,
but what kind of decisions, what kind of data they're going
to need to have those conversations.
So we've got that actually put together.
I'm going to work with Dean McLellan.
We'll actually have the lists and give it to the divisions and departments.
Also, we're bringing out forward to the Academic Senate our retreat
and then we'll start formalizing our process which will then send out to the faculty at large
and then again, we'll go over this process.
It takes awhile, but I think its worth having that conversation
on an entire campus wide discussion of all the faculty.
It's very important, in my opinion.
The timeline is we're looking forward to having something in place so that we'll be able
to have input on the Summer and Fall 2012 schedule.
So in the Spring, we decided earlier that the Academic Senate level that we're going
to go ahead and use our normal process, but for the Summer and Fall moving on when,
we're going to start having our significant cuts.
We will have had a process in place, which has been [inaudible] by the entire faculty.
With regards to the Board of action of July 29, 2011 I did send out an email which I copied
to the entire board and I've received some comments from faculty and overwhelmingly,
there's been a positive response from faculty and especially,
with the notion of moving forward in a unified manner.
I look forward to working with all the trustees to transition to a better SBCC.
Thank you.
>> Thank you Dean.
Joan Galvan.
Tell us about the current events.
 
>> Joan Galvan: Good afternoon President Haslund,
Dr. Friedlander and members of the board.
On July 15th our Express to Success Program funded
through our Title V grant sponsored an open house of their new facility on East Campus.
On July 15th through 17th, the SBCC School
of Modern Languages hosted another successful American Sign Language Summer Emersion Institute
with 65 participants.
SBCC and the SBCC theatre group won three awards
in this year's Santa Barbara Indy Theatre Awards competition.
Congratulations to faculty member and Director, Katie Laris [assumed spelling],
and performers, Ed Lee and Megan Connors.
Ignacio Ponco and Magdalena Torres and several students were in Sacramento
on July 10th representing SBCC for receiving the statewide Rice Diversity awards.
In terms of major media coverage, Ryan Burns joining SBCC on July 5th
as the new Athletic Director, was reported in Noozhawk [assumed spelling], Presidio Sports,
KSBY TV Channel 6 and the Santa Barbara News Press.
The SBCC Theatre Group's Summer Presentation of the Solid Gold Cadillac which ran from July 7th
to 23rd was covered in Family Life Magazine, Noozhawk, the Santa Barbara Independent,
the Santa Barbara News Press and the Ventura County Star.
Continuing Education scholarships available for the Fall term was reported
in Edhat [assumed spelling], the Santa Barbara Independent and the Santa Barbara --
excuse me -- the Santa Maria Times.
State Controller, John Chiang's presentation at SBCC on July 21st was covered
by KEYT TV Channel 3, Noozhawk and the Santa Barbara Independent.
The EOPS Summer Bridge Programs for At-Risk Students which concluded
on July 22nd was featured in Edhat, Noozhawk and covered by KPMR Univision Television.
And the SBCC Transition in Leadership has been covered by Edhat, KEYT TV Channel 3,
KSBY Channel 6, Noozhawk, the Santa Barbara Daily Sound, the Santa Barbara Independent
and the Santa Barbara News Press.
And in passing, our SBCC colleague,
Steven "Silvy [assumed spelling]" Silverberg passed away unexpectedly
on July 7th in Santa Barbara.
Silvy worked as an instructional computer lab coordinator for the Business Division
and celebrated 10 years of service to the college in May.
In his honor, Silvy's family hosted a memorial celebration on July 14th on West Campus.
Are there any questions?
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you so much.
We move to the report from the superintendent.
>> Jack: Since Friday, I found out we had a management retreat that day and we met
in the morning and had a very good guest speaker and we decided after lunch
that everybody get back to campus and we'll finish the business of --
or we are going to try to do the management retreat next Tuesday
at a management meeting we had scheduled.
That went well.
I spent quite a bit of time, Peter and I, Friday and this weekend just talking to Peter Haslund
and I really appreciate the communication with Peter and the relationship
that we're establishing, you know, working together.
I didn't realize how much time you need to spend with board president, but with Peter right now,
it's been time well spent and, you know, Peter I thank you.
I really do appreciate the advice and support and will continue to draw upon that as I will
with each of the other board members.
 
I decided early on that given, as I was learning more about what I was supposed to be doing
in my new role, that I needed to point acting executive vice presidents
to take my position during this next 30 days or whatever until you make a decision as to
who is going to be the acting president for the balance of the year
and so I asked Dean Marilyn Spaventa[assumed spelling], Marilyn's here,
if she would fill in for me during this next three weeks
and she let me know this morning that she graciously accepted.
So Marilyn will be attending board meetings and chairing deans' counsel and basically reporting
to me during this interim period.
Again, just to make sure we have an orderly transition on that
and I'll be announcing that tomorrow.
I was waiting to make sure I talk to Marilyn and I just wanted to consult with dean [inaudible]
to make sure there's no -- I didn't anticipate any concerns, but I'd rather be cautious
than have anybody upset with a decision that I make.
One of the major things that everybody is worried about is --
I was more worried about it yesterday than I am today,
is what happens if the federal government doesn't raise the debt ceiling?
What's the implications for SBCC?
And they're really quite severe.
On the short term and longer term, I'll talk about what was agreed to --
what could be agreed to when they start making real cuts, but for right now,
we have a payment that we have to make for what's called Pell Grants,
which is federal financial aid and on August 19th it's $9 million
that we would normally be dispersing to students that they count on
and the way the federal government does, we draw down that money we get it right back.
So there's really no cash flow problem,
but if they don't pass Congress a budget ceiling increase then we will not get one of the lists
of items that aren't going to be paid,
if the federal government doles out its money, is Pell Grants.
They'll delay payment.
If so, at the next week's board study session, August 11th,
at that point we'll know where we are.
And so I'll be bringing to you, but hopefully, I won't have to, what we decide to do.
Do we advance the money or don't we?
Also, during the three months, July, August, September, we received that $1.1 million
in federal reimbursements, federal grants, [inaudible], work study, just a whole variety
of federal grants and we will not get the payment which is another $1.1 million
that we have to consider until such time as they raise the debt limit and then we'll get it.
But again, so one of the decisions I hope we don't have to discuss or it's a discussion,
it's not a decision, is what the assessment board would be next week at the study session.
I don't think its appropriate [inaudible] we don't need to agendize [assumed spelling] it
and we don't need a decision now so [inaudible] it won't be necessary.
I just want to let, you know, that we're anticipating, you know,
you try to be one step ahead in case and that's discussions we'll have after we find
out what happens tonight if the Congress votes
to support the debt ceiling increase or not on that.
On the agenda, I don't believe they'll be here today, is recognitions, you know,
Kip Evert Burkes has been in the Library for 10 years and he is part
of the award winning library staff that got much deserved national recognition.
Linda Wynans [assumed spelling], she's been in our Financial Aid office for 10 years
and she'll be recognized, I think, in the future board meeting.
Juan Carlos Ramirez Luceas [assumed spelling] and he's been here, I believe,
Facilities Assistant for 25 years so Juan joined the college when I did and Mark Sullivan
in our Food Service for 15 years and Mark will be here at a future board meeting maybe
if he'll decide not to come to receive his recognition.
I think [inaudible] to the college and I wanted to recognize it.
In terms of new events, Joan you will be covered what has happened.
We're starting something new this year.
It's calling WOW, it's Week of Welcome.
What, as we study the institution's success this year, read your literature
and reason why students didn't do well in classes or dropped out, especially,
in students who aren't necessarily have their roots in Santa Barbara or are used
to a different environment, which [inaudible] if your going to class,
have [inaudible] support are on their own, they're living out of the house,
is a sense of loneliness and isolation and so we felt that we want to try something new
and we're doing it on a shoestring budget funded by the bookstore.
We have very creative [inaudible].
Sharing some of the things, but actually it's kind of fun.
So we invited new students to come to it.
We call it weekend week of luck and it's really a Thursday and Friday prior to school starts
and it's a mixture of information like, you know,
say save for your own personal bank account, roommates,
to managing your time, stress management.
In the afternoon, we have optional events going to start [inaudible]
and they sign up for it and they pay for it.
We already have 190 students signed up, plus they're bringing friends and parents
and so we'll have -- we anticipate three or 400 people.
And this is [inaudible] we just announced, you know,
not that long ago and it just took off like that.
So again, it's one of these small things we can do that will have a large payoff.
The whole idea is to get the students to know each other, to network and connect
in a very friendly environment, get to know some key staff in an informal environment
where they're not sitting there be lectured to.
The whole event is set up where it's meeting friends and establishing relationships
and you'll see we'll do even some tracking research
because this is my research hat -- can't help it.
But I think you will see and I think [inaudible] we'll build going forward.
Also, we had the new faculty orientation starting Monday, August 15th to Wednesday
and it's always a tremendously important time and we're still hiring faculty as we speak.
We had interviews all this morning for the Director
of Student Health Services position which is a faculty position.
And we have some marvelous candidates that we interviewed today.
The in service day is the 18th on Thursday and you're all invited to the morning session.
First of all we'll have a lunch session for the faculty and management.
[Inaudible] always welcome to come to the lunch in the campus center to do that.
Also, on the August 19th, which is that Friday we decided to do the same thing for students
in our Express Success Program, the Title V Program.
And the students who signed up for these different learning communities so we're going
to have workshops with them where they're actually meeting with people, the faculty
and staff in our learning communities, plus getting to know each other.
Then we're having a lunch with [inaudible] with their student peers and with faculty
and counselors and support staff at their tables.
So its very informal, but we invited Dr. McDougall and two members of the Board
of Governors who said they were coming.
So they'll come at 11 o'clock, attend their workshops and then they'll be there for lunch
and usually we're going to go off campus and we said, "No let us sit down with the students,
you know, at different tables and get to know them."
And so that's what we'll be doing.
They'll be given brief instructions, but mainly it's really a time to network for students.
And so that's a social skill you have to have [inaudible] teaching at the same time.
So those are three new things that I wanted to make you -- call to your attention.
Summer enrollments were up and our head count now [inaudible], but what happens is
as classes are closing my prediction is by the time the classes start, it will be flat
or maybe a little down from last year, but at least we'll be growing and we might be
down a bit, which unfortunately that's going to happen.
This conversation Dean talked about is so important
because its not only cutting classes your starting in Spring and next year,
but its also repositioning your curriculum to give students courses
that they must have to get them to their goal.
At the same time, the delicate balance between that and preserving what makes us so special.
All the extra things we provide students.
That makes us comprehend [inaudible] a community college.
I keep saying it feels like I'm in a university environment.
There's just something unusual about this college.
So its how we balance both of those needs
and that's what the Senate is taking a leadership onboard with us
and the Board will be involved in the discussions as they come forward.
So I was just making a brief report, but I wanted to give you an update, but and again,
I want to thank everybody for all the support on this transition
and I'll do everything I can whatever time you have me here in this role to do the best I can.
>> Thank you Jack.
Are there questions of Jack?
>> I was interested in your reference to the learning communities.
Can you tell us a little bit about how these learning communities will be formulated?
>> Jack: Yeah.
What happens is the target audiences for students who take an assessment test and placed
in the lower college level English and/or Math.
And depending on how far they place, one level below, two levels below and ESL --
we include the ESL students and we said, "Okay,
for the first semester what's the best combination of classes they need
to attend full time and you've got to attend full time?"
They sign a contract saying we will commit to do anything and everything
and in exchange we're providing them a number of benefits that other students would have
and so I'm basically saying you're getting these benefits,
but you have to agree that you'll play by our rules.
So learning communities where they're taking courses that they can see a relationship
between why they're taking them, the basic skills in math.
Proof I'm taking elementary algebra then what does it have to do
with the other classes I'm taking and so we're giving examples and assignments that relate
to their other subject areas, but also to career exploration in helping them choose a major.
So what we did is we integrated support services, career planning of academic planning,
developing their educational plan into the courses themselves.
And then we built in almost like a force study hall to get the students
to learn the discipline of studying and problem solving.
We've given them extra support in classes on tutoring.
The idea is during the first year that we're have them complete within a semester
or two semesters -- no more -- all their basic skills courses through English 110
and into Math 117 or higher transfer level of Math.
So its really accelerated, its emerging.
Its taking everything we know in the literature and everything we've done over all these years
that work and packaging it in a way that its all packaged for them and do everything possible
to drive this course so they going to live up to their bargain.
If they don't, they're not out of the college, but they're out of the program.
But we feel that the peer-peer relationships, peer-faculty, peer-staff and, you know,
all the benefits are such where being in the program becomes a motivator in themselves
and is why they would not want to drop out or not do their homework or give up.
So we'll see.
So we'll have over 300 students participating this fall.
We could've taken more, but we wanted to learn and then next year, we'll wrap it up to 600
and our idea is to have several thousand students in this program by four years from now,
if it works, because we designed it the way it was scalable.
Its not going to bankrupt the college to do it.
Also the foundation has been terrific in their fundraising
to provide the extra support for students.
So we could do this program without it, but with that extra support for students
to let them go full time makes a big difference, through the book grants
and other kinds of things on campus.
While we're building this fall, we'll talk about this when we look
over the space having your input into developing our new college plan,
is developing the same kind of program.
It's called the Degree Transfer Express.
Same thing, it's being much more prescriptive.
For instance, if you take these courses and follow our advice,
you will complete everything you need to transfer in two years or less.
And we're just kind of packaging the curriculum working with faculty from all the areas to do
that plus integrating the support services.
So again, it's hard taking control of what's right for students and empowering them
with the skills for a much more immersive intensive environment
because the consequences now of them not succeeding are [inaudible] And now,
in order to transfer you need the A's and B's, not C's and D's and get jobs,
you're going to need a whole level different level skill set so that's all philosophy
of the Express to Success basic skills, recording foundations and Express
to Success degree transfer which will be developing this fall for next year.
>> Thanks.
That sounds like a really exciting approach.
I'm really looking forward to how it falls out and what works and what doesn't
and what you've all learned about this process.
>> Jack: Yeah.
One of the things I've learned from studying elsewhere,
is we'll be having during the year we'll be doing a number of public recognitions
of students achieving success as they go along.
And we have -- whoever's in my role --
whoever had this role would make sure the Board is invited to be present because I want
to give a sense of importance to students that of what they're trying to accomplish
because also what I didn't say is we're targeting the most average students
in this program so we're not picking students who would most likely have a chance.
We're saying that based on our data, we've actively recruited lower income
and academically average students and that's who we're serving.
And this program is open to anybody, but who we've got out and we've done a good job
through EOPS and our Outreach, community outreach efforts in filling these classes
with the most at-risk at-needs students.
 
>> Thanks Jack.
We move on to a report from Board members.
Joan.
>> Joan Livingston: I have several items.
Thank you.
First of all welcome Jack.
It's the second time I've seen you in that chair over there.
Appreciate the fact that Dr. McDougall had a serious health issue a number of years ago
and Jack got a phone call on Sunday.
I think you'd just come back from vacation.
>> Jack: I did.
>> Joan Livingston: I was President of the Board then and I said you're going
to be the President tomorrow -- acting President tomorrow and that was it.
It was a hard time for the college community to get through and you rose
to the occasion and you served extremely well.
So we appreciate your experience and your long history with the college
that is part of thread of who we are here.
So it goes back quite a ways.
I had some concerns that have obviously come up in the last several months and one of them
that I think as a board we need to discuss more fully at the policy level,
is the role of the Board President and the concerns that have come up is the feeling of
or the experience of an ill defined role.
We don't have much in our policy right now.
There's advisory from CCLC.
Our definition is very, very thin yet we watched the Board President take on roles
that left other Board members out of the governance process, so I think we need to think
about where do we want to go, where, how far can the Board President reach.
Being a gate keeper of the agenda has created some concerns and I would
like to see a little more protocol prioritization of how we --
how the Board President makes decisions about what goes on the agenda
and what does not go on the agenda.
I'm particularly concerned about the unilateral commitment of public funds
that the Board President has the power to undertake and yet, we don't have any accounting
of how much money the Board President has chosen to spend on the board's behalf.
So at this point, mid year check, I'd like to get an accounting of what expenses we have run
up as a Board just so we could start getting a better idea.
Obviously, this will have to be budgeted for and I think it's part of the transparency to find
out what the Board President on his own initiative is allowed
to commit as far as public funds.
I'm also concerned that we don't really have guidelines
for unauthorized commitment statements by the Board President without authorization
from the full board and so again, I think we need to look at protocol.
When does the Board President speak, if at all, on his own or is it more appropriate
that we follow the standard protocol that the Board President speaks when the board has met
and directed the Board President to speak.
If one looks at some of the [inaudible] of [inaudible] guidelines,
they describe the role as ceremonial.
Yes you can go to ribbon cuttings, yes you can talk on behalf of the college,
but as far as undertaking material positions without full board authorization, I think,
it's not a situation that I as a board member would
like to see continued, perpetuated or even unobserved.
So as we discuss what is the role of the Board President?
I think we need to look at the selection, the selection process,
should we consider an experience requirement for the Board President or the roles
where the duties or the powers, is there a need for an appeal process?
If the Board President is making many unilateral decisions,
what is our role to appeal those decisions?
Some sort of checks and balances if this exceeds what it's comfort level from Board members
so that would obviously get into when there's violation of board policies.
What rights -- what formal rights, what is the process so we know ahead
of time how we can approach that?
So those are my thoughts that have come out of the last six, seven months
and I think its something that's important at the policy level to discuss.
I personally would like to make a tribute to Dr. Andreea Serban.
I have worked with her, Louise has worked with her since she came
as Institutional Research Director, which was a new position created by Dr. Peter McDougall.
If we go back, Louise, you and I both can go back to the time we got on the board,
there was no such thing as the Internet.
There wasn't anything that was digitalized.
I had a Kaypro [assumed spelling] with what -- 16k of memory whatever.
I don't even know what it was.
It was big, bulky and slow and it didn't do much, but that was the state of the art
and as we moved into the digital age the ability to manage data,
institutional research put accountability into how we do our business with something
that was led by Dr. Andreea Serban and in that role she was chosen to participate
in a statewide initiative that was response to legislative mandate
and we now are required every year to file our data into what's called the ARCC report --
the Accountable Reporting for the Community Colleges.
And every year we get a report back on various metrics compared to various peer groups,
not always the same peer group, and this is part of the elegance
of this particular reporting plan.
Dr. Serban was the leader of this team that did all of this statewide accountability
so on September 1st, we'll be submitting data again for the annual accountability reporting.
This is a legacy that when we go through our college business,
I want to give credit to Dr. Serban.
Accountability and transparency were how she approached the business
of doing the college's work and the state of California system of community colleges work
so she deserves a lot of credit for that and the fact that we have to report this annually means
that her legacy is part of how we do business.
The other way I'd like to remember Dr. Serban is her vision and you don't have
to look any further than 20-20 Vision that was published
by the California Community College League of California and you look
at the distinguished group of people that were participants in this commission for the future
of all California community colleges, we are part of a larger system
and naturally there is a core structure Andreea Serban, one of the members of the commission.
So her work looking at the vision and the future and the point of the 20-20 Vision was
because we recognizing as a system.
We are living within our limits now.
Before the door was open and we did everything we could
to let everybody walk through that door.
The challenge to entire system now, as we're manifesting
at [inaudible] the local level is we have fewer resources.
We want to maintain the mission.
The way it was described in Sacramento was we can't be all things to all people
and that's easy to say, but it's really hard to put it into work.
We have some of the best and the brightest in our system including Dr. Andreea Serban
that worked on that so I commend everyone to take this to heart, read it a number of times.
This is our guidance from Sacramento.
It's not something that we have to slavishly follow, but it is what is guiding the argument
up in Sacramento so we have to work with it and we have to find
out how we adapt it to Santa Barbara City College.
So with that legacy of decades of transparency, accountability and vision,
I do offer my own personal tribute to Dr. Andreea Serban.
>> Thank you.
Other comments?
>> For my part, I want to think about starting the process of --
search process at our August 11th meeting so I will place that on the agenda both short-term
and long-term and it seems to me also that we truly do need a Fall retreat
and I'm trying desperately to find out what people's schedules are so we can have a time
when we can meet and talk about things that have gone on, shall go on and how it is
that we interact with each other so I'll be -- I hope to have a date selected by the August 8th
or August 11th meeting and if so I will bring that to you.
Okay. We move on to Item 2.
The Governing Board.
Item 2.1 is -- Candy is not here, so we will let that one go.
And 2.2 there's a misprint, that is the first paragraph of 2.2 is deleted
from the revised agenda for reasons that's known to the computer, but it certainly part
of the record from the earlier version of the agenda and I'll read it to you.
It's a request for legal interpretation, trustee education and information.
Only agenda item regarding the scope, protections and application
of Brown Act government code section 54963E2-3
and then the rest is as it's printed on your agenda.
And Joan, I believe this is your item so perhaps, you can tell us what it's about.
>> Joan Livingston: Well, again this is a [inaudible] of activities
in the last several months here that when we go into closed session it is not a total --
that there's a frustration and I put this on the agenda item to ask for guidance.
If you look at item 2 parentheses 2 expressing closed session we all know is you don't say
anything about what happens in closed session.
However, the Brown Act gives you an exception.
You can express an opinion concerning the propriety or legality
of actions taken by the legislative body or us.
So we can express an opinion.
So what I want to know is where does that scale allow discussion
if one feels something has happened that was improper yet, the Brown Act prevents one
from talking about it and it might effect how we do business at the college,
my frustration was where does one go with that?
One can go to the district attorney's office.
That's no problem.
That's a protected discussion.
You can reveal whatever you want to the district attorney's office.
But short of that or absent of the district attorney office giving any guidance on that,
if issues come up, I would just like to know what sort
of safe harbor does one get by its application of this?
So that's why I have asked for more legal guidance on that
because I don't think anybody wants to trample the protections of the Brown Act yet,
the frustration is if someone feels something has been improperly handled without having to go
to the district attorney and then also a little clearer idea of disclosing information,
if it's not confidential information.
And I'd like a little more scope of definition on that as well.
Sometimes conversations in closed session veer off into non-agenda items.
Is that confidential or is that basically public information that can be repeated?
If it's an item that's of a non-confidential nature, if it's a public document item yet,
the person bringing it the identity is that unprotected and confidential?
It's just that I think it's a worthy discussion.
>> Okay.
>> Joan Livingston: It's the law.
We can apply it.
Any number of us can use it, but what I don't want to do is misuse it so that is
where I would like to get some direction.
I had a little chat with Craig Rice informally about it and Craig, if I can kind of quote you,
I think you did give the advice that free speech is not trumped by the Brown Act.
That might be misquoting, but it shows
that there's quite a bit of variance in interpretation.
The Brown Act is very, very important, but is it a total gag on talking about it.
>> Craig, do you want to respond?
 
>> Joan Livingston: And maybe a more formal response.
But I think it just -- I use that point to illustrate, I think there's a lot to talk about.
>> By the way, you'll be happy to know
that the House passed the debt ceiling bill -- 269 to 161.
I looked it up when I heard your comments.
>> Oh, thank you.
>> Students will be happy [inaudible] their programs.
>> We have to hear from the Senate a little later,
but I don't think that's really in question.
You asked a good question, Mrs. Livingston, because there's really no delineation in the law
that we can resort to that would be able to provide you with anything specific
and by that I mean there's no legislative history that sheds any light on it.
There are no appellate decisions and there are no opinions from the attorney general's office.
So what you get down to is individual situations that board members like you have to decide
on a case-by-case basis potentially seeking the advice of counsel,
if you feel that that's necessary or anyone feels it's necessary.
Obviously, as you mentioned, a safe safe harbor is going to the district attorney's office
because you can share anything that you feel that you need to share.
But just to shed some light on it, maybe,
a couple of examples would shape the discussion and although...
>> Joan Livingston: You know, that's the frustration if one gives an example,
in giving the example is one violating the Brown Act and that's what I was hoping
to get a little more guidance on.
>> Well, we can talk about hypothetical examples.
For example, if you were to participate in a closed session
which I know this board would never do and it involves personnel evaluation of someone
and during the course of that discussion the board insisted on talking about what they wanted
to do for him salary wise and how much money they felt that they should get additionally
and that was debated then, you would have every right to come out of that closed session
and say, you know, I really object to what was discussed in there
because I don't think it was legal and...
>> Joan Livingston: Yeah, I think I'm clear about non-agenda items.
But again, disclosure even though it was said in confidence,
if it was a non-agenda item does it become something that one can talk about assuming
that it would have been said in public?
>> Or you can come out of closed session and say, "I object in my opinion it was not proper
to have the closed session that we did because there were matters that were brought
into the closed session that were not properly agendized.
I mean that's a very clear example.
I think if you have real estate negotiations, the point is you talk
about what your position is going to be, your bargain without the other party.
Let's say that the selling party being present and you go in
and the selling party is sitting there and you say, "Well what are you doing here?
This is supposed to be for purposes of our coming to a position vis-a-vis you."
You could come out of that closed session and say, "In my opinion the closed session
that we had was not handled legally."
Beyond that, I believe that when the Brown Act talks about disclosing the nature and extent
of the violation, it provides somewhat greater leeway so that when you voice your opinion,
it's just not a hollow opinion that nobody has any idea of what they're talking about.
So in my last example you could say and the reason that I think that that's the case is
because somebody was in that negotiation that didn't belong or the property owner was there.
So it's walking a fine line between not disclosing information that was arrived
at by reason of being in the closed session and maintaining your right
to publicly express your opinion that what was done or what was included
in the discussion was either improper or illegal.
And of course, improper can refer to things that are beyond what's in the law or not.
The other part of your inquiry that you also mentioned, had to do your ability to disclose --
the restriction is only as to things that are confidential.
So if you bring something into closed session or your Superintendent President
or another board member and it is not in and of itself confidential,
the fact that the board talked about it in closed session doesn't make it confidential.
>> Joan Livingston: Okay.
>> A salary survey, for example, when you're doing collective bargaining.
So it does not get the stamp of confidentiality.
The same thing would go I think for -- well you get the point.
>> Joan Livingston: And I appreciate just the fact that we're talking about this.
I'm glad the awareness level is being raised on this so I'll work with you on it
if something frustrates me on it.
And I would say it would be the process of feeling of improper process that was
in [inaudible] and it wouldn't be content necessarily as much as it might be process.
>> I think there isn't all that much clarity on some of these things including, in particular,
process and I think if you or other board members have questions about process
and the sooner the better before a closed session probably and this last couple
of weeks were really an exception to the general practice because ordinarily things would go
through the office of the Superintendent President.
That's who the lawyers ordinarily are asked by for whatever advice and input they give
or to consult and I think if you, for example, were to have a question about process,
you may want to consider asking Dr. Friedlander
if he can make an inquiry to one of your counsel.
And I suppose you could ask me directly, but there you run into the problem of board members.
So if you want a free opinion, I can give you a free opinion and try and end things off, but,
you know, what they say about free opinions.
>> Right. Free opinions are online and they left me just
with as little information as you say is out there legally.
Obviously, the Brown Act was a very thoughtful execution of procedure
and so it was a very interesting segment of the Brown Act
that they obviously, didn't expect it to be as tight.
They left a loophole that's quite wide, without much guidance
about the definition of those words.
So...
>> The only other aspect than that I might comment on is if you look at the penalties
for disclosing confidential information, there are certain things that apply to employees,
but as Board members, elected officials, they're not defined as employers
and really the only penalty is that you're subject you, any board member
and any legislative body to being reported to the grand jury.
>> Joan Livingston: I think the penalties are chilling.
That's why one wants to be sure ahead of time.
>> Yes.
>> Joan Livingston: Ok thank you very much.
So that would really be adequate right now for discussion as far
as putting this on the agenda or anything.
I don't have anything further.
I just wanted to at least have a discussion in the public record about this so if issues come
up in the future that we at least know a little bit about the dimensions of this.
>> Okay, thank you very much Craig.
>> Craig: Item 2.3 Approval of the proposal for conducting the analysis of redistricting
for Santa Barbara Community College district.
You remember we had a preliminary proposal not long ago
and here you have the more thorough description of what's going to happen.
Jack, do you have comments.
>> Jack: No.
I don't. I think presentation was made last board meeting and it made sense
with this person's being hired by local California Community College districts
and the firm has area of expertise so they're not starting from scratch.
And it made sense where the league contracted out shares to reduce the expense if we just went
out on our own and so I'd recommend that it be supported.
It's something we have to do and just seems to be an effective
and cost efficient manner of doing it.
>> The question I had and I wish I'd had the thought when we had somebody online,
but a great deal of work has already be done in terms of evaluating shifts
of populations in Santa Barbara County.
As witnessed by the development of a new senate district and supervisorial districts.
Is there a way that these folks will take advantage of that as a way of, you know,
just acquiring legitimate information and reducing costs of having to do it over again?
>> Pretty good point because what they have obviously, is they have census data
and they have [inaudible] what to place over the last 10, 20, 30 years with the census data.
But you're suggesting that Dr. Haslund, is that other agencies have been using the same data
and to the degree that they had that available it might save them some time here.
So I'll discuss that with you.
>> Yeah, I'd really like them to consider that.
[inaudible]
>> Marty Blum: Yeah, I would imagine that they would take some of that information
into consideration, but because of the uniqueness of our district,
I think that what they would provide us is very zeroed in kind of detailed analysis.
It appears by their report and proposal because I mean a senatorial
or congressional district takes in two or three counties potentially.
So I would like to move that the board approve the proposal for conducting that analysis
that I think quite frankly is long, long overdue.
>> Is there a second to the motion?
>> Second.
>> Second to the motion by Marty Blum.
Further discussion of the motion.
>> I had forgotten -- I'd forgotten
when they said they were going to come back with [inaudible].
I'd forgotten when they were going to come back with this information,
but it's very time sensitive because next year is an election and I think we need
to know what the districts look like this year some time soon.
I'm just going to leave it like that.
I looked through the whole thing and didn't find it, but I just hope that it comes back this year
and we'll kind of put that in there.
>> What I'll do, I'll make my contact with [inaudible]
and say that the board's approved going forward with the contract
and then ask them for a timeline.
>> Good.
>> And make sure that the timeline they follow is within our deal mandate.
>> Good.
>> So I'll follow up on that.
>> All right.
Thank you.
I believe the deadline requires sufficiency before the next election
and I thought he said something about the three months or something.
Does that ring a bell?
But certainly, the deadline that we have to provide that is before the date
of pulling papers on it which would make sense.
>> That's true.
Okay. I think we're ready for a vote.
All in favor say aye.
>> Aye.
>> Opposed nay.
Any abstentions?
It is unanimous.
We move on to 2.4.
An item brought by Trustee Villegas [assumed spelling] Luis.
>> Luis: Yeah, I had requested that this be placed on the agenda
because I wasn't quite sure how we were moving forward on a number
of items since our July 14th meeting.
Obviously, one of them having to deal
with the Superintendent President is no longer necessary, apparently.
And so part of my concern was that we were not moving fast enough in terms of and/or meeting
to discuss how we were going to react to the documents that were presented to us
at that July 14th meeting, specifically the Brown Act violation,
the notice letter that was handed to us as well as the notice letter
of the Accreditation Commission that had been sent to us based
on a complaint that had been filed.
The last item, like I said, was -- had to do with a discussion regarding the validity
and legality of the most recent evaluation of the Superintendent President.
So I would just like an update of where we are with handling the Brown Act violation or the...
>> Okay.
>> ... potential of that.
And where we are also in reference to preparing for the accreditation visit.
>> Okay, let's take them in order.
Craig, maybe you'd like to respond to the Brown Act violation obligation?
 
>> Craig: The Board determination and the announcement of Dr. Haslund not to report
out the results of the evaluation were based on the legal opinion that came from me
and the same opinion that was shared with Mary Dowell.
Obviously, we realized that you received a letter
from Mr. Osgrove [assumed spelling] I think his name was.
There was no immediate threat of a lawsuit.
There was no -- one of the remedies in the Brown Act if you allege a violation is
to affect a demand for a cure or a correction and it was none of that so the bottom line is
if there isn't any requirement for anything to be done, of course, we've examined
and reexamined the reasons why we advised Dr. Haslund that it was not a reportable action.
I'm happy to give you those reasons.
As your counsel, I can put them into a memo and I can share it with the board
and it can be an open public document.
But it's really very simple and that is, when the status quo
of someone's employment is not changed then government Code Section 54957.1 does not require
anything to be reported out.
The basis for that is the entire thing that underlies the so called personnel exemption
to the Brown Act and that fundamentally or most fundamentally, is to protect the privacy
of the person who is under discussion, the subject of the closed session.
Also, the personnel exemption is intended to promote frank
and open candid discussion among board members, so in this particular case,
and understanding what the actual outcome was of the evaluation, we decided that is, Ms. Dowell
and I together, that there was not requirement to be reported out and, in fact,
it would undermine the purpose of the Brown Act if we were to do so.
I actually, right about the time you were doing your evaluation, I did a little further research
and looked at a attorney general opinion from 2006 and I'm only giving this by way
of an example, not as something that had anything to do with this case,
but you'll see where I'm going with it.
The Board had an agenda item that called for consideration of dismissal release discharge
because that's the heading that local agencies need to use in order to consider any kind
of a job action, if you're not hiring somebody.
That's the catchall.
It's the template that is called the safe harbor.
And so in their closed session according to this attorney general opinion, there was a discussion
about terminating this particular key employee and at the end
of that discussion there was a motion made to terminate the employee and the motion failed.
It didn't pass.
And the attorney general's office ruled and went back to the same advice
that it expressed some years earlier and said no if you required the reporting
out of a non-action that didn't effect or change the status quo of an employee then,
you would be undermining the very purpose of the Brown Act Personnel Exception,
which is to protect the privacy of the individual
and so it was rarely predicated upon that.
I felt then and I feel equally confident now, that there was no Brown Act violation
that occurred and that you followed the letter of the law in respect to the non-reporting
of the outcome of the evaluation.
>> Thank you.
>> Joan.
>> Joan Livingston: I don't want to put words into the group
who filed the Brown Act complaint, but I thought it was far more
than just simply the reporting out.
I think when the reporting out took place, it said, "We have completed this phase"
and then there was a public report of a evaluation letter and so I was
under the understanding that it was that later act that they felt needed some sort
of clarity whether that was an action by the board or not and was there supposed
to be a report on acceptance of that letter or not.
That was just my understanding.
So I don't think it was as narrow of a exploration as you have presented,
which is obviously clear law, but it was the actions taken after the report
and it was based upon, at that point, it became public that a letter would be written
in 10 days, a rebuttal letter would be available in 10 days and [inaudible] did the submission
of that letter -- later letter was that an act of the Board.
Did that have to have some sort of authorization?
I mean this is part of my concern about process.
At what point would we discuss the process that lead to that letter?
Now, obviously, the end result of that is moot at this point,
but when these questions arose it was a critical part of the college discussion and process.
>> You know I think I heard some discussion to that effect from somebody and don't know
if I read it in the media or where, but actually, Mr. Osgrove's letter
in which he specifically complained about the so called,
Brown Act violation did not cover that, which we're talking about.
It covered the reporting out.
>> Joan Livingston: Okay.
>> So that's what we were asked to advise the Board President about so that when you came
out of closed session, you had followed the law and that's the best advice that we can provide.
>> Luis.
>> Luis: I think I would like to take advantage of Mr. Price's offer to put
that in a board memo -- memo to this board explaining then just for the record
and so that we can have that as part of the documentation in reference and in reply
to the Brown Act or the perceived Brown Act violation.
>> I'll get that to you later this week.
>> Luis: Sure.
Thank you.
>> Okay. Good.
Thank you very much.
The second item as to do with the letter from the Accreditation Commission
about a complaint regarding the board and resulting
in a promise of a special visit in September.
My reason for asking for that to be discussed here at this item was because I had no clue
as to what was going on in reference to responding to that and/or this board preparing
for that potential visit and/or discussion so I thought we should at least discuss it.
I mean how does the board view it and what do we think about that?
>> Joan Livingston: Well, one suggestion I would have is that we ask Dr. Friedlander
to begin preparing a response on the behalf of the Board and perhaps bring
that to our August 11th study session for further discussion as an item
and possible decision at that time.
Would that fit with what you had in mind Luis?
>> Luis: I think it would.
>> Joan Livingston: I don't understand what sort of response.
The only response that we give is trying to make some dates available for their visit.
They didn't send any questions.
They just simply told us they were going to be coming and it's up to them to set the parameters
of the visit so I think at this point, certainly the board education on standard for governance
and the Board of Trustees standards getting educated
about what the Accreditation Commission wants to see.
I think its very illustrative to see what --
how they have applied the standard to other colleges.
We don't have to look much further than Ventura and Cuesta [assumed spelling]
to see what happens up there so I think it would give us more of a sense of context
of what is the Board -- what would be the Accreditation Commission looking for
and the idea and then the timing of it.
Obviously, we're going to have to make the college available.
So what would work best to prepare for a visit at what time in September?
>> Marty.
>> Marty: Seems like this letter from them though is in reaction to a letter of complaint
that they received, some of which is true, some of which may not be,
some of it, you know, that kind of thing.
It seems to me that it would be smart for us to look at those complaints and let them know ahead
of time how we would answer those.
Because some of those are answerable.
>> Joan Livingston: [inaudible] copy of the complaint.
Its out there in the public media, but this isn't the basis of what they sent the letter.
We have to work with the letter.
>> Luis: Yeah, basically all we have is what we received from the Accreditation Commission.
Clearly, there are allegations that they've took from the letter which none of us has seen.
That they'd be focusing on [inaudible] visit.
My sense would be a very focused visit.
It's not to look at anything, but the governance issues that were called to their attention.
And one of the many items I have with Andreea tomorrow, I'm sure she
and I will be spending a lot of time.
I can't [inaudible] was.
Last I spoke to her about it was we were waiting to hear from them
in terms of the date and direction.
What's being suggested is -- well given that what they'd be focusing
on I suddenly wish it was clearly articulated in the letter we received the college
that it makes sense to me to prepare a response because you're going to be asked those questions
because that what they're asked to evaluate and they're pretty straight forward.
And it's just whatever documentation we have or your responses that we can be prepared.
Take question-by-question.
And yeah, Joan.
>> Joan Livingston: Yeah, I don't think it's a hearing on the factual allegations as much
as it's a review of what are our internal process fees,
the factual allegation raised certain perhaps policy deficiencies
in how we conduct our business and that you get a sense
when you read other accreditation reports.
What does an Accreditation Commission ask a college to do?
The facts, the specificities aren't the detail.
The issue is how does your college deal --
what's in your board policies that would be preventive so we have
to look at what would be preventive.
You can go ahead and -- I don't want to spend a lot of time fighting facts at this point.
I want to look at how do we conduct our business.
Are there sufficiencies -- deficiencies.
I can think of at least 10 policy deficiencies that I know are in place elsewhere
and that we don't have, but I think we got to first educate ourselves
as what are they even looking for when they talk about Standard Four Violations.
>> I'd start with what they have to focus on is they're evaluating are we meeting the standards
and in the accreditation book they have very detailed criteria
that what constitutes are you meeting the standard or not of board relations and conduct?
So it's basically, any kind of preparation for it.
We have to stick with the Standard Four and what we wrote in our report, what they're looking,
saying, "Okay, were we consistent?
And where did we stray, if we strayed?"
But they'll be asking us questions they haven't ask us yet for any formal response.
But the question really is in my mind prior to their coming, we don't know yet they'll tell us,
is what level of preparation does the board want to do before that meeting?
And it does make sense to start with let's review Standard Four.
Let's review our response in relationship to what the concerns that were expressed to a point
where they're coming down because they just got a letter.
Understand this is potentially serious enough violation
that of certain standards [inaudible] criteria Standard Four.
So I think this is an important discussion to have.
[inaudible] we'll start with the Standard Four.
>> Joan Livingston: Well, in a review of our policies which we've been talking about doing
for a long time that we've never done, but it certainly what are our governance --
what would be Standard Four policy that we have in place?
Where would there be existing deficiencies and practices?
>> Luis: Correct.
And basically, what we wrote -- whoever wrote that I wasn't involved
in the Standard Four writing, but we have it, is what the most I can do is we probably had lots
of references to board policies and [inaudible].
This is what we said in our report and we said that was true.
So scrolling back and saying, "Okay did we adhere to what we said?"
We said we were doing in Standard Four.
And I think it starts with the review of what we wrote which includes reference to the docs
which are the policies and procedures.
So the question is -- my concern right now about August 11th is again,
I'll find out from Andreea, but I remember Andreea saying before she left
that we already had a very lengthy number of items we had to discuss
on August 11th including the budget items.
And so looking at it, after tomorrow I got asked to be Vice President today for their other items
that they recall or that we need to discuss plus a few came up.
Again, from Andreea and then [inaudible] conduit to you is saying,
"What is reasonable that we can handle?"
Clearly, this has to happen before --
well before September whenever they come so let's say, "What's our priority?
The budget discussions -- is it -- what has to get done first and prioritize that way.
Right. I made a note that clearly, we have to do this Joan.
[inaudible] And I think it will clearly benefit this institution in a way given
that we must, let's take advantage of it.
>> Luis, well, do you have your hand up?
>> You're next.
>> Well, I agree.
I think that probably a review of Standard Four would be in order
and that would be a good starting ground I think to start to prepare
for that potential visit so that would be fine.
It's just a question of seeing what the agenda looks like for the August 11th meeting.
 
>> Thank you.
>> And I would agree with that as well.
I don't think we should have too many things, but obviously, this one is moving along
and we should be planning so that we are prepared.
I also think that the event was initiated by certain allegations and those are allegations.
They are not something that one simply says oh that's factual.
So it's appropriate to look at those specifics and be in the position to respond
and that's my suggestion that we start that process of thinking about it
and pulling together the information on that subject.
If we don't have the copy officially of the complaint from the Accreditation Commission,
I assume we could ask for it and I do believe it's
out there anyway so in the general available.
>> [inaudible] out there?
>> Joan Livingston: I'm not comfortable with dealing with the complaint.
I think it's extra curricular to the accreditation process.
They will have their own focus when they come here and this is not --
the complaint has not been made part of the process.
So as far as spending board time on that I'm not --
I just don't feel it's even proper for us to intrude
on whatever direction they are going to go.
>> Luis: Their focus will be clearly on the standards because that what --
they're not supposed to stray either.
And they're saying these are the standards are [inaudible] the standards
or not as we articulated to Standard Four and where are our responses that we wrote?
Are they still accurate?
>> Joan Livingston: And what existing board policies do we have and what are deficiencies
that we have in our existing policies.
>> Luis: Right.
>> Joan Livingston: So I think that's the first level as a board is our responsibility
about a personal defense against a complaint that isn't part of the record
of the Accreditation Commission is -- as I say, that personally you might want to deal
with that yourself, but I don't think we as a college should be involved in a document
that isn't even part of the peering process at this point.
>> [Inaudible]
>> Joan Livingston: Well, I'm a little uncertain since the visit was triggered by the complaint.
So it seems to me part of the process, but perhaps,
Mr. Price would have a comment on his view of that.
 
>> Price: The one thing -- forgive me -- the one thing I do recall is that I think the letter
from Barbara Veeno [assumed spelling] indicated in effect that the allegations that were made
in the complaint that they had received if correct were sufficiently serious
to warrant the possibility of some action by the Accreditation Commission and it was based
on her specific language in her letter back to the board referring to allegations having to do
with the governance and included, in particular, as I recall the governing board
that she was talking about so there is a nexus there.
I don't know if there is a possibility of separating out the wheat from the chaff.
In other words, whether some of the things that were included
in the very lengthy 16 page letter, if I'm not mistaken.
I haven't looked at this in two or three weeks, but whether or not all of those things need
to be focused on or whether what ought to be focused on is what the head
of the Accreditation Commission, the CEO, said was of particular concern to her.
But I think, you know, that perhaps after Dr. Friedlander has a chance to study the documents,
if the board is going to task staff with this that a better determination can be made
as to what the scope should be of the board's beginning to think about formulating a response.
>> Joan Livingston: I would think that if you're going to use the letter of reference then you go
to the Accreditation Commission and ask for could you give me more information
on the wording -- the specific wording that you mentioned rather than informally assuming
that the document that is in informal circulation is going
to be the basis of their visit.
So if you want to rely on the letter
from the Accreditation Commission I think we should be dealing directly with them then ask
for more clarification that might be appropriate to prepare for their visit.
>> Price: I could add this comment.
If one looks at the complaint procedures,
they're posted on the Accreditation Commission website,
you will see that if a complaint is viewed as warranting some sort of a follow
up then the procedure that's called for is to have the commission write
to the college and ask them for a response.
That did not occur in this case.
Whether the reason why that didn't occur was
because of the relatively unique circumstances having to do with some disparity
between the positions of the then Superintendent President and now Superintendent President --
forgive me -- and the board or not is only speculation so one of the things
that would also be possible given the status quo at the college here now with Dr. Friedlander,
as acting Superintendent President, would be to write Barbara Veeno back and ask informing her
about the current status and make some inquiry concerning what areas of the complaint
in particular, are of such a status that they're going to be the subject of inquiry
and discussion at the upcoming visit.
>> I think that -- I mean that makes some sense.
To ask them what it's all about.
>> That tends to be my comment.
That my thought right now would be to contact Barbara Veeno as soon as I can
and ask the very questions that are being asked today and report back to you, the board,
in the study session if not sooner, but at least provide some clarity in terms
of what is expected of us as a college because I don't know.
I know we received this letter.
So I will find out and let everybody know what her response is.
>> Okay. You may not find out right away though because I'm also recalling that the letter said
that she was going to be on vacation until -- in early August in any event.
So it may have to carry over for a later discussion.
>> Luis: What I will do is when I call the office -- her office.
I'll find out when she's back and at least apprise you with that.
>> And because her letter indicated sometime in the fall, maybe early September,
around September so the sooner the better.
>> Yes.
>> Joan Livingston: I think the important challenge here is not so much the actual charge
as the quality of a kind of behavior that has impact on the governance of the college
because that is what they have control over.
They're not going to have a hearing as much as they're going to say,
"Well listen you might have problems in this area of governance.
Let's see your policy on it.
What happens?"
As I discussed that the role of the President of the Board has never been defined
with a specificity that I think might be more appropriate.
So to me its not what was done, but it was a concern and are there model documents
on Board President branch of powers, duties, whatever and is our current operating policy
for board conduct sufficient and it's something we have been talking about for a long time,
but its never -- or at least I've been trying to get it on the agenda for a long time,
but this would be an example the type of topic that I was hoping to get some urgency sense
that we could deal with it as a Board as a policy level
and I think those are the things we're going to have be faced with --
talking, not that its going to be a hearing one way or the other, but I think if these sort
of things can come up, are you covered by your policies so you can deal with it in the future.
The feeling I'm getting from the accreditation that something new like this is
in their own literature on their website is they're not interested in punishing,
they're just simply trying to get best practices established.
And we just started the process of going through all of our board policies and we have a college
that board conduct operated far more on tradition than it did in policy,
so a lot of the things that we did when we conducted ourselves,
speaking of the former board members
and the three remaining incumbents were never really codified.
We went to various trustee education, there was just kind of a general consensus,
but we never put it into writing and so I think its really kind of an exciting challenge.
What can we put into writing that will affect any board, not this board,
but any board in the future that is part of the successful and effective governance
of Santa Barbara City College for now and into the future.
And this is what accreditation can give us some guidance on.
That's where I'd like to have us put our focus.
How do we put our best practices in writing and how do we find ways of making them enforceable
if there's any deviation from it?
So to me, that's where I'd like to have the concern of our discussion go.
>> I'd just might add that in terms of board policies themselves, of course,
the league itself regularly updates their template Board policies
that are not intended one size fits all, but is a template for different colleges
to consider adopting and adapting to their individual circumstances and in that regard,
Mary Dowell's firm is the legal advisor to the league that is responsible
for really doing the trench work that leads to the development of the policies.
So she may be a resource or someone in her firm when you come around to reviewing board policies
that have to do with the function of the Board President or anything else.
>> Joan Livingston: Right and we are under review.
We started a few years ago and it's a cumbersome process, but we didn't pay a lot of attention
to our board policies so I think this is timely.
>> Okay, Marsha did you want to finish?
>> Marsha: Yes, I was just going to add that I think this is part of what I have viewed
as the front pay function of our retreat as well, to discuss some of these issues and work
on reaching consensus on how we approach them.
So...
>> Okay, well thank you for this agenda item and I think it's been helpful.
>> I'll just simply add I don't think after the accreditation visit
that it's a matter of discussion.
I think they tell us what they want.
So let's be open to the fact that we could talk about a lot of them for a long time,
but we may get directives from accreditation.
>> Okay. Item 3, Human HRLA Sue Hurley [assumed spelling]
 
>> Sue Hurley: Good afternoon Representative Ford, Dr. Friedlander.
I have a few tweaks here on the agenda.
If you would turn to Page 6.
 
Under classified appointments, I'm deleting the senior office assistant at Wake Center.
We'll be prepared to bring a name forward at a later date, but I don't have that for you now.
The office assistant CLRC position will be filled by Brian Moreno.
The rate will be $13/2.
The start date will be August 15th.
>> Excuse me, Sue are you looking at the new agenda or the older version?
>> Sue Hurley: This is the new one I think -- Page 6.
They come on different pages.
The pages sometimes, I should have paused.
Sometimes my pages and your pages don't match.
So let's go back.
I'm looking at the heading classified appointments which is 3.1-J.
On whatever page you find it.
>> Okay. Bottom of page 5.
>> Well, that's the heading and then you have to flip to Page 6 to get
to the items that I am referring to.
>> Okay.
>> Sue Hurley: I'm sorry.
I tried to get you directly there.
Excuse me.
Ok. Let me recap.
The senior office assistant Wake Center that is listed at TBA,
I'm not going to give you a name at this point.
The next item is the office assistant CLRC that was listed as TBA, I'm pleased to tell you
that Brian Moreno will be hired for that position at rate $13/2.
The date is August 15th as the start date.
The last item under that section also listed on your agenda as a TBA will be filled
by Benjamin Croft [assumed spelling] and the rate will be $27/15
and the start date will be August 22nd.
Now, I want to go Page 12 and the heading, just in case we're
on different pages, starts on Page 11.
Professional consultant speakers -- oh no, excuse me.
Payment by stipend or memo and if you will then go to Page 12 and you will go
down to Jerry Pike [assumed spelling] there are two listings for him.
And the first listing for him co-director duties at the Gateway Program has the wrong dates.
The start date was 8/21/2010 and the end date was May 22, 2011.
 
This was brought forward somewhat late, but the work was done.
With those modifications, I would submit this action for your approval.
>> Motion to approve?
>> Move approval.
>> Joan moves.
>> Second.
>> And Marty seconds.
>> Discussion?
All in favor say aye.
>> Aye.
>> Oppose nay?
Motion is carried.
Thank you.
 
>> Thank you, Sue.
>> I have an action item.
And that is another working calendar that we're submitting to you
for Lydia Aguete [assumed spelling], counselor.
 
And that is on Page 15.
Item 3.2. Move approval.
>> Second.
>> Is there a discussion on the point?
Hearing none we move to a vote.
All in favor say aye.
>> Aye.
>> Opposed nay.
Abstentions?
Motion carried.
>> Thank you.
>> Because Ron Spevante [assumed spelling] had a prior appointment for today,
I'll be handling items of Item 4.1.
Next to recommend our Study Abroad Program for the Summer 2012 and Fall 2012.
One is photography and print managing and Cuba.
This is the third time we'll be going to Cuba.
And Linda Lowell has been [inaudible] and Stephanie Dobson is
in our Art Department, it's her first trip.
And the second one is going to Chile and Argentina.
It got left off the agenda is Argentina.
So it's both locations and again this is our third time going.
So I recommend approval each of those Study Abroad Programs.
>> Motion to approve.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>> Alright, well Marsha and Marty.
Discussion.
Hearing none, all in favor say aye.
>> Aye.
>> Opposed nay.
>> And I can have a bad Jack Friedlander joke if you're interested.
>> No.
>> Were you acting up or were you acting down when you took over your role as EPP again?
[laughter]
>> Depends on my perspective.
Even when I go back to my former position, then I'll say no.
I was acting [inaudible] up.
>> Item 5, continuing education.
We have a speaker, Jane Diruff [assumed spelling] on Item 5.1.
Jane would you approach the microphone.
>> Jane Diruff: Thank you.
Actually, I have only a request for a point of information because the courses that were listed
in your agenda of new courses that have been approved by the curriculum review committee.
There are 20 new courses listed.
Three, one and two in addition under different dates, but none of them have a fee amount listed
and I'm wondering if we can have those fees.
I don't know when, but I'm sure they must already be determined and I'd also like to find
out if we can [inaudible] the formula for arriving at the fees.
So that's my point of information.
 
>> Okay [inaudible] Can you help us out?
>> Thank you Jane.
 
>> Do you want me to go ahead and start with 5.1, which is approval of state funded course?
>> Sure.
>> Move approval.
>> Second.
>> Is there a second to the motion?
>> Second.
>> Seconded.
Is there a discussion of the motion?
Is there anything you would like to say about it?
>> Yeah. I have a question.
I can't figure out why the Curriculum Advisory Committee approved it
in May 2009 and it's now 2011.
That seems like a long time.
>> Yes. What happened is that there was a transition of directors and this is a course
that for some reason wasn't included in the entire list of courses that went
to the chancellor's office as part of a new adult high school diploma program.
And now that we're doing the compliance review this came to our attention
that it wasn't appearing on the chancellor's list for enhanced funding,
so I'm currently working with the chancellor's office to get this on their list.
>> Now, this makes sense.
And how would we know that?
Is that by the number?
I'm just curious.
>> No. What happened is when we received the list of the enhanced funded courses
that the state for the P320 report that says these are all of the courses
that you can claim enhanced funding.
As we were reviewing that list we noticed that many courses were missing
so I sent a communication to the chancellor's office asking them to do that research,
move all of those courses onto their approved list such that
when we do the 320 report all that information is accurate.
>> Thank you.
>> Sure.
>> Ok. Motion on the floor is to approve.
All in favor say aye.
>> Aye.
>> Opposed nay.
Abstentions?
Motion carried.
>> Okay.
>> I also have some proofs before I go into 5.2.
I need to delete some courses for your approval on 5.2.
They need some additional work so I'm going to be deleting Cooking for Dummies for How
to Boil Water, Cooking With Herbs and Spices, Pilates, Yoga, Comprehensive Adrenal Treatment,
Comprehensive Thyroid Treatment, The Art of Care Giving, The Magic Makeover and Typing.
Those will come back on the office for an agenda.
>> [Inaudible]
>> That is being deleted from today's agenda for approval.
>> Can you explain why we're deleting them?
I mean what happened?
>> Some of the course numbers utilized the state funded course approval number
and as we went back we have this black book that we use the course numbers from
and so we're trying to stop using that and do it online.
It's a matter of course numbers that we want
to make sure are correct before I bring them back for your approval.
>> I have two courses in that first group of courses and I think you had a third course.
>> Cooking for Dummies, Cooking with Herbs and Spices and Pilates, Yoga.
>> I got it.
All right.
>> And just to follow up.
Will we be able to offer these courses?
Will we have approval in time for Fall?
>> Well, these will go on the online schedule because we're in the last phases
of our production for the Spring schedule so they will not be in the printed schedule,
but the Directors are able to put them online.
>> For Fall?
>> For Fall.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. Let me respond to the question asked why the fees aren't listed.
What I've done in the past is I've given the present Superintendent a copy of all
of the course outlines, all of the budget sheets that do have the fees
for each of the individual courses.
I have not been asked to put them on any of the attachments.
If that's something that the board would like me to do I'd be more than happy to do so.
>> There's been a public request for that.
I think it's a good idea.
But the other part of the question was can we understand the formula
by which these courses are set?
>> Right. The board has indicated that the new fee structure,
which is on Agenda Item 5.3 will not go into effect until Winter term.
We're assuming that any courses that we include for Fall follow the same pattern
of the fee structure which is to only include direct costs.
We have not included any overhead in these courses
that we're bringing forward to you for the Fall term.
>> So procedurally, to change the fees for Fall would you have
in mind giving us some new sheet or something?
How would you want to handle that?
>> I'm not...
>> You're not changing for Fall, you're changing for Winter.
>> For Winter, I'm sorry, or Spring.
>> Well, all of the fees will be changed for the Winter term so if the board wants me
to bring all of that information I'm more than happy to.
It would be reflected in the Winter schedule.
In terms of all of the existing fees that go with the $4 per hour will now have
to be recalculated with the new overhead percentage
as the board has consensus to include 14%.
>> Well, I'm remembering we also discussed an average number as well
and so that probably effects your sheet calculations.
>> Yes. Leslie Graham is certainly doing that intensive work right now.
We're anticipating Fiscal Services providing us with that information mid-August.
That's the projected date of the report.
>> Yeah. I have a question.
What I'm hearing being asked for is we start changing fees that the amount of the fee and,
you know, we do the formulas so here's the formula so we have this record.
I think what we're asking is present more credit, we list all the courses,
but we don't provide the course of record outlines.
It's just all the paper and so where can I look at today, [inaudible] talking about it was,
what's a happy medium between giving you the information you need,
but not all the details that is page after page.
And so what I'd like to recommend is the fee and formula we're using which --
the formula's consistent doesn't vary from course-to-course.
It's the formula that applies or is there a variation?
>> Well, right now, there is a variation because it's based on the instructor's actual salary.
But for Winter, the agreement was to do a weighted average of some kind of fees
such that the fee used to calculate --
I mean the amount used to calculate the fee would be one standard rate.
That if you take -- you have four Spanish courses, all four would be the same amount
versus the way do it now, it's based on instructor's salary.
>> So what I would suggest maybe is having one document and keeping updates.
So here's how we establish fees as opposed to having it with every single course,
which would help streamline it for everybody.
>> Is that the work that Leslie is doing now?
>> Yes, Leslie will be providing us with that weighted average.
And then the Directors will work and recalculate all of the fees
for the Winter term with the new overhead at 14%.
>> Okay. Does that respond to our questions?
>> Yeah, but when will that be available if it's just
like a one page how fees are figured out and all that?
I'm happy with that.
>> At mid-August.
>> Mid-August?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you.
Missed that.
Thanks.
>> Great.
>> There's one outline I would like see is I want to see is --
because I want to see if I can learn Cooking for Dummies How to Boil Water.
[laughter]
>> Jack, you won't have any time, forget it.
[laughter]
>> All right.
So let's see.
Do we have a motion on the floor?
I don't think we do.
The motion is to approve these courses with the exceptions that were identified
by Ophelia earlier and there are three, six, seven, eight exceptions that were removed.
>> [inaudible] Moved.
>> Joe moved.
>> And I second.
>> And you second.
Okay. Discussion further?
Hearing none, we move to a vote.
All in favor say aye.
>> Aye.
>> Opposed nay.
Abstentions?
Motion is carried.
Thank you.
Okay.
>> Okay in 5.3 which is to establish the direct costs of 14%.
>> Okay, is there a motion to approve?
>> So moved.
>> Luis moves.
>> And nobody seconds?
 
>> It's a hard one, but I know that the least of the choices we were given
in our study session I think so I'll second it, but...
>> I'll take that as a second...
>> Overhead I'd like it closer to 5%.
>> Discussion.
 
>> I remain uncomfortable with a round number like 14%.
I'd like to see given the statutory language costs centers
that we can say this is what our overhead is for these courses.
That to me is what the statute is asking for and so that's what I'm most comfortable with
and I'm just expressing that to you.
>> I understand.
>> Joe did you want to say something?
>> Sure.
>> Sure absolutely.
Is this a member of the public?
>> He's a...
>> I know.
I recognize him.
>> He's a helpful guy.
>> He saved my marriage.
>> I'd like your definition of cost centers and because
for us continuing education is a cost center.
And if we get into more and more detail we need more and more staff to do the analysis,
we need more and more collection of detail to establish that.
And so it would just be understanding what level of cost center you'd
like to see and then going from there.
>> Well, I don't want to answer this because we think it's your province to figure it out,
but to give you some of my thoughts on the general subject at a broad level.
We had talked in study session about the possibility
of having one person handle the community services classes.
That would certainly make it easier I assume for you to figure
out the directly attributable costs.
I'm not saying that's the right answer,
I'm just saying that's one way to look at aggregating costs.
I don't know all the ins and outs of how you establish a cost center and what you put
in that cost center and what you don't put in it.
What concerns me is that I have experience with these kinds of statutes in the past
and there has been litigation over that and there has been a need
to justify exactly what you mean when you say this is what it cost.
So you do the best you can under the circumstances is really what I'm thinking
and right now what we have is a broad generalization and I'm just uncomfortable
with the level of broadness that we have.
I mean we certainly have significant costs associated with our state approved classes
that do not fall within what has to happen for a community service class.
It's much easier to approve a community service class.
It's a pretty simple process.
It's not so easy with the chancellor's office.
So those sorts of things can distort your generic number.
>> I understand and -- I'm sorry Luis.
>> No, go ahead and respond to that and then Luis is next.
>> Well, I just wanted to continue my comment which is 14% was the lowest number you had
because -- and it does not cover all of the costs that are associated with it
because it doesn't cover the cost of registration,
the costs to all the accompanying costs that it really does cost
to do a continuing ed class that we know are there.
So if we talked about what a cost center is and how we do it it's a long discussion,
but I didn't want it out there that 14% is an absorbitant number
because it doesn't cover our actual costs of doing continuing education classes.
>> I'm not trying to say that it's absorbitant, I'm trying to say it's kind of generic
at this point and at the same time, you know, the comparison point
that we have had is the K-12 system which held overhead to 5% roughly or less.
So, you know, as we tried to struggle with the right answer here I'm,
you know, I leave the details to you guys.
>> Okay Luis.
>> Luis: I just, you know, those are some good points
and I think they're good points for future discussion.
I think we had discussed this rather thoroughly during the last --
the study session where we discussed it and I think it was consensus of the board
that 14 was a workable number and so and that's why it appears on the agenda.
But I think, you know, I would like to look at that whole cost center concept
that Trustee Croninger is talking about, but I think it warrants, you know, more discussion
and background than what is available here.
I think this item here is based on a lot of discussion during previous study sessions
and we kind of went round and round on what was a good number, what wasn't.
As Trustee Blum indicated, it's not the greatest number that she likes,
but it was one that the board did have consensus on,
so I would just like to remind the board of that conversation.
>> I'd like to just...
>> [inaudible]
>> I just wanted to respond to a comment made about moving one individual to oversee this area
and that's a huge workload since right now, the fee based courses are distributed at cost,
three directors, so that would take significant time and review
and a major reorganization to now look at just having 1%.
>> Right.
>> I think it's a good idea because a lot of other colleges do have a very strong
and vibrant community service or community education program, but that would involve a lot
of internal discussions with my staff because of current workload and this is evolving in terms
of now these courses converting to fees so we are looking at that option,
but it would take a comprehensive...
>> It's like anything else.
It's a matter of magnitude.
Because the other community colleges are K-12 [inaudible], you know, continuing education.
So for them they got in the business of fee based classes because K-12 did it.
And then over time, a very robust large set of offerings that warranted that,
but we're a long way from that hopefully.
What kind of timeline do you have because you have the Winter schedule to get out?
I don't know what your time constraints are.
>> With Winter that would be I believe August is when the Directors are going
to start to work on the Winter schedule.
 
>> Okay. I think we're -- I'm sorry go ahead.
>> I know Trustee Croninger has mentioned a 5% overhead for quite some even before she was
on the Board and obviously, this is important to you so maybe you could talk about that.
>> Are you talking about the indirect cost being 5% or the total cost of the class being 5%?
>> No. I believe that it was the overhead costs that were regulated by the state and limited
and each year to a certain amount and that was the range,
but I'm not suggesting that that's our number.
What I'm just doing is -- and I appreciate Luis said we did discuss this.
We did have consensus of the board and all I'm saying is I'm still uncomfortable,
but fine you know.
That's me.
>> I think we're ready for a vote.
>> I think the good idea is that we revisit this.
We'll see how it works out and obviously, the numbers are going to shake down elsewhere
and then we all can start studying what do other colleges do?
There's always some degree of comfort if their formula is out there.
One of the benefits of attending conferences to share some of these ideas.
>> I'm going to interpret that as a call for the question.
All in favor say aye.
>> Aye.
>> Opposed nay.
>> Nay.
>> Motion passes.
>> [inaudible]
>> We move on to Item 6.
Joe Sullivan.
 
>> Joe Sullivan: We have a consent agenda which is quite lengthy, but I believe most --
several of the items were discussed with the Facilities Committee.
Others I believe pretty much speak for themselves so if there aren't any questions.
 
>> Okay. Is there a motion to approve?
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>> And seconded.
>> Some of these were discussed at length at Facilities Committee.
G through N, plus Q.
>> I believe Joe said they were all at some point discussed by the Facilities Committee.
>> I said some of them were discussed.
>> Were there any recommendations?
>> There weren't any recommendations that we...
>> We chewed them to death.
>> The recommendation is that the Garvin Theatre should be finished tomorrow.
We didn't find a quorum vote on that one.
>> Alright.
All in favor of the motion say aye.
>> Aye.
>> Opposed nay.
Abstentions?
Thank you.
>> That was 6.1 and we can take 6.2A The adoption resolution Number 1 authorizing routine
internal budget transfers and B the adoption of resolution Number 2 providing
for the 2011/12 budget revisions due to the receipt of unbudgeted revenue together.
>> Move approval of resolution 1 and resolution 2.
>> Is there a second to the motion?
>> Second.
>> Motion is seconded.
A roll call vote is required.
Was there a discussion -- is there a discussion of either of these items?
Hearing none we go to a roll call vote.
Angie [assumed spelling]?
>> Trustee Blum?
>> Aye.
>> Trustee Croninger?
>> Aye.
>> Trustee Haslund?
>> Aye.
>> Trustee Livingston?
>> Aye.
>> Trustee Villegas?
>> Aye.
>> Item 6.2C is the approval of the 2011/12 child development programs contract
with the California Department of Education.
 
>> Okay.
>> Move approval.
>> There's a motion to approve.
Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> Luis seconds.
Is there a discussion?
>> We just need to change the name on there.
>> What is it?
>> Maybe not -- never mind.
Ok. Go ahead.
>> Okay. Hearing no discussion, all in favor...
>> Do we need...
>> No.
>> Roll call.
Oh okay. Right.
>> Trustee Blum?
>> Aye.
>> Trustee Croninger?
>> Aye.
>> Trustee Haslund?
>> Aye.
>> Trustee Livingston?
>> Aye.
>> Trustee Villegas?
>> Aye.
>> And Point 6.3 is just an information item
that the IRS has changed the standard mileage rate to $0.55.5 per mile for use
in computing the reimbursement for business use of an automobile and that's effective July 1st.
>> Holy smokes.
>> Thank you, Joe.
>> Well, what's everybody going to do for all your spare time?
>> No, no, no.
We're not going for another 12 hour thing.
>> Right.
>> Information Technology we have none.
Do we have a motion to adjourn?
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>> I know the degree of enthusiasm for that one.
All in favor say aye.
>> Aye.
>> Opposed nay.
>> Shortest meeting.
>> All right.
>> Thank you all.