>> I'd like to call the meeting to order. Ms. Thompson, will you call the role please. >> Mr. Baum. >> Here. >> Mr. Martin. Dr. Fellow. >> Here. >> Ms. Brown. >> Here. >> Dr. Mann. Mr. Thomson. >> Here. >> Ms. Wah. >> Here. >> Ms. Israel. >> I wanted to open for comment and close session at items. I've got out a card from Sam Resnick. Sam did you want to address any of the items on close session? >> Order to set. >> He indicated a number of agenda items so I will save that for the agenda items. Seeing no public comment on our close session agenda, we will recess into close session. The government codes are listed that govern what we are going to discuss in close session. There's a collective bargaining item, negotiation with unrepresented employees, the employee evaluation of the superintendent president, the performance evaluation of other public employees, the discipline dismissal release issue, legal counsel conference on anticipated litigation two items and a conference with legal counsel on one existing litigation items. Ms. Cooper, do I have to actually call out the government code by number to go into code course session. >> No, you don't. They are agendized. >> Okay. >> But the--but the discipline matter has been pulled. >> The discipline matter has been pulled. I will make note of that. With that then, I will recess the board into close session. [Silence] I'm going to call the meeting back to agenda--to session. On report, there was no action taken in our close session. We are going to go into the open session agenda, there is a robust agenda. I do have a couple of announcements. We are pulling from the Consent Agenda Item 12-P and then also on the consent agenda on 25-B, we are pulling the--one of the proposed contracts from consideration and we'll announce that when we get to that item. But we are pulling one of the items from that for consideration and action at the board tonight. Mr.--Dr. Fellow, would you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance? >> Thank you. Please stand. Place your hand over your heart. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Introductions and announcements. First, I will make one announcement. We had intended to meet throughout the district in the various trustee areas and we do still intend to move to District 2 and then District 3 and we'll be working and notifying the public as we are able to find venues that are suitable. One of our venues we're hoping to use tonight in District 3 was lack air-conditioning and we decided that was going to be a venue that we would think better of before moving onto. So I appreciate our friends at the CEC for making accommodations to host this meeting. Trustee Israel, do you have any introductions or announcements? Trustee Wah? >> Just really quickly. I attended the LA County Trustees meeting and I sent an email around to all of the trustees here that they're going to host a demonstration of a software that was developed. And it primarily, it benefits K through 12 so I just ask the Trustees to notify any of your K through 12 districts who are interested that called the Truancy 1 and it was developed by a 17-year-old student in Burbank and then underwritten Microsoft and given free to all of the districts who aren't attract the truancies and notify parents about their truant student. >> Thank you for sharing that with the rest of the Board. Dr. Fellow? >> Nothing. Thank you. >> Trustee Thomson? >> No, no further report. >> Trustee Brown? >> No report today. >> I'm going to make one announcement then we'll go to the shared governance groups. First off, I did want to draw the community's attention to the fact that the Los Angeles Times and it's reader's choice poll so asked readers across the area to pick their fave--well, their choice for community college. I'm very proud of the administration and the district students, faculty and staff, the Pasadena City College was selected as the reader's choice by readers of the LA Times and it is--it's a shot of good news. I also have--I want to report on two things that I've heard from the--from my district. One is that a student who just graduated from [inaudible], a high school reported to me that he was able to participate in the Pathways Program that we piloted this year and was able to get all his classes because he went through the process of going through and registering through the Pathways Program and I appreciate it. That is a program that did not exist a few years ago for district students and he's now on his way to enrolling PCC and transferring with a full schedule of classes. And I just want to show one other note I got from a mother of a PCC student who wrote to me that, she says, "I can't thank Dr. Bell enough." And I asked I had referred the student to Dr. Bell for taking a personal interest in a great kid who just got his college career off to a rocky start and is determine to put that chapter behind him and reaches academic and professional goals. It is so nice to see him excited about getting back in the classroom and get these requirements under his belt. He's determine to work hard and get the highest grades he possibly can to help boost his chances of admission to his transfer institution. And that's the type of testimonial that is very meaningful to me personally and how grateful I am that we have folks, the administration, faculty, institute--staff working to serve students like that everyday and that's one of many stories that I'm sure that could be tell--told and I appreciate. I want to extend my thanks to Dr. Bell. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. >> For helping out with that. Then we--so we'll go to our shared governance groups. We'll start with our associated students and then work our way to the faculty and class, right? >> Thank you President Baum. The main focus of the associated students has been getting for the start of the some--full semester. Obviously, our very first activities are going to be the week of welcome which we will be showing a pre-DVD release of the Avengers movie, the new one, and that will be on the quad for all students on Thursday. Everyone here is of course welcome to attend. Immediately after that, we'll be participating or we'll be putting on the club week and we will be taking the 66 art clubs that we have on campus which is a number unparalleled in the community college system in California and bring them into the community college. We had visits from the Los Angeles City College and a couple of other LA 9 colleges from the student governments to the deans of those areas and they were very impressed with what we were doing in terms of the clubs. Our main focus in the last few days has been on examining our Title 5 responsibilities to make sure that we are best serving our students and the governing board yourselves as for the shared governance process. To that end, yesterday, we took action to hold a special meeting to discuss some items of severe insignificant importance to students so that we were able to better--not completely but better fulfill our Title 5 responsibilities. That is why you will find the following memorandum which I was authorized to submit on behalf of the associated students. That enlists our intentions to move forward and make sure that the shared governance, Title 5 responsibilities of the students and that we are properly serving those. And that is our goal and in fact, that means that we have specific recommendations on items M-3, N and O of your agenda tonight. To that end, we would welcome you all to our festivities as the week--as the semesters begins and look forward to working for you further. >> Thank you President Fraser. I'm assuming you have a new introduction of our Classified Senate representative. >> Oh, I'm Dr. Carol Robinson. I'm sitting in for Denise Albright who is recovering from a surgery and there's the whole group of new people now in Classified Senate and we're all in communication with each other even though we're in different areas of I guess Pasadena and all over. And now, we're working on hiring committees and we're doing pretty good on keeping up with that as long as you keep slowing down. [Laughs] So I'm representing Denise today. >> Well, thank you and please let--thanks for having us know that Denise is recovering and we hope that it's a speedy one. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Academic Senate. >> Good evening, please bear with me. I have three matters I just like to very quickly bring to your attention. First, on behalf of the faculty as a whole, I would like to thank the Board for its support of innovation through such funding as the ASI grants. These grants have already born much fruit. We are all very proud of colleague Salomon Davila and Debra Bird who have transformed a grant into a very successful and innovative design tech pathway which has been supported now by a 4 million dollar grant for their continued if I got my number right. It is programs like this that will lead the college into the next few decades and help encourage other faculty to continue on the same path. So again, thank you for this very important support even in very tough budget times. Second, I would be remiss if I didn't address the calendar issue that is before you night as an information item. I hope on all my details here are correct so please forgive and I will correct the record next week if anything I have here is not correct. In spring 2011, the Enrollment Management Committee then led by co-chairs Sabah Alquaddoomi and Pattie Lynn discussed and passed a revised calendar that moved the winter session to the summer and created effectively the trimester calendar. After that committee completed its work, the matter came before the academic senate, I was serving at the time as Vice President. And during the debate, we quickly realized that the discussion was veering into matters of working conditions and class scheduling. After some research from the statewide academic senate then President Edward Martinez found that this matter was properly a matter of collective bargaining in the providence of the faculty association. Soon after, he informed the board of this fact, for that reason, the academic senate has never taken a position on the matter of the trimester and we felt then and continued to feel now that it would be improper encroachment by the senate on the union's concerns to take a position on this matter other than to express the hope we had in 2011 and still hope today that this matter can be resolved in a way that best serves our students and the mission of the college. And then third, if you refer to section N of your packet, I would like to discuss the reorganization plan. There's two small prints sections on the left and right of the sheet, I just wanted to clarify from the academic perspective--senate perspective those two--two sections. There, you will see that in a committee of the academic senate, the Ad hoc committee on faculty governance and innovation has continued the discussion on the faculty roles in the new structure. This committee is chaired by Professor Valerie Foster and has been working over the summer to create a recommendation from the faculty on how we define our roles in this plan. We on the Senate are ready and eager to perform our 10 plus 1 role. Its number 6 on the list in addressing faculty governance and we'll work with the administration to come to a mutual agreement in the near future on what that role will be. Thank you. >> Thank you President Hanvey, Management Association. >> Thank you Mr. Baum. I just want to report that last week, I was invited by Bruce Blomstrom and Wendy Johnston to the Pasadena Bioscience Collaborative Annual Launch and he mayor was there. Many--several of the companies that are in the incubator reported out on their work and one of the things that struck me was they talked about the importance of having a skilled students available to come in and work as interns and as students in their companies, these small start up companies and how critical that was to gain their companies off the ground. So I think it was really good for the community to hear that and PCC plays a big part in that. >> Thank you Dean Douglass. >> Then we'll move on to public comment on non-agenda items. I have one, two cards that are on non-agenda items then I have other cards too in so we will--we'll start with Dr. Krista Walter who would like to--oh! Before we go into that, I want to read the notice that members of the public--on the agenda that the members of public may request the opportunity to address the board regarding any item on the agenda. To do so, please complete a request to address the board forum and give it to the board's secretary prior to the deliberation of the agenda item. Individual speakers are limited to 5 minutes in total, audience participation on any agenda item is limited to 30 minutes. We will start with Dr. Krista Walter. >> Hi. >> Hi. >> I'm here to speak to you as the co-chair of the Calendar Committee. I just wanted to thank the Calendar Committee particularly my co-chair Dr. Bell and Kathy Barnes at SLS for their professionalism in collegiality this year. The committee met regularly throughout the past school year to adapt and approve the current 1213 calendar. I also want to acknowledge and thank the academic senate for excellent service to the college and particularly for vigilance and care in the facilitation and support of shared governance. It has been my privilege to work with collegial, intelligent and compassionate colleagues who put students and the people who serve them first. When I agreed to co-chair this committee the, the calendar committee, I met in January 2012 with Dr. Bill and Dr. Rocha, Ed Martinez, Bob Miller and Mr. van Pelt to clarify its role. We all agreed that the purview of the calendar committee is not nor ever has been to initiate or implement a restructuring of the semester system. This committee determines holidays, campus closures, professional development and so on. Once tentatively set, the calendar is bedded across the campus through the academic senate and the faculty association. This is a lengthy shared governance process, to the best of our abilities it is inclusive representative and democratic. It is also rooted in the pedagogical and managerial expertise of the membership of these bodies. I emphasized pedagogical because the wealth of expertise in this school lies in the educators who have devoted their lives to teaching effectively. When questions arise about the impact of instructional changes on faculty, staff and students that are beyond the immediate expertise of the members, we are obligated to conduct sound research, gather and critically analyze data and widen our scope. Any claim or suggestion that the Calendar Committee approved the trimester proposal in 2011 or afterwards is false. We did not, we have not and we will not. You are welcome to examine the minutes of the current acting committee. So that is a point of clarification I wanted to make to everyone and to the public. Alterations to the semester system are drastic changes with wide ranging impact on students, faculty and staff. Everyone who works here understands that the community college is a fragile ecosystem. There 25,000 traditional and non-traditional students who have planned their next year or two in advance based on the current system. Those of us who have worked at PCC for any length of time know that even small changes in fees, scheduling and programs could hold the progress of students. The experienced among us know that we should not make hasty, poorly researched or ill informed decisions. When you discuss the proposed trimester today and in the future, I ask you to keep in mind that a change of this magnitude and instruction must be explored carefully and honestly and it must be explored through the shared governance process. Thank you. >> Thank you. [Applause] >> Ali Oligny. >> Hi, I'm here tonight. I'm a PCC alumni and a transfer student and I'm currently a student at UC Berkley. And I'm here because I've been closely involved over the past 4 years with the same kind of issues. And right now, we have a board with a history of hiring incompetent Presidents. We have a president who has a history of corruption and the investment of public funds into extravagant construction projects. We have a panel now of Vice presidents that just lost one third of its newly hired members after hundreds of thousands of dollars we're devoted to finding "the best candidates." We are following a financial pattern that was maintained and implemented by those involved in this financial scandal. Van Pelt used the appropriate mobster metaphor to insist that "There's no more fat left, it's time to cut the bone." We are seeing the body of the college dismembered by unqualified leadership while its gut, the reserve funds, managers, salaries gets better, our attention is being diverted. Look to Sacramento, that's where the problem lies, and admittedly, there is a problem in Sacramento. We have seen legislation that would successfully combat the cuts to programs, to--the cuts to the public programs specifically the millionaire's tax be sidelined in a political power play by the Democratic Party. We see a sort of unilateral decision making that circumvents the possibility of democratic participation. So yes, the problem does at one level lie in the corruption of the government that makes it impossible to have democratic participation. Instead, we are offered a small choice arranged for us by corporate interests that fund that part of the political sphere. A similar set of choices has been put forward by our own administration here at PCC. Either sign away winter or see furloughs. There will be no negotiations. Any democratic process has been made an impossibility. Like Sacramento, the administrations are now offering a single option, take it or leave it. In contrast, at least the Governor's Office will continue on with the charade of democracy. Here, we are seeing the dismissal of the shared governance process. Cries of emergency and crisis are unmoving. We can return to where I began this comment with President Perfumo in 2009. There must be cuts to winter we were told. The state will defer funds. The college is in crisis. We are losing fast so a snap decision was made to cancel winter intercession. However like now, the decision was made without the input of the college. Since then, we have seen drastic cuts to our courses and yet still bloated reserves, hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on administration. We are repeatedly told that there is a process. If we want to see the change we desire, we need to engage the bureaucracy that governs decision making. If it has not become self evident already, I will add that the process is broken. I have already analogized the college to the state. With this in mind, I would like to ask, where are we headed? As I have offered, we see the supremacy of a particular class at the college. Managements needs supersede those of others and are realized through the elimination of students and teachers. I would like to analogize this to the belief and the supremacy of a particular racial or ethnic group. As I have offered as well a contempt for democracy. The shared governance process particularly if any of these recommendations tonight are implemented is at best farcical and at worst dangerous. We've seen insistence on obedience to a powerful leader. President Rocha attempts to unilaterally make decisions for the college hitting one group against another living no room to bargain and threatening those who speak out against him. Finally, there's a strong demagogic approach appealing to the rationale of fear and the rhetoric of crisis. This by definition, can be called fascism and it's frightful. [Applause] >> So we have Eduardo Cairo, he's the--and that's his agenda request to end the rebuttal. So, if you would offer the request to end the rebuttal. [ Pause ] >> Good evening, thank you for this opportunity. I wasn't prepared to make any top statement I'm just going to listen what everyone had to say. But first, I'll need to make a correction made by Dennis Hanvey, our president of our senate. I was on the Enrollment Management Committee in which he stated. And eventually, that committee became known as the cuts committee because the purpose was to make cuts, to eliminate the winter. As that information became more public, there was a growing 10 to oppose it and eventually, the committee was dissolved. There was no vote taken, let me repeat that, no vote taken to pass your--what you just stated regarding the elimination of the winter, that was--that never happened, I was there. Eventually, not only was the committee disbanded, it was later resurrected under the same title which I was a member of and it was given a completely different mandate. So again, that was never passed, we never voted on it, I like to clarify that. I like to also make a statement regarding the trimester system. I also agreed, I saw the email that Hanvey sent to us all stating how PCC had been giving this great award. How many other references has PCC been given? Harvard of the West, I've heard several times. I'm sure many of you have also heard several positive references. All of these based on the current model that we have, fall, winter, spring, summer, we have been successful. It is a success. Why do we need to change that model of success? It makes no sense. Have you ever asked a question, is it better? Have you asked a question, what is wrong with the current model that we have? During negotiations with the union which I participated in, that question was asked to--throughout the council of the district and the response is that, "She didn't want to get into a semantics as to whether or not it's better, it's different" she said, "It's just different." Well, a few years back, you might recall a decade or two. Coca Cola introduced a new product, it didn't say it was better, it's different and we know that that new coke was a tremendous failure. I hope that we do not go down the same road. I hope that the Board of Trustees before you make a decision, look at more than just one set of facts. The facts that President Rocha, the district is presenting is one side. I hope that you look at all sides and re--in order to come up with a informed decision. Finally, I like to make a formal request that in the meeting of August 29th, you allow a member of the faculty association to give a presentation. Thank you. [ Applause ] >> Marshall Lewis. [ Pause ] >> Ladies and gentlemen, thank you. I just like to introduce--there's a good thing going on soon, it's the Boots to Books: Veterans Golf Tournament and it's to raise money for scholarships, for veterans past and present for doing good things in school. Information about this I'm told, Dr. Bell might not know this, but information I'm told will be in Dr. Bell's office. A pamphlet such as this will appear there so that you can pick it up and be a sponsor or even participate in the event so to help your veterans of your community. Thank you. >> Thank you. [Applause] >> I now schedule to go on to the other agenda items but I didn't want to offer the other folks who had indicated they wanted to address items later in the agenda. Thomas Hatfield [phonetic], Nathan Dickey, Chris Fennessy, Melissa Michelson or Sam Resnick if they'd like to make their comments now or wait to the agenda item if you-- >> I'll go right now. >> And who is that? >> Thomas Hatfield >> Okay, Tom why don't you come forward. Okay, Thomas Hatfield and then I'm sorry what was your name? >> Sam Resnick. >> I mean, the other young lady over-- >> Melissa. >> Oh Melissa, okay, we'll take Tom, Melissa and then Sam. Tom Hatfield. >> Is it okay? >> There's another one there. >> Thank you ladies and gentlemen of the board. As you've heard, my name is Thomas Hatfield I'm a veteran and also president of the Lancer Model United Nations Club and the Salle Lancier Fencing Club. I would like to give a presen--a short speech about what the--my two clubs believe on this trimester's shift situation. We wish to inform you--inform the board that we oppose the attempt to switch to--PCC to a trimester system. We believe such a system will reduce the student's abilities to gain the requisite classes to transfer as quickly as possible. Further, we believe the system will limit some of the club's abilities to represent our school competitions. Finally, we oppose this method--this proposal as being pushed through without consideration for shared government with ASPCC. To address things further, the trimester system from what I hear is only implemented in one school in California. And now, you want to base our system on one school without any study. For the club competitions, I can speak for Model United Nations. Many of our--many of the most prestigious conferences or any times where you want to shift summer too in the proposed trimester system. Will the club still be able to function during the summer or will they function as the intercessions are now where we can't function at all? Our funding is cut, we can't touch anything other than from our own private funds and then we're not acting as club anymore are we? Finally, I want to address things as a veteran. As you know, we get priority registration. We register the day before everybody else. I've seen many of my friends suffering from not being able to get the classes they need because they can't register on time. And I'm not going to sit back and wait for you guys to cut everybody else and then say, "Well, now we have to come for the veterans." I'm going to speak up for them before you come for me. Thank you. [ Applause ] >> Michelson and then and then Sam Resnick. [ Pause ] >> Good evening members of the board. My name is Melissa Michelson and I teach English as a Second Language. I'm here tonight to express my concern about two items on the agenda the realignment and the calendar. It is a concern that I know is shared by many of my colleagues who are away right now all while and not--and probably not coincidentally serious decisions are being made about their jobs. There are two agenda items today that clearly showed the ongoing disregard by the president and the board for following college governance, policies and procedures. Regarding the first issue that of realignment, two realignment committees spent an entire semester of college governance time investigating the feasibility of realignment. The time and financial investment of a full semester of work by committee members is not valued since the decisions made by those committees continues to be disregarded, made apparent by Dr. Rocha's letter from a lawyer stating that he indeed does not need to go through shared governance for restructuring the college which is what I saw in the packet. Realignment may work, it may not, what has not been made clear is whether there are actually problems in the college that these realignments will solve and exactly how much money will be saved. Were these committees clear on the financial details of this plan, is the Board? The financial savings are unclear to me and many of my colleagues. What I do know is that you as a board should consider all aspects of this plan as presented from the president as well as from the committees and other voices, because the responsibility for ignoring these--those voices and ignoring the process is on all of you as board members. The second issue is the trimester calendar that the president would like to impose upon the college, again, ignoring process. I have been following the calendar issue closely. My understanding is that the Calendar Committee never came to a decision about the trimester in understanding which I am certain the committee members can attest to. Calendar is always a wedge issue because there are diverse reasons for preferences in calendar. The imposition of a new calendar is one more action that aggravates the stable working and studying environment putting student against student, faculty against faculty, et cetera. That is why there is the committee in place and why there's a process for vetting the change in calendar. Every time the summer rolls around, there are sweeping changes that the administration and board attempt. Faculty are given ultimatums and now in the negotiating process, we've also been exposed to some bullying. That is--this is shameful and counterproductive way to run a college. All of this chaos does not land itself to cooperation or healthy shared governance. Most faculty like myself care deeply about the success of this college but why should we continue wasting our time working on campus like committees like that if the realignment and calendar communities or even other academically oriented ones when in the end, shared governance has become lip servers at this college over the past 3 years. In fact, it seems to only be shared by those making and imposing decisions. For most of us, there's nothing shared about it. Thank you. [ Applause ] >> Sam Resnick? [ Pause ] >> Hi, my name is Sam Resnick and I'm a student at Pasadena State College. And right now, I'm only speaking for myself but I think a lot of my fellow students share these concerns. And that students don't have any effective representation in decisions made that affect us. We have a trustee and we have our student body president sitting up here but they don't have any actual votes on issues that the board addresses. And furthermore, yes, there are students on committees and yes they have a vote but I've seen--I've been to the BRAC meeting and I've seen how van Pelt dominates those meetings and let's--and doesn't let the other member speak. It's basically just the van Pelt show. And moving on to van Pelt, why did you pass his budget in secret without any consultation from the students or the faculty after you were informed by the district attorney that he's under investigation in corruption? Why did you pass a budget of someone who's under investigation in corruption in secret without any actual public comment? Furthermore, why are you continuing with the possible demolition of U Building after the facility supervisor Hutchings was also under investigation of corruption for taking bribes from the construction companies who did the evaluations of the building? And finally, I'd like to make one more point and that at the first board meeting, I was not--of last semester, I was not allowed into the meeting because of alleged fire code violations. But I'd like to know is why are those fire--the same fire codes enforced on the same--on the first day of class when there's about 50 students in the classroom that's only supposed to hold 30. That's all I have to say, thank you. [ Applause ] >> Now, we're going to--I do have cards for the subsequent agenda items from Nathan Dickey and Chris Fennessy. And then I'm happy to take them up when we take up those agenda items. >> And we're moving on to item D, Approval of the Minutes, any board members have any corrections to the minutes in our agenda packet from the meeting of July 18th? >> I move up the [inaudible]. >> Second. >> Okay, motion by trustee Brown, second by trustee Wah, advisory vote? >> Aye. >> All those in favor indicate by saying "Aye." >> Aye. >> Any oppose? The motion carries unanimously. Now, moving on to consent items, I wanted to pull the item 24, 25 be the contracts of--really quickly, just to mention on that one, we are pulling from consideration contract B97672-0 with the I-8 Food Services, they will not be considered at tonight's meeting. And so, now, I want to go through the rest of the items. Trustee Israel, is there any other items you'd like to pull? >> None, thank you. >> Trustee Wah, are there any of the items you'd like to pull for separate-- >> None. >> Conversation? President Rocha, you indicated 12-B, we will pull for a discussion? >> Yes, we'd like to separate 12-B so that we can fully explain that in separate vote. Item 22 B is still in consent but we wanted to correct that. That's no longer ratified the good news that the 22-B that grant application has been awarded. And then 26-B which is another facility's item that is also regular and in consent but we'd like to pull that for separate explanation and approval. And then finally, item 12-P is pulled. >> Dr. Fellow? >> None. >> Trustee Thompson? >> None. >> Trustee Brown? >> None. >> Okay, so let's move. I'll entertain a motion on the items that we've already put up for consent items and then we'll discuss the ones that are not pulled. Oh, and is there a motion to move? >> I'll move. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Any further discussion on the items, saved the ones that Dr. Rocha indicated would be pulled for further discussion. Advisory vote? >> Aye. >> All those in favor say "Aye." >> Aye. >> Motion carries unanimously. 12-B, Dr. Rocha. >> Yes, it's the B item so I'll turn to Vice President Miller. If you turn in your agenda to the B items and turn to 12-B, this is a fairly common change order but because it is the change order, we wanted to make sure that it was fully explained and it had your full understanding before you voted on it. So, Bob? >> Thank you, President Rocha. Later on in tonight's meeting, we will be giving a full report on the U Building disposition and as a result of that or as part of that was the Swing Space associated with our Science Village. This is a request for change orders brought on by the work that's taking place in the Science Village and I think at this point, it would be very appropriate to shout out for Jack Schulman and Stephanie Pulcifer and Reuben Schmidt [phonetic] who had been instrumental in helping us with their project along here. And we'll talk a little more about that later. In any event, this change order has to do with the changes required by the construction item 10 for example is something that the Department of State Architect has required us to do. So this is in the normal course of doing business tied to Science Village. >> Are there any questions from Mr. Miller? Okay, let's go on to item--the other item, 22 B? >> 22 B actually-- >> We're amending that? >> It's in an emendation and instead of ratify, we see the good news after press time that that application has been awarded. >> Congratulations. Are there--is there any action that the board needs to take? >> It's just to approve the item. >> Okay. >> In 26-B, Dr. Rocha. >> And 26 B, I'd ask again Vice President Miller who has been working with Jack Schulman. This is--this item actually comes out of the Measure P Citizens Oversight Committee, and we had presented to them the fact that we we're doing a take over agreement from the old edge construction to a new company under the bond company. So, we just wanted to be sure since Measure P Oversight requested it that again that it was fully explained before the board took action. >> And very briefly as Dr. Rocha just mentioned, unfortunately, Edge development fell upon hard times. Our Ensure and the Bond and the Writer Liberty [phonetic], each well came in. We have actually interviewed a replacement of Builder B and the builders and under the good work of General Council Cooper, we are finishing negotiations with the bond council Liberty Mutual to make the transition to it to the new builder B and D and that's basically formerly known as the take over agreement. So, that's what this is. >> I attended the Measure P Committee where there this is fully explained as well but I want to see if there're any other trustees with the questions about that. >> Motion to approve the remaining consent items. >> I second. >> Okay. Motion by doc--Dr.--trustee Fellow, second by trustee Wah, I heard her voice before. >> Okay. >> Your--yours. Any further discussions or questions? Okay, advisory vote. >> Aye. >> All those in favor say "Aye." >> Aye. >> Motion carries unanimously. Thank you Dr. Rocha. We'll going to take the rest of the items in order. Is there or was there a change in the orders that you would request Dr. Rocha before they report to me the action items. >> Well, we will take--I would request that we take F, of course, and then G 'cause it's a financial. I would ask that after F and G that we take item K, which is an action item, which is a financial item and just take it as F, G and K in that order and then we continue with the rest of this. >> Is there any objection? We'll go on to that order then. Item F, Dr. Rocha. >> Well, I will invite my colleagues and Renee Graves from VLS to please come forward to the table and make their presentation. This is a very, very important business in fiscal services reporting update. If you recall at the last meeting our independent of financial accounting firm made a thorough report of the budget and the cash flow. Today, Maria Descalzo, our Accounting supervisor had done--been doing a wonderful work. And Bob Miller, Vice President, and Renee Graves from VLS are here to update the report on the close of the fiscal year, that is the fiscal year that closed on June 30th 2012 and then they'll move on to explain their--to show their cash flow projection. There is information that is being projected on the screen behind us and this information is also available on TAB F in your agenda book. So with that, Bob, I'd ask you to take it away. >> Thank you very much. And I'll just make one slight correction. We updated a slide today, so as a result to that in your peach folders--your red folders is an updated PowerPoint presentation. And so, we will go forward here. The first thing that I want to speak to is the operating statement. And basically what this is, is the forth quarter operating statement or the ending operating statement for '11-'12. And this document was prepared on August 8th, and I would say that it is 98 percent where it needs to be and we are in--there're a few adjustment set to this set that will be the final adjustments. I want to just kind of give you some 50,000 foot comments about this and then turn it over to my colleagues Marie and Renee to respond any questions you might have or to add any additional comments. Under the total state revenue, you'll see a variance in income of 4.2 million dollars. That is a primarily due to the trigger cuts that occurred last year which results in the general apportionment reduction that you see. Going down into the local under enrollment fees, you saw a revised budget of 9.8 million but an actual to date of 7.5 million. The 9.8 is an estimate that was provided to us by the chancellor's office a year ago basically at this time. And again, it's an example of the fluidity of the state situation--funding situation and how it impacts local agencies. So in this particular case, it was over estimated by some 2.3 million dollars so you see that, that reflected. And then when you go down to the total revenue line, you'll see that we were under a revenue projection by 3.8 million and again, that is a combination of triggers, as well as, the midyear, you know, February's price cut and some other things and that's just basically a result of what occurred last year. And then finally, as we go down into the expense side, and we get down into capital outlay which is the last orange block there, two lines up. We saw that we adopted a budget of 2.4 million--2.392 million. In essence, what was--what happened--and that we expended only 358,000. In essence, what happened there is it was determined that we would use that fund as a contingency fund for midyear cuts and other things. So, the people who are making that, who were deciding things last year plugged two million dollars into that line. In essence, we ended up dealing with our problems, our fiscal problems in other ways throughout that--throughout the year and therefore, that's why you showed an under expenditure of 2 million dollars. So all total--the total expenditures were about 5.6 million dollars under budget which is fortunate. Now, you might recall a few meeting ago, Marie and Renee and I reported that we thought that we would end the year with an operating surplus of approximately 1.5 million. In reality, we ended the year with the surplus of 1.8 million. Now, the other thing that we've endeavored to do this year in an effort to be transparent, much more transparent, if you go down under the fund balance beginning, that green line there, you'll notice something called a Fund Balance Reserved of 12,050,000 dollars. The district has traditionally maintained a reserved of 12 million dollars. That's what we've done for many, many years. Instead of taking the balance which in this case, we are now calling the Annual Operating Contingency's line, instead of taking that balance and putting it in the fund 41 capital outlay or some other place in the budget, we're actually identifying it now and will do so going forward as an operating contingency to deal with things that might occur. So, when you add 12,050,000, the 6.8 million of contingencies and operating surplus of 1.8 million, you end with a fund balance of 20,707,748 dollars of which the vast majority of that is the fund--is the fund balance reserve, our traditional reserve and our operating contingency. And of course, as we've been reporting for many weeks now, that is what's going to help us with our cash flow issues which we'll talk about in the next report. So that's the height altitude overview. We'd certainly be welcome to take any questions and my colleagues Marie and Renee can help respond to some of the detail within the report. >> Questions from the board? >> I have one question. When you look at the item on enrollment fees actually going down 2.3 million in a time where actually the--when the state raises enrollment fees but we collect fewer enrollment fees, it's an interesting dynamic that's happening because then it pushes more students into the Board of Governor, I mean is-- >> Into the [inaudible] weaver and such that. >> Right. So, we've raised the fees thinking we're going to receive more revenue but it actually cost the district more money when the state raised fees. >> That's correct. >> That's correct. >> That's essentially correct. Yes. >> That's an interesting dynamic. >> Uh-hmm. >> And then that we--just so to clarify, fund balance begin--ending 20,700,000, does that mean we have--is that cash in the bank or is that something else? >> No, again, we remind the board, this is an accrual operating statement. You'll see what our cash situation is in the next--in the next thing but the answer is no, part of this is deferments and we're having--Renee, you might want to speak to that a little bit. >> Yeah and that's exactly right, the deferrals for apportionment alone where 24, 25 million, so that balance is not cash. >> It doesn't cover the deferrals. >> Correct. >> So Renee, we could not take that money since it's--you're saying it's not cash on the back, that's not actually money in our hand, and if you will take it and throw it at next year's budget? >> It is your ending reserve. If you move into a situation where your deficit spending that amount will decrease by the amount of your deficit spending. Cash is going to come in to cover it. It's just the timing of that cash. You don't have--you did not have all of that cash on July 1st and it's coming in--it's trickling in over July, some this month, some is due on October. >> Right. >> It will eventually come in but it's not all here right now to pay the vendors, pay your employes, those types of things. >> Okay. So, what is--what we transition, why don't you move into the cash flow projection part of your presentation? >> Very good. So, and again all this information is online and in the packets and not only presented to the board but also to the community at large. We have two cash flow projection scenarios. The first one is the one that we call, if the tax initiative passes. And you basically, you see what our beginning cash situation is projected to be from July through June. And then you look at the cash in lines and you'll see the advance apportionment. And, you'll see that we are pretty steady and we've attended the chancellor's office financial workshops. And basically we feel very confident and the chancellor's office feels confident that our advance apportionment through December is pretty much what we indicate here in front of you. However, when you get to January through June it becomes much, much more speculative. In fact, so speculative that you'll see the same 460,000 dollar line for, you know, the--March through June because we don't know, the chancellor's office says "Don't count on anything at this point." So, we basically say apportion allocations may vary resulting in possible cash flow issues. Now, you'll also see what the other income is, tuition, redevelopment agency moneys, property tax, lottery, what have you, these are very good projections based upon history and what have you. The deferred amount, basically, you'll note that in October we are expecting to collect 5.--almost 4 million dollars in deferred money. And I'm happy to say that we actually received some of that earlier, in fact, 2 days ago. So, 2.4 million dollars of--down at the footnote there you'll see that the balance of that 5.3 is comprised of deferral apportionment of 2.9 million. And then deferral of redevelopment agency funds at 2.4. The 2.4 million actually came in two days ago. So again, this was done a few days back. So, that's that and you'll just see how we pack that into the cash in. Now, average, and again this is out of the 01 operating fund, we spend on average of 9 million dollars a month to operate the college. When you get down into the surplus shortage line, you see that accumulatively, we find ourselves in June down by some 12.2 million dollars. The reality--the question might be, well, how are you going to fund that amount of money? And you might recall that we talked about interfund borrowing among our fund balances which we'll talk about in a few minutes. And we talked about the tax and revenue anticipation note of 10 million dollars that we continue to work to put together. The concept of balancing our cash needs will be based upon those two things. The other thing that I need to hasten to point out is that these are projections, we don't exactly know how the apportionment income is going to come in. So, we will be coming back to this board probably at the second meeting in September 1st, meeting in October with a request to seek approval for the tax and revenue anticipation note finally become part of that bond. Again, just to have the cash in the bank, able to fund our obligations as we go forward here. So, this is if--this is what happens if the initiative passes. Now, if the initiative does not pass, obviously, everything I just talked about is the same, except you will notice that January through June, we actually received significantly greater funding from the state. And this is based upon trailer legislation that was approved by the legislature and the governor's office signed it in the law, governor signed in a law that basically said anticipates that the initiative doesn't pass, we're going to have to pay these institutions, so this is how we're going to, this how we're going to take care of the initiative doesn't pass. But that's the essential difference, obviously, our problem becomes less from a cash flow for next year but it becomes much murkier going forward as far as our funding situation goes. >> Thank you. Are there any trustee questions for Vice President Miller? Any other point you'd like to make Dr. Rocha? >> Just quickly through Renee. And just for the record again, you know, Renee Graves is from the Vicenti, Lloyd, Stutzman. It's the independent accounting firm that we brought in two months ago, so we see the close and so on. So, first question really briefly. VLS, your firm Renee, how many other community college districts does it serve? >> We perform audits on roughly 10 community college districts in the state. >> Okay. And so, if you could just briefly describe again, briefly, okay, that you've been involved in the close of the fiscal year budget. And are you confident that the numbers that you--that we're bringing today are accurate? >> Yes, I am. We've been involved since mid-June. Although I must say that Marie and her staff have done a lot of the heavy lifting. But our role was primarily in a CBO role. So, we were coming in, we we're reviewing the more critical areas such as the apportionment revenue, lottery revenue, some of the very material amounts, looking at the revenue, looking at those year end accruals, verifying things with the chancellor's office to make sure that what's being reported for your district is consistent with what they have as far as their records-- >> Right. >> And reporting in FTES and those types of things. So, we did a lot of analytical review on items based upon our knowledge in the industry and feel very confident that the numbers presented to you today are accurate. >> Okay. And the last question since you're--a lot of community college districts are in the same situation. We're facing--in a moment we'll talk about facing the 6.7 million dollar cut, the 10.5 million dollar reduction in next year's budget. And by the way just to preview to the board of trustees that 1.8 surplus that we will be recommending at that 1.8 surplus does not go into reserve but go over to next year's budget. But my question is just on the budget itself, the reduction, the 10.5 total reduction, the new 6.7, why can't we just wait until November? >> That probably would not be fiscally prudent to do that. As you see by these cash flow numbers, it's scary. We still don't know what's going to happen when that initiative passes or it doesn't and even what comes after that. And it's really, it's a twofold issue. It's an accrual expense issue as well as a cash flow issue and that's I think why we keep bringing these statements back to you to show that to you. And if can move quickly to try to bridge the initial schedule that was put up there back to these cash flow statements and why we're saying it's not a cash in the bank, is you can see at the top of this the cash in the bank is 2.4 million. So, to get back to your ending fund balance you need to come down to this deferral line. Now, we were fortunate and that the funds did come in. A lot of it came in July. We weren't anticipating parts of it coming in until October, it did get a little bit earlier. But again, that information, it doesn't come easily out of the chancellor's office. We have asked numerous times, you know, when will the money come here? And it's what we hope it will be this day, we think it will be this day, we think it will be this amount. Just to give you ideas, they put out reports on their website as far as their advance apportionment. And typically, your apportionment that you get from the state has been somewhere between 75 million which I believe this year is about 69 million. At this point in time, the amount that they have certified for you, it's all that is in the budget is 44 million dollars. So, if they, if these initiatives don't pass or do pass and they don't--aren't able to get your revenue in the budget, it could go down to 44 million. I mean, no one is telling us if it's going to be 44 or back up to the 70. We cannot get that information out of them at this point. And so, to wait until November would not be a prudent thing to do in my opinion. >> And then there're three other things real quick. One is,-- >> Can we go ahead lift the lights? >> Oh, that's good. I'm sorry. >> Because it's a little dark in here. Can we put the lights back up? Who's ever monitoring the lights? >> Okay. >> But we're good on that. >> Okay. >> Okay. Let's do G, Bob quickly, and then basically come back to H. >> Okay so, G is basically, this is the changes in the, what's known as the annual reporting for--changes in the annual financial report monitoring for our accreditation from the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges. And to kind of put this in a nutshell, at the June 12 meeting, the commission, the ACCJC adopted a new monitoring process to enable institutions that are at potential risk for significant financial difficulties to be identified. And to sort of further put this into a nutshell, what the commission has determined in recent years is that from a fiscal stewardship prudency, tieing, planning and budgeting together, districts are coming up short in a very significant way. So the commission determined that it was going to develop new advisory teams of chief financial officers and other types of chief business officers. They were going to send these teams out on visits other than the traditional self study visits. They were going to come in and do SWOT analysis, if you will, of a district's fiscal condition and that they were going to elevate the importance of the fiscal management much beyond what it had been in the past. And as a result of all these, they were putting everybody on notice that you need to get your fiscal house in order and that we will be looking and we will be looking on a very, very regular basis. So this is basically just a brief report to the board. You can see the memorandum that came out. We are obviously in the process of making certain that we are prepared for that visit when we know that visit will come. >> Can you just explain what this means for PCC specifically? >> What it means for PCC specifically is that we can expect an off schedule visit from a team of chief financial officers and other business personnel to come in and basically take a look at our books, take a look at how we are time budgeting, planning together, how--do we have proper reserves? Have we planned for that rainy day? One of the reasons why so many districts are in trouble right now is 'cause they don't have the amount of reserves that we've had. For example, they want to know if districts are prepared to weather the next storm. >> Board members, any questions? There's no action recommended on that so information on. Okay, so you want to go to H and then K? >> Yes, please--so we'll continue with H and the 10.5. >> Okay, so the next slide that you have in your PowerPoint pack up there, your deck is a proposal now. The thing that you--that everybody needs to understand is that we understand the gravity and the seriousness of a 10.5 million dollar reduction on our students, on our faculty, on our staff, et cetera. So, your financial team and others have been looking at different ways in which to attack this challenge. So what you'll have here as of August 15th is a proposal for your consideration which basically says our goal is 10.5 million. There is something that is known as a mandated cost claim and you can see there it talks about--these are moneys that we can claim from the Chancellor's Office from the state for such things as enrollment fee collection and waivers, collective bargaining, the Open Meeting Act, Brown Act, reforms, mandate reimbursement process, et cetera. This year, the legislature and the part of finance has said, instead of making you apply for that money every year, and by the way, as Marie can attest to, we haven't actually gotten any of those moneys for how long now? >> We did not get anything for '11-'12. The last time we got was in '10-'11. >> And typically you apply and sometimes they pay you, sometimes they don't and often that they do pay you it's much less than you applied for, right, Rene? >> And then they audit you and take more away. >> And then they audit you and take more away. So now they're giving districts the option of taking a flat 28 dollars per FTES. So in our case, that is a little over 500,000 dollars. So we're suggesting that we, and by September 30th I believe it is, we have to apply for that. That we go ahead and say we're going to take our money, we're going to take our sure thing and we're going to take that 500,000 of sure thing revenue. We're going to apply it to this challenge. Next thing we are going to do is we are going to thank our colleagues in Student Learning Services and instruction for the great work they are doing in our international education program and attracting more and more international students or out-of-state tuition-paying students to our institution. And we believe that we can generate an additional 600,000 dollars in out-of-state tuition. So, we're basically going to say that we're going to apply 1.1 million to the 10.5 problem and that becomes--and that reduces it obviously. Then we get into the reductions in our expenditures. We look at something we're calling an adjunct line that is basically a reduction in the sections that we would offer that 578 section number that we've talked about and that's principally tied to the fact that say it is not going to pay us for those courses and we no longer have the funds to pay for those. So, that's 3.1 million dollars and we call it adjunct because unfortunately, those are the people who would be impacted by this. Unclassified hourly college assistance, student assistance, at one point, we were suggesting a much larger number, dollar number as we work with our managers, as we work with our faculty and staff. We determine that that was more than we should, so now we're suggesting 900,000 dollars. That too will be very painful, I don't want to imply that it's not going to be painful, but it's less pain. So, that's reduction in our hourly staff. No contribution of Fund 64, that's our other post-employment benefit fund there. I don't want to get into the long story, you've heard that one too many times before but the bottom line is is that we would borrow from our GASB fund next year's contribution and that's because we are well funded in our trust--in our trust account. >> Not trust. >> Not trust our escrow. Well, it's a--it's our--never mind. It's our--we have these funds that are not in trust but AC needs our fund, it's roughly 15 million dollars right now. We can use the moneys in that to fund next year's obligation, so that's a million 50,000 there. Our reassigned time working very closely with the academic senate, Dr. Bell, our division deans, we've worked hard at reducing faculty reassigned time, that's 750,000 dollars. A pledge not to fund what is roughly 800,000 dollars in vacant positions, vacant positions that were funded in the '11-'12 budget. And then the Board of Trustee's election, that's roughly a 450,000 dollar annual set aside for elections, there are no trustee elections in the '12-'13 fiscal year. So, what we are suggesting is that we would pull 400,000 of that money, use it to help with this problem. Now essentially, next year in '13-'14, we'd have to pay, you know, we basically have to build back about 1.5 million in the budget for those two items. Anyway, that takes us to 7 million dollars, so the total of that is 7 million dollars of cuts plus 1.1 million of additional revenue. That brings us to 8.1 million. We're still 2.4 short. If you allow me, Dr. Rocha, I'll move on to the projected budget side. >> Yeah, next page. >> Now, what you have here is a--is the--currently, and again, I say currently 'cause we're not going to bring a budget to you for approval or for adoption until September 5th but you have the '12-'13 projected budget. This is another run at that. And the big difference this time is this actually includes actuals from '11-'12, and it was subject to very minor revision, so you can see exactly what happened. And then when you get down to the revenue over expenditures or under expenditures, you'll see that 1.8 million dollars that we talked about before. And if you go further down under annual operating contingencies, you'll see this 6.8 million dollar number. What we are suggesting is that that 1.8 million be added to the annual operating contingencies and that the moneys actually be used to help us fund our 10.5 million dollar problem which essentially leaves us with a 679,000 dollar gap between--or typically, 679,000 to reach our 10.5 million dollar goal. Then we provide for the board for their consideration at least three options for you to consider in terms of how we would close that 679,000 dollar gap. The trimester calendar or the multiple academic period calendar, if you will, we are projecting a savings at 750,000 dollars from that. The furlough option which we've talked about in the past, you can get a million dollars out of that. Or you could further reduce the contingencies and make up the gap that way. So, in essence, what you have here is a suggestion about how we would cut the 10.5 million, how it fits into the budget, how we would use the--our revenue basically over expenditures, that 1.8 million to use at that to help [inaudible] the problem here. >> Just so I can understand it in, you know, in you know, plain English. You were saying on the previous page that to get to the 10.5, you listed the items and that we're still 2.5 million short. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Then you're proposing throwing the surplus from the last year, okay? Instead of putting that into reserve as the trustees annually do, we are recommending that we take that surplus that would go into reserve and actually apply to this year's budget. So, the 2.5 million dollar deficit is now roughly is 700,000 dollar deficit. >> Right. >> Okay. And then the options that you've lined out to get the rest of the 700,000 are three options. One, the trimester savings calendar which you've enumerated in that proposal, furloughs which are, you know, we know what those are, and reduced contingencies. Again, in plain English, that means taking money out of the reserve. >> Right. >> Okay. >> Well-- >> So, we could take more money out of the reserve, okay? Is that right? >> That's correct. >> Okay, I thought-- >> Or we could take it out of the annual operating contingency. >> And then that's the [inaudible] reserve. >> Yes sir that's correct. >> Take money out of reserve, got it, okay. I got it. Good. >> Is there anything on the last slide you would like to describe? Oh, Trustee Brown. >> I have a couple of questions for you, Bob. Well, actually, one is not a question, it's a request. And let's see where is this, in the first page where you have here mentioned that we would increase revenues, 600,000 dollars out of state tuition. I'm definitely in support of that but I really would like to emphasize one more time that we developed a marketing strategy so that our community members would know exactly how we benefit from out-of-state students. We know they don't. When their students cannot get into classes, all they're going to say is we give in priority to students from out-of-state. So, I think it's important that we educate the community, which are our supporters all the time. So, that's all I ask, that's my [inaudible] and it's been my [inaudible]. So, please let's pursue that but let's educate our community on that. And the next question, I think I have mentioned it to Dr. Rocha. In the next page it is, let me see where it is. >> The supplies. >> In the supplies and the materials if you could provide me or provide the board why we are increasing our projections from 1 million 300 and 14,000 to 2 million, you know, that you see that bigger. So, he had an explanation but we were supposed to get some more information because my assumption is that we are going down and it does not make sense for us to have that significant--that's about 800,000 dollars. >> And also-- >> So, that's all. >> I will give you more detail there-- >> I'll appreciate that, thank you. >> But the shorthand part of that answer is there's a lot of budget transfers that are taking place right now which gives it kind of a--let's just say that we need to resolve that. >> Thank you. >> Great. >> Are there any other--Trustee Wah? >> Just a few questions. First of all, I want to congratulate you, Vice President Miller, on this pretty fancy footwork on closing this gap, so I think you did a great a job. And I'm sorry, I didn't get these questions to you earlier but can you just tell me on the reductions for the adjuncts and the vacant positions, how does--what does that translate to the numbers of positions or reductions of classes? >> Well, in terms of the reduction in classes, the numbers is roughly 578 sections. That's the reduction. And that brings us in line with the FTES, full-time equivalent student funding that the state apportionment is going to be this year putting us about 204 percent over which is where we should be. So that's what--that's why that's there. That's basically spending what we collect in order to provide the classes, and that gives us a total of 4,777 sections this year. This year defined as July 1 through June 30. The vacant positions, on average when you--average salary, health, welfare, benefits costs per employee of the district in whatever category, it's about 100,000. So that would be roughly, that would be roughly 8 positions. >> And one other question. If you defer the trustee election money for this year, then you said that we would have to build up backup. So, next year, there will be several trustees running, including me. But is it--does it cost 400,000 a year? Is that--or is it the 400,000 cumulative until you-- >> No, actually, depending on the number of trustees you run, it can be as much as 450,000 dollars. I try to remember the exact number from last time but it's upwards of 80 to 100,000 per trustee about the time you're done with what the county charges us. So, these are not fees that we encourage the district. These are fees that the LA County charges us to panel the election. >> Okay, so we wouldn't be--we would not have to repay the piggy bank I guess on this. >> No. Actually, what would happen is in '13-'14 because of the election, we would have to--you're right, we wouldn't have to add another 400,000 to it, we would just have to add 400,000 back so we could--we could fund the '13-'14 election. >> Thank you. >> Trustee Thomson, Trustee Fellow, Trustee Israel, in your presence. I did--okay, we will move on to the next item. The--our provision does say that the--a request to address the board item should be given prior to the deliberation of an agenda item. I do have a request to address the board on this item with the consent of the board. These are--these are addressed to the Board of Trustees and so is there any objections to me allowing a stud--a member of the public to enter? Okay so Mr. Bont [phonetic], remember this is a request to address--this is to the Board of Trustees. So Andrew Bont. >> Hi. Thanks for letting me come up, I appreciate it. I'm a--I just wanted to--so I'm allowed to address a question to Mr. Miller after the presentation? >> No, you're--the--that's to address the board. If you have a question for Mr. Miller, I would do it at another time but you could-- >> Okay. Well, I can just state what I wanted to say then. I'm a--what I wanted to make clear first of all was that this--while there are definitely some positives to this proposal and some negatives, I'm a--again, the participatory governance process hasn't exactly gone through the full--the full range of what it needs to. So, the budget resource and allocation committee has not fully approved all of these items as far as I know. And it is a little bit premature to be asking the Board of Trustees to consider a vote on this kind of items. Since the process on campus again hasn't gone full circle so I think it would be wise to request that the budget resource and allocation committee come back with their specific views on each of these possible solutions to the 10.5 million dollar budget deficit. I also wanted to make clear that the 13 some odd million dollars that has been taken from multiple capital outlays accounts and now put into one specific account entitled I believe technology upgrades could easily be used for some of the money that needs to be--that needs to be found for 10.5 million dollars, to not put us into the red. The biggest issue for me with the capital outlay is in with all of its transformations of it last year is kind of again and again and again there are students, there are teachers, there are people asking about this money. And, you know, I know that I think the board even agreed that sweeping the money at that time, you know, over the past two years into accounts that were difficult to touch wasn't the best idea. And I would like to urge the board to remember that this money can easily be touched with the vote from you all. So, some of those money, you know, definitely 800,000 dollars can be found or 700,000 somewhat dollars in order to make up the deficit could be found. In fact, millions of dollars are sitting right there for the technology which has now been transferred into technology. And I'm sure if you ask Mr. Miller to come back and discuss that, you know, he could in very specific detail. So, thanks for letting me come up and address that. >> Thank you. [ Applause ] Was there any other trustee questions? I would ask then we go on to--we've talked about the plan for the reduction in the third draft of the proposed adopted budget. >> Right, and that is actually just the informative right there. This is the-- >> So, we're going to move into an action item here then. >> Right, and so-- >> On item K and then we'll come back to address the-- >> Yeah. >> --the information technology item. So on item A, if--K, if you could turn to your book, it's our routine authorization to transmit the fourth quarter financial status report, unless there are any questions, I'd entertain a motion to transmit. >> So moved. >> Is there a second? And I'll take the motion from Trustee Brown and second from Trustee Wah, Any discussion on the transmission of the quarterly financial report? We'll go to our advisory vote. >> Aye. >> All those in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> The motion carries unanimously. Now, we'll go back to item I, the Administrative Information System Selection, the Review of Major Options. Thank you very much for your presentation on that. >> Thanks Bob, thanks Marie, Renee, thanks so much. [ Noise ] >> Remember the trustees, I introduced Dwayne Cable and we've asked him to make a very brief presentation last time. Dwayne gave a very good presentation on the selection process that led to the selection of Banner that the shared governance and the faculty and staff deciding on Banner. >> If we could just go ahead and leave the lights up unless some people can't see the presentation. I'd prefer that the lights be [inaudible]. >> And today, just as a brief next step, we had asked Dwayne to come and just show, give a little bit more information about what the major options were so that the board could continue to add to its understanding of the decisions that we'll surely have to make about the migration to a new administrative information system. So, Dwayne. >> Okay. Well, thank you. I certainly appreciate it. You know, part of this--I just wanted to give a very brief update in terms of where we are. This particular contract that we're working on, I mean, if you will recall, we went through a process where we considered a lot of the commercial offerings of the institution and we thought it would be prudent as we continue with these negotiations, and by the way, the contract as we have started with, with Ellucian on the Banner product was at a much higher number and we've been negotiating with the great work of legal counsel Gail Cooper and we have been working very hard with Ellucian to basically get to some really serious numbers because we are sensitive to the issue of this is a lot of money and we are in a very stressed budget times. And so part of what I wanted to do is to just let you know that we have gone through this process with the RFQ and all the pricing, for all the commercial options that we have available out there. And through that process, if you recall, we had five vendors proposed solutions. We interviewed with three, we've gone through--the college community has gone through a host of attending workshops and whatnot and we were down to basically the Ellucian. It was overwhelming recommendation by the college community that it would be the Ellucian Banner solution. So--and in that, we have been, for the last two months now, I feel that these negotiation processes have been crawling. I would have loved to have been much further along and actually being able to just start implementing something. But we hope that it's our ambition to be in a position by your--by the August 29th meeting to at least be able to bring forward something very solid. So, part of this, we said okay so what happens if it--if this doesn't go through? I mean, what happens if we don't reach terms? So, the president challenged me to come up with some other alternatives and so part of what I did in this is I took this commercial solution of Banner and we entertained a couple other avenues. One is a partnership with South Orange and I will talk just very briefly about that and then also, obviously, the one other option that we have is to stay with what we have and start adding fresh bandage onto, you know, to the technology solution we have in place because, I mean, it is an option and it's--some things that we would have to do would not be a strategic solution but anyway, those are the three options I'm going to talk about. I have a handout that I gave to all of you. So you don't have to worry about looking at the screen up there. I know this particular location, it's a little difficult, I apologize to the group. Hopefully, you can see this well enough. I have attempted to go down through this and actually put a lot of the functionality down the left-hand side of the page with respect to the types of capabilities that will be coming. And I wanted you to know today, if you look--and instead of really talking about the functionality this time, I think it would be very beneficial and I've already had a conversation with Ellucian. They were actually going to have them come on campus in the very near future and actually do a comprehensive presentation in terms of how the software would work. And particularly, this is something that we will ultimately may end up coming to terms on the contract. But in the beginning, I have been talking, this is a 14 million dollar 5-year project. But as you look down the Ellucian Banner initiative now, particularly down toward the bottom where you talk about software license, maintenance, and implementation, if we had to sign an agreement today, we would need to write a check to them for 6.1 million dollars that is down there at the line 9 if you look at the cost. And our overall 5-year cost, this project is down to 10.5. We have made some changes in what we were going to commit to and what we are going to ask them to do. But those--that's the cash price for if we were to just be writing checks. So, being sensitive again to the funding concerns that we have in the cash flow primarily, we have asked some assistance working with Vice President Miller's office for some least purchased options with respect to keeping our cash commitments down. So, if you look at the bottom, some of the numbers that we have if we were to go into a least purchased option, we would be able to actually have cash outlay of 2.16 million in the first year and so on with--which is a long ways from 6.1. So it saves us essentially 4 million dollars in cash which we could use right now until we can settle some things down. This is the only one that we did a least purchased option on but I just wanted you to understand where the numbers are in terms of total and why we're considering this particular option too as we proceed to finalize a contract which we hope to do in the next few weeks. The second option that I have been in conversation with my colleague at South Orange, the vice chancellor for IT and we've been looking at--they have spent approximately 12 to 15 million dollars on their student information system, they wrote it themselves. They do not have a finance or they do not have a human resources module, they are--they have--are currently talking with [inaudible] to actually develop a module. They have asked me if Pasadena might be interested in partnering with them in helping to develop this particular module, so that they can actually become something that could be sold to other colleges and universities around the country down the road. And this is very much like the Santa Rosa system that we have in terms of, I guess, it was maybe 20 years ago that a group of institutions came together and they wrote software and that's the system that's there. So South Orange is looking to bring home partners. We thought this might represent a partnership opportunity. You flow this down to the bottom. Obviously, this would take longer unlike the Banner initiative which we could be done with the Banner initiative in 18 months. We'll be running a lot more efficiently. Everything would be web-based in the Banner world. We have to develop a lot of this stuff in the South Orange solution but it is an alternative and as you can see by the cost numbers, the cost is a lot different. We would look at a year one cost of 1.6 million with only a four million commitment over a five-year period. But it would be a commitment in staffing and it would be our willingness to wait longer in terms of getting a full solution in place. So, it's a different strategy but it is a strategy and it is one given the, again, the sensitivity to the cost issues and trying to stretch our budget every way we can. The last option that I discussed is, seriously, we can if we decide to make some serious investments, we can turn the Santa Rosa system around. It would take a lot of work and it would take a lot of time to make that happen with respect to the kind of changes that we're looking at. I do say four months there in terms of an implementation time but that's really to add certain things like degree works and other types of bolt-on solutions that we could build on to the Santa Rosa system. But to be honest with you, our existing environment is not a strategic solution. This would be something that if we were looking to buy time, possibly three to four years, that this could get us by if indeed that we got to that type of a financial situation. So, again, I do lay out what the cash cost would be in years one through five in all three of those options. But I really just present that to you as three different alternatives. And again, I do think that it would be important as we move forward to actually--for the college community to now look at if indeed we bring Banner, the Ellucian Banner solution forward to actually see the functionality and what's going to actually put in place if indeed we go down this path. >> Okay, thank you-- >> So with that, that's it. >> Dr. Rocha, is there anything you'd like to add or before we open up the questions from trustees? >> No, I think, again, this is not an action item but it's an information item. I think it's really important since we are--had for years contemplated this migration to a new AIS and since we're on the eve of bringing forward a contract proposal that we wanted to make sure that the trustees knew that we had looked at every possible option. One of the things that Dwayne has presented today that I wanted to make sure that we point our attention to is that if we had--we do believe that Banner project is the, of course, the most prevalent and would work and give us the most functionality. But we just simply can't afford it right now, this year. That's just the long and the short of it. So Dwayne and say Gail have--and Bob Miller have worked real hard to see if there's a way that makes this option viable so that the trustees have a real decision to make. The process from here would be on August 29th. We would present some further information, not an action but a--we hope to have a proposed contract with the details in it and then on September 5th which is the day we have to adopt a budget then on that day, we would have the final cost of this plugged in to the college budget that we'd be proposing to you for your approval. >> So, questions from the board, Trustee Wah. >> I just want to make a comment on this alternative. So, you know, I want to support Vice President Cable and all the work they've done in looking at the practice software and well, you know, I want to be price-sensitive too, especially in these times and having to cut back. I've long felt that, you know, the lack of technology and our inability to really--has really contributed to our inability to serve our students effectively and efficiently. And so, I really think that technology is greatly needed to move this college forward and to really help our students. And so, and the other comment I wanted to make is while I'm really appreciative that you're looking at this kind of--in the old days [inaudible] make revised solutions, alternatives but so these are custom-made homegrown systems. I find they rarely, rarely worked out, so I do hope that we could go forward with the commercial package system unless we just find it completely untenable in the financial situation. And I look forward also to the presentation from Banner and I hope also that--and I think that when the board is able to see a picture, and it's one that I have asked Vice President Cable and Vice President Miller, I hope that we can get sort of this financial picture of the alternatives to the board and also the delivery of functionality that shows what the benefits, the functional benefits are when we deliver the system. I think it will create a clear picture for everyone and help us make a good decision. >> Thank you. And we feel that that would be a real benefit that the Ellucian group could actually have as part of that presentation, too. So, it's an excellent suggestion. Any other questions? >> Trustee Thomson? >> Just one comment to put this back into context was what year was the system implemented we're operating under right now? >> '89, I believe or '83, I am sorry, it's-- >> '83, I believe. '83 or '88, actually. That's 20 plus-- >> There you go. >> A long, long time ago. >> Long time ago, right. >> Yes. >> There have been a few improvements since that time. >> Yeah. >> And we are a business, I mean, we are a college obviously in the educational business but you cannot operate an endeavor or the type and the extensive magnitude that we're operating in the 1983, '85, whatever it is, IT system, information technology. So, I just want to put that out there, so when we look at this on the 29th or whenever we take action on it, keep that in mind that what we're working with right now in the background which we have to make some improvements. >> Yes. >> And I'll just add very quickly that part of the idea behind the least purchased concept is the notion of conserving cash for the purposes of doing interfund borrowing that we likely will need to do. And beyond that, there are other technology and capital improvement needs for the district that go far beyond technology. We have buildings, we have other things that we need to invest money in, desperately needed new equipment in a variety of all of our instructional programs. So cash is--that's part of the reason for the least purchased option. >> Thank you, Vice President Cable. >> Thank you. >> Then we'll move on to item J, the facilities capital, services capital projects about the U Building. >> I'm sorry, President Baum, did--Simon, you have a question? >> Oh yeah, I just wanted to make a comment on the--in support of Banner that we weren't part of the shared governance approval process of it. If you were a student today trying to register classes, our server online is only open from 7 in the morning till 10 at night. Anytime outside of those and, in fact, on Sundays, I think it shuts down completely. It's incredible and, in fact, when the server gets to 500 people, you get a little message saying, "Sorry, you can't register to your classes, please try later." So we are very much in support of technology increases at the Associated Students and we're very pleased the cost has come down as well. >> Thank you for adding that. I appreciate that. Does anybody else wanted to offer a comment? >> Thank you. Item J, the facilities services capital projects on the U Building? >> Yes, this is item J, TAB J in your agenda and I would invite Mr. Rubin [phonetic] Smith forward to the table. And you have--Mr. Smith has prepared a very extensive proposal but he will kind of give an abstract of it but we wanted the purpose of that to make sure that the trustees understood the process that has led to the decisions that the trustees have already made about the U Building and what the possible recommendations for the U Building moving forward. As far as the process, the items on your agenda, I would ask with your permission, President Baum, that we would take this item J. And then since we've done item K, we would skip to item L which is directly connected, which is the authorization of the submission for the money for a new U. And so that I would now ask Bob Miller to introduce Rubin Smith who is a--joined us on a consultant services contract, so Bob. >> Thank you. I'll get back to the microphone here. First of all, I would like to just briefly introduce Mr. Smith. He is an independent consultant with over 16 years of experience in facilities construction and design, maintenance, and quality assurance. He has also provided significant forensic analysis services for other K-12 in California Community College districts. Mr. Smith has an MBA in Environmental Sustainability, a BS degree in Civil Engineering. He's finishing up Engineering Management, PhD. He's an affiliate member of the American Society of Civil Engineers. He's an associate in the American Institute of Architects and he's a certified master project planner. All this, by way of saying that we bring a considerable level of expertise and knowledge to this topic tonight and Mr. Smith has done a great job in the--for this--who are together, so Mr. Smith. >> Thank you. Good evening, everyone. The facility service capital projects U Building abandonment and relocation presentation is basically an assessment of the U Building. And with the U Building, there was an extensive amount of investigation basically leading to the--there was an issue with the earthquake preparedness deficiencies with the U Building. So with reputable engineers and as you see, the multiple studies, analysis, and ultimately, the Thornton Tomasetti report summarizing the vulnerability of the assessment of the U Building, the decision was made to abandon the U Building. Basically, with that abandonment and vacating U Building, it required the relocation of the Health and Natural Sciences Department and by abandoning that five-storey building, there's 81,205 square feet that need to be accounted for. And so with the new--with the U Building that generated new projects and those new projects were swing space projects which is the relocation of that division--those divisions. So you had the health services--health center relocated to the D Building, you have the TRIO Remodel, you had the Nursing and Medical Assistants Health and Science Programs relocation here to the CEC. We had the nursing labs, multipurpose room had a minor upgrade. Student Study Hall relocated to the CEC, Rad Tech which is the radiology relocated also to the CEC, and other subsequent offense moves that were generated from the C Building and the LL Building. And ultimately, the 44,000 square feet Natural Sciences relocated to Lot 5A. Now, if you take a look at this particular slide, Building D, it shows exactly what was done with the Health Center Remodel for D105 and D106. And it was basically relocating the health services from U Building to D Building. It included demolition, utility upgrade, structural changes, and the construction basically of the Health Science Center that you see in Figure 4 and also Furniture Fixtures & Equipment necessary for those offices. Another swing space project in Building D was the TRIO Remodel, basically, relocating Upward bound programs from the U Building to the D Building and the PASS programs to the L Building--from the L Building to the D Building which included demolition, HVAC upgrades, flooring, lighting, and also FF&E, and the construction as you see in Figure 5. >> FF&E, Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment. >> Thank you. >> Correct. >> Health Sciences was relocated here to the CEC, as you see with the site plan. The relocation of the health services and--health sciences, nursing and medical assistant programs to the CEC in Figure 6B, faculty offices and classrooms and laboratories, you have basically was leasing modular units, a utility infrastructure which included some site work, modifications to the CEC building, the south wing 2nd floor, and relocating the FF&E, Furniture Fixtures & Equipment from the U Building, and some painting. Also, a CEC project with CE 206 Nursing Labs and CEC 126 Multipurpose Carpeting, and multipurpose carpeting is shown in 7A, and then the nursing lab is 7B and 7C. The Student Study Hall which was the very important and necessary for the students to have that space was also relocated from the U Building to the CEC as configured in Figure 8 which included demolition of an old foster care area which was here and relocated to the B Bungalows. And, you know, there's some utility work there, basically some capping, even plumbing, interior wall construction, some electrical work, data, flooring, reconfiguring the reflected ceiling plan, and relocating the FF&E from the U Building. The Rad Tech project which is still ongoing, that's about 95 percent complete, is relocating the radiology, construction of new x-ray room, dark room, observation rooms, classrooms, and storage area for CEC 208. There was an interior wall construction, and you had unique wall construction because it required lead walls and flooring possibly for the x-ray room. You had HVAC upgrade. You had electrical work, data, reflected ceiling plan, FF&E, and relocation of what equipment can be kept from the U Building. >> If I could just ask, since there are a number of slides to it, if you could just summarize each slide as opposed to going over each detail, that would be fine. >> Sure, not a problem. For the next slide, Figure 10.0, this is basically the C Building and LL Building relocation that was some IT work that was necessary due to the U Building swing space move, and ultimately Science Village which is 44,000 square feet of new laboratory space which is in the Lot 5A and currently under construction, very extensive project. So in summary, with those U Building swing spaces, you actually have three of them that are still ongoing, those three projects that are still under construction due to open August 27th or the school starting is the Nursing and Medical Assistance Relocation here to the CEC. Rad Tech is also at 95 percent and the Science Village is 95 percent and under construction, looking to open on the 27th. These projects were Capital 41--I'm sorry, Capital Outlay Projects Fund 41, not Measure P. Originally, the budget was 6.2 million dollars and it only covered Lot 5A. It didn't cover all of the other swing space projects so it was underbudgeted. But unfortunately, it appears they'd have run to about 6.6 million dollars spent right now and counting. So if you look at the cost to date with the Lot 5--with the Science Village, it's at 5.18 million dollars, not the 6.2 that it's budgeted. So it's actually underbudget but you also have to consider the CEC projects, the D Building, and the C and the LL project. So to complete that work, it looks like it's going to run to about 8.5 million dollars. [ Pause ] Now, what I've identified is some budget oversight and some challenges which I just discussed that, you know, you know, that those projects should have been split, they should have had their own budgets, and that's what is identified here, as well as project management challenges. Again, not a Measure P Project, so these are some things that should have been considered and thought of. Had management done a little better planning, a little better organization and coordination, we could have figured out that there's--the potential--the added scope that you see that wasn't accounted for, you have additional syncs, you see additional layouts, some of the things that we covered earlier in the meeting talking about those change orders, those potentially could have been captured upfront. There's an open issue right now with the Rad Tech x-ray room, it potentially may need a lead floor. That's still yet to be determined. I think that having multiparty budgets is a problem. These are some procedural concerns. I think dissimilarities in how construction management is exercised between the Measure P Projects and these projects is vastly different. I think that there are some things that could be implemented to ensure that this doesn't happen again. I think that the project scheduling and critical path could have been used, monitoring and controls was definitely an issue, cost control and schedule of values, identifying what those costs are going to be upfront opposed to as they come up, they're spent. I think they're commissioning these systems. I think we have some intricate systems here that potentially may cause some issues in the future. We don't know yet, we're still in construction. I think that those are things that need to be tested and reviewed prior to occupancy, and so we're going to get there. I just reviewed my recommendations and lessons learned, adopting the project life cycle, reviewing project specifications. I think that, you know, had these projects have gone through a more stringent process in reviewing the specification as the standards. There are some things that you can put into place to ensure the quality of that deliverable and to make sure that the endusers are receiving a space that's built as intended. The project life cycle is just an explanation of what the project life cycle is. What it looks like. It talks about project initiation, the programming criteria, which is basically planning, design and pre-construction process, the construction. And overall, what you're going to do with the building once you've post construction if you--how are you going to maintain it. What is the plan there? What is the plan for maintenance? What equipment is going in? Exactly, you know, there are still some costs to be associated to these new buildings. Question, Dr. Rocha. >> I'm going to pull you through this a little bit and see if the trustees have any questions. I guess this is extremely important information but we have so much stuff to cover here yet. >> Yes. >> But let me--it seems to me that we've asked you to come in and what you are presenting to us today is a new model for how a project of this kind should be budgeted and completed in the future. >> Yes. >> Is that correct? >> Yes. >> That's what's contained here. >> Yes. >> That's the essence of your recommendation. >> Yes. >> Okay. And we see in here and we appreciate. Question number two, are there any other--so we see that, you know, to get this done, it will be, you know, about 8.5? >> Yes. >> Okay, to get the Science Village, the Rad Tech, the Health Center and a couple of the other small things. Let me ask you this. Have you assessed the actual outcomes or the actual renovations, the Science Village and so on, are these satisfactory outcomes? Is this quality space? Is this a quality job? >> Yes, I do believe that you will end up with a better spacing that you have in the U Building now. >> So the space that we're going into will be better space than we were in? >> Yes. >> Okay. And question number three is basically a budget question moving forward. And that is there are no other renovations projects of any kind, okay, that are going forward unless we prepare them and propose them according to this model to the board. >> Absolutely. >> Okay, there's nothing in the pipeline. >> Nothing is-- >> [Inaudible] money on. Right there. >> That's correct. >> Okay, so great. Those are questions. So I'm going to pull you real fast through the U Building disposition. >> No problem. >> Okay, is that all right? >> Yes. >> And as you know, the trustees and I have read this carefully. First question is if you go to the slide, the seismic evaluation results, okay? Just explain briefly who did the reports on the U Building and what were the results to those reports? >> Okay, you actually had several reports on the U Building. And of those reports, you had three DASSE reports you had from 2008, 2009 and 2010. And you had two separate reports by Thornton Tomasetti. And ultimately, Thornton Tomasetti gave a recommendation of the seismic vulnerability for the U Building. And then after that, you also had another report by AMARR which summarized every one of those reports also in 2011 and gave a recommendation. So you had several structural engineers who weighed in and assessed that building. And it draw on all the same conclusion that in a seismic event of size would potentially cause the collapse of partial floors one or more. >> And you're a civil engineer? Did you read or review those reports yourself? >> Yes, I read and reviewed the reports myself. >> Okay, were there any college employees that were involved in the preparation of those reports? >> No, those were all done by outside, the third party consultants constructional engineers. >> So after reviewing those reports, your conclusion is what, Mr. Smith? >> My conclusion is that there's no issue with the decision to move forward to by abandoning that building based on emergency action that there's a problem with the U Building and it was best for the Swing Space to be built and to evacuate that building. >> Okay, so you're confirming the--you're confirming the action that the Board of Trustees have already taken? >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay, so the last part of this, and I really appreciate you responding in this way, is that the U Building is evacuated. We've made provisions for everybody in the building as you've just explained. And now, we have to do something with the U Building, okay? >> Yes. >> We either have to tear it down, demo it, all right? >> Yes. >> Or go back into the U Building and retrofit it because the report says that it does need earthquake code safety. >> Exactly. The reports do recommend an either retrofit or new construction. >> Right. >> And then there's a cost associated to both of those. And with the cost associated, you have to consider the age of the building. U Building was built in 1973. So you're also going to have some abatement issues with that retrofit. >> Right. >> So, basically with the abatement and the additional structural repairs, you're looking at a cost for new construction, possibly 44 million dollars. And you're talking about a seismic retrofit at about 31 million dollars. Based on the Chancellor's Office FUSION system, the cost to rebuild that space like for like, exact same with code changes is 30 million dollars. So, bare minimum, you're looking at 101.9 percent repair to new construction cost. >> So your preliminary recommendation which is what the next item on the agenda is all about is that--and we're not making that recommendation today, we are not. And--but we're preparing and at this point, that your preliminary recommendation to us would be that we should demo the building and apply for the funds from the state to put a new building back up in its place. >> Yes, that is correct. >> Okay. >> So let's see if those-- >> That's it. >> Other question, Trustee Israel. >> I have a couple questions. So, were other building assessed by DASSE Designs and by other consulting companies? >> There were actually several buildings that were assessed. I believe the V Building, the R Buildings, I'd actually--give me a second, I can pull a report and let you know exactly which buildings were assessed. But yes, the ques--the answer is yes, there were other buildings assessed as well. >> And compared to the U Building, how severe were their seismic deficiencies? >> Those deficiencies were actually ranked on risk categories one to five. And the U Building was actually the highest, it was ranked the five. So the other buildings were--were anywhere from three to four in those categories. >> Three to four out of five? >> So they were ranked from one to five, and you had multiples rated at risk level three, and you had multiples rated at risk level four. >> Okay. And when will the U Building be evacuated? >> Those U Building Swing Space projects which I discussed earlier, those are all based on evacuating U Building. So the U Building is in the process of being evacuated now. >> And specifically, by the start of the fall semester, August 27. >> Okay, thank you. >> Other trustee questions? >> Okay, my only question was that if we have a 2-million dollar shortfall in the budgeted for this, where do we anticipate finding that? >> It's from this capital outlay fund 41. >> Right, okay, and our contingencies. And then you discussed all the--you described all the flaws in the process of managing this current construction. But we're pretty close to the end of that process, so those flaws are to be in the lessons learned to apply to future construction, is that what you're suggesting? >> That's absolutely correct. And with the new executive director facilities with the expertise and the knowledge bring to bare on these types of situations, we will be in good shape. >> Because all of these other stuff is pretty much almost done. >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> Now, I do want to--and I know the agenda interpret--Jack Schulman and Stephanie Pulcifer from our projects office, our Measure P Projects office, they and that group has been instrumental in helping us through this transition, and I--it's very important just to make sure that they get their kudos for that. >> I appreciate that. And for me, just as a trustee, personally, I appreciate this. My assumption had been all of our construction projects followed a protocol similar to that that was followed with those Measure P projects. So, what--it was illuminating to me to learn that several of our construction projects did not follow those standards that need to be grown accustomed to in the reporting of the Measure P projects. Okay, so that leads us to an action item for the agenda. It's--the resolution under item L, Dr. Rocha, do you want--and describe what were you asking the board to authorize. >> This is actually--it would be very brief, this is actually to ratify. What this does is reserve our position in place for state funding. We have already submitted to the state chancellor's office the request, it doesn't mean that we're going to rebuild the building but we want to make sure that we're inline. So this is a request we've already submitted to the chancellor's office for the possible funding of rebuilding U. >> Right. >> And so, since we've already submitted the action that I'm recommending and the action that I'm requesting is that the board ratify. >> Is there a motion on the ratification of the resolution? >> I move approval. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Any further discussion? Advisory vote? >> No. >> All those in favor? Indicate by saying aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Any abstentions? The motion carries unanimously noting the advisory vote was a no from the student trustee. Thank you. [Applause] Okay, so--but we--before we--I'm going to turn--before we go on to item N, I did get a request to address the board a comment from somebody who wanted to address something that was previously discussed. I want to check with the board to see if there is a consent to hear from the public on something that was previously covered. >> Did you get the request after we covered the [inaudible]-- >> Yes, I did. And so, as our protocols have been to--the request should be given to the board secretary prior to the deliberation of the agenda item. And so--but I do have this request. >> You got the request after we already completed our discussion and action on the item that you want to talk about. >> Yes. So I don't see a unanimous consent and then going back to public comment unless--so, I will set that one aside for now. We do have a request to address the public on item M, and so I will call on Kevin Clinton and then we will go into discussion of the item. Is Mr. Clinton here? [ Inaudible Discussion ] >> Hello, everyone. [Inaudible Remark] It's the first time I actually just stand back here and speak at the mic comfortably instead of looking at it like this. So, hello. Where was I going to start with? Oh, yes. I'm going to be speaking on agenda item M, Bylaw 1680, the evaluation policy of the president. I must say that I've been looking forward to the evaluation of the president for some time and I have been waiting for quite awhile. Unfortunately, it has not happened where the public has been able to be participatory in this process. While looking at the board, I noticed that there was going to be three years of board, private close-session evaluation and on the fourth year, there will be an evaluation by the public and by other members of this school. For this particular president and the policy, there is a huge problem with that the current contract for President Rocha is four years, which means if his contract is not renewed, there is no public evaluation. And I personally think the idea of evaluation allows the community to have a very constructive criticism to the president. Give them possible ways that we can work together positively. And this is what I like about the previous policy of the official evaluation every other year or it's every even year. So well, I think this bylaw may need to be amended. The current amend its--for the bylaw of a three-year board private close-session evaluation is not really something that I would support. Secondly, students are supposed to leave within two years and this--well, we know students don't leave within two years. The idea that students have to wait four years before they are allowed to put any input, constructive toward the president's evaluation is a bit sad. And I think you should definitely take it into consideration before you approve this bylaw because these changes also have another fatal fall. They forgot to include the associated students as part of the evaluations within the actual written bylaw. So, please look that over. Think it's--think about it before taking action. And thank you for your time. >> Thank you. [Applause] >> I think its appro--thank you. To provide the context, I'd like to ask Mary Dowell to come to the table. Mary is working with the board as our counsel from the Liebert Cassidy. And that we--I appointed a committee during a public meeting a number of months ago on accreditation and governance and the accreditation commission has asked boards to really carefully evaluate its policies with respect to employee evaluation, board self assessment, trustees, codes of ethics and I asked Trustee Thompson, Trustee Fellow, and Trustee Mann to participate in the committee and the committee is coming forward with recommendations and I want to turn it to Trustee Thompson to lead the discussion on the recommendations on bylaws. >> The first one is Bylaw 1450 and there are two amendments that we're proposing to the written bylaw as it appears in the board packet and that would be to change the introductory statement of paragraph number three, to read, board members are responsible to make policy and employ, superintendent/president to administer the policies and continue as it is. We're also suggesting that we add a new paragraph four and renumber the other paragraphs. The new paragraphs would read board members have a fiduciary responsibility to review, approve, and adapt budgets and programs to ensure financial stability of the college now and for the future. So, with those two changes, it's a recommendation of our committee that this be adapted by the boards, so, I'll adapt that as a motion. >> I'd like to make that as a motion. Is there a second? [Inaudible Remark] Any discussion on that Bylaw 1450 as presented by the committee? >> I would just--I should just add just for the benefit of the public that this is the bylaw that deals with trustee's code of ethics including the student trustee. >> I see no further discussion. I'll go ahead and we have a motion on the table, take the advisory vote. >> Aye. >> All those in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? The motion carries unanimously with respect with Bylaw 1450 as presented. >> The next is Bylaw 1490 which is the board of trustee self-assessment and there is one change that we're proposing in the written document on that and that is on page three. The portion that begins with a question, the board meet the following, adapt the goals, we're recommending that that would be changed to read that the board adapt policies and provide guidance and resources to enable the college to achieve the following adapted goals for 2011-2012. We're going to adapt the September 10th, 2011 closed there in. So with that change, the committee is recommending that this would be approved and adapted by the board of trustees and I would so move. >> Second. >> And further discussion on that? Advisory vote? >> Aye. >> All those in favor, say aye. >> Aye. >> The motion carries, and then the third bylaw. >> Okay. The next is the Bylaw 1680 to which Mr. Clinton was addressing a moment ago and I'm going to ask for Mary Dowell, if I may, just to give us a little bit of background on this because basically, as I understand of what we're doing here with this is modifying our approach to evaluation, superintendent/president to kind of match up with what other community colleges do and I guess more importantly, what the accreditation commission or committee of the state itself is recommending. So, could you perhaps enlighten us a little bit of that? >> President Baum, members of the board, Dr. Rocha and members of the shared governance committee, the administration. Mr. Thompson is correct that in the course of reviewing this particular Bylaw 1680, the members of the board's ad hoc committee on accreditation and policy work, very concerned to assure that the bylaw by which the board would perceive to evaluate is superintended/president comply with the kinds of guidance that have been coming from the AACJC. And we have seen around the state, other community colleges being advised by AACJC of the importance of focusing their trust--the evaluation procedure for the superintendent/president and/or chancellor depending on the district to one of being a mutually agreed upon process between the CEO and the board as opposed to just being unilaterally imposed by the board. And so, the changes that we're--are proposed before you to this bylaw are designed to make this process dynamic and to make the process one in which the board and the CEO mutually engage very thoroughly. I've had other clients that have struggled with this as well and I can vouch for the fact that this is one of the things that accreditation teams are looking at when they come in to review them. >> Okay. Thank you. With that background, that's the base or the background for the committee's recommendation to the board that this be adapted and what it would require then is that the annual evaluation would be of two types. One would be a regular developmental annual evaluation for each of the first three years of service that would be based on the result of mutual agreement between the president and the board but that minimum would include self-evaluation of the superintendent/president and each trustee's review of the president's self evaluation. And then after the fourth year, the comprehensive evaluation that would include what I just recited plus gather broader comment from faculty, staff, administration and we can certainly include students within that scope as well. So, that's the background for it. And if there's other comment, if not, I would make a motion that we approve or drop this bylaw. >> I'll second that. Any fur--yeah, it's Trustee Israel. >> Yes. I'd like to recognize President Fraser. I know he has a few things to say about this. >> President Fraser. >> Thank you Trustee Israel. Thank you President Bob. Obviously, the Associated Students recognizes the very important element that the superintendent/president plays at PACCD. He or she is the driving force behind a lot of what the college does. And we recognize that and that is incredibly valuable. However, our concerns with these adjustments to policy that currently, the biannual evaluation cycle so far hasn't worked, hasn't actually happened. We believe that that is appropriate process. We think that the biannual one-on, one-off has worked in the past and continues to. And secondly, given the--this is hooking me back to my chief justice days, bylaws were my thing. And without the direct inclusion at the students, current Bylaw 1680 specifies pretty extensive involvement of the Associated Student Executive Board Inter Club Council. And while the trustees may make every effort to include them, the non assurance that that will happen is a little concerning to the Associated Students. So, and we would point out that in previous accreditation, we haven't been picked up on this one. However, we have been picked up on general campus trust and general shared governance trust. We recently submitted a midterm accreditation report that indicated we need strides in that area and I'd like us to continue to see those strides being made by a more encompassing process for the shared governance constituents. However, we arranged it in our specific recommendations so that will continue the biannual, this is the three in one and that we specifically--or the governing board specifically makes reference to the students for the comprehensive evaluation. Thank you. >> Other comments or question from members of the board of trustees? >> I would certainly--subject to Dr. Fellow's seconding of the--my motion. Proposed that we include in the comprehensive evaluation of fourth year of service as specific reference to students as a part of the groups that are part of the evaluation, if that's-- >> Of course I do and I do want to make a comment that we are trying to bring our bylaws into line with other colleges as Mary pointed out. And it is during the fourth year of most colleges that you do a comprehensive evaluation, it is not by--I never heard of a college we are evaluating, comprehensive evaluation of a president every other year, just as unheard of. >> So, just to clarify, did you cover the students in the committee or was it just inadvertently left out of this, since I wasn't present? >> We talked about a comprehensive process of--or process where they're gaining input from different groups on the campus and I believe students were mentioned apart of that and should been included in the written document that it's not so, let's rectify that. >> And so, I want to--this is a collective effort but I just want to defer to Dr. Rocha or Mary Dowell to see if that changes anything that--in the spirit of the--I'm eager to hear-- >> Not at all, President Bob. The fourth year comprehensive evaluation is designed and intended to encompass input form all segments of the community. The students are necessarily included in that but if--I think there's nothing wrong at all with trustee Thompson's suggestion that the students be specifically singled out in that. They were never--they were not admitted but they were just isn't there. >> So, just to be clear. So, you're looking at two A would be gathered broader attributed comment from faculty, staff, administration and students? >> Correct, yes. >> Is that what you're suggesting? So, everybody's clear on the recommended modification? >> Uh-huh. >> Any discussion to that? So, it doesn't need to be--I'm taking that as a friendly amendment since both of you are a part of that committee. Okay. So, then we will go to--any further discussion? And so, Trustee Israel and Trustee Fraser that--and not Trustee Fraser but President Fraser. I would turn to--we'll go to a vote. Trustee Israel? >> Aye. >> All those in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> All those oppose? Motion carries unanimously. Congratulations. Thank you to the committee. That may conclude the work of your committee and-- >> It may very well. That would be a real shame, right? [Laughter] >> Thank you very much but Trustee Thompson has--I will ask you to, as board president then reconstitute the policy of review committee that includes Trustee Brown and Trustee Wah for future review. >> We'll do that. Thank you. >> Okay. Now, we're going on to discussion items only for possible future action. There is no action scheduled tonight. And we are in the process of collecting comments from the public on some policy recommendations. And so, this is the opportunity. I have said--as I said before, if there is somebody who would like to address the board on either of these prior to the beginning of the deliberation, I encourage--I will give a window right now of anybody who wants to address the board so that we don't get halfway through or past it and then somebody says, I wish, I wanted to talk to that issue. So, we will go on to--we'll go to item N, M, N. I do have a couple of comment cards that had been submitted for that as well as, Ally, you submitted your comment card well after we started deliberation. If you want to readdress your comments to these items, I would welcome you to do that. But I'll take Chris Fennessy first. >> Thank you. I am a former student of PCC, an alumnus and currently a resident of the district. During my tenure here as very active in many of the discussions that took place in there and now being continued to discuss tonight and the future and I was such--I felt compelled to come here tonight and speak out again some of the proposals that are--have been included in your board packets. I have a number of issues with the new proposed administrative structure, including the reinstatement of the former board policy of 2000, the general creation of so many new administrative--administrative positions and especially the misrepresent or misrepresentation of the work that many on this campus put in throughout the last academic year in the post academic reorganization. In regards to former policy 2000, I would argue this policy would tear away the power from the--from any form of shared governance on this campus. By investing the authority to formally and submit college policy solely to the president superintendent, you take away the requirement for the consultation with or mutual agreement with all other constituent bodies. Any policies that are accepted that into our governing documents must not supersede the current policy 2000 or our shared governance policy which provides every constituents on campus and with the rights and authority develop policy recommendations as it clearly within there and in Title 5. The former policy 2000 which is created 25 years ago cannot simply be turned--transposed into our current system. Trustee Thomson as you said earlier, it doesn't make sense for us to be working on an IT system developed in '80s. I don't feel and think that we should be using policy that was created back then either. I would urge you to give this policy the same measure inspection and deliberation as any other policy that's up for a vote which is much greater and more comprehensive than a single board meeting with this as discussion item before propose actions take place. The attachment also includes a great due--deal of new administrative positions. Admittedly, our current administrative system is inadequate to deal with the needs of the college with too much responsibility handed to the administrative side left over after the tumultuous the last couple of months. However, just a year ago, we went an administrative overhaul to which those great disapproval across the campus and as I already said, the structure of those constituents created is not adequately preserving the campus right now. Do we so quickly wish to commit to a new structure with various new high level management positions? The board packet claims that the funds are provided for within our budget for these new positions. I have not seen any specific budget with these accounted within. I know that such a budget is not within your packet. Additionally, I don't believe the statement, "Funds are provide within the 2012-2013 operating budget, adequately addresses the physical impact." The true physical impact data should include the amounts that are estimated--that are estimated to need to cover these changes not only including salary changes but also the cost that are going to be needed for finding those who will then fill these positions. My final issue with the proposal is the academic affairs flowchart which is shown on page 95 of your board packets. This restructure in the academic divisions is entirely coming from the administration not in a shared governance discussion. It is true that the interim plan that was developed by the planning and priorities committee and modified and adopted by the College Council and Academic Senate is used during the time it takes to move the proposed final force rule system. However, that interim plan was developed--was not developed and proposed as a way to transition into administration's plan of 4 year system. Instead, it was created because the shared governance groups believe that we were not yet prepared to create a new permanently reorganized structure. The forceful system in fact was heavily criticizing those discussions and it was never organically created by the shared governance structure. Additionally, the organization that for deans for each school and shares for each division or any other nomenclature that you may want to use of those positions was likewise never approved formally or informally in a shared governance discussion. The college has the right, especially within the academic structure of institution to fully develop their discussion before permanent changes put in place. During the 2011-2012 school year, I spent hours and hours of my personal time engaged in these discussions as many of the faculty, staff, administrators would--can attest to. I was honored to be in the collegewide discussion about issues that will affect my fellow students for years to come. Many of these discussions were contentious but even when I disagree with others, I respected them and the fact that I believe that they were trying to do what is best for the college even if disagree with what that actually meant. However, with both these issues and others, I see that all the work that I did along side many faculty, staff, administrators, and fellow students is now being thrown aside. And I can honestly say that I feel both insulted and disrespected. My grades suffer but never once did I regret the fact that I was doing what I felt was the best for my fellow students. I know that you'll not be taking actions on this tonight but I'm calling on you to make sure this institution remains, retains its belief and cooperation and working together to the best for students as possible. If you hastily allow these proposals to move forward without proper betting, you will not only negate the hard work that many on this campus would put in, we will also create environment that does not celebrate diversity or collaboration but instead stifles it. And no institution of higher education should ever claim that. Thank you. [ Applause ] >> [Inaudible] if you wanted to come in address and then I'll--I have Gareth as well. >> I'll speak very quickly, since there was already a vote taken. It concerns me greatly that this kind of revision is looked at after the policy that was in place was not followed for years. Dr. Rocha hadn't been reviewed by the board and now suddenly, there's great concern for what the bylaws look like for this process. The bylaws that existed already had not been followed today so that concerns me. My second concern is the claims about accreditation because I've been involved with Community College of San Francisco where accreditation has threatened to shut them down. And actually, what they claim is that there's not enough review of the administrators. And so that seems out of line with the claims that you're making. Yeah, and that's all thank you. [Applause] >> Gareth. I can't read the last name, Gareth King--Collins? >> It would be King. >> King >> My name is Gareth King, I have been involved with the school since I began in 2009, the issues basically with item N. My real issue with the administration of--administrative organization is the public response must be submitted before being spoken to. How can we respond to that which we have not heard? For example, I mean you spoke of the reduces in expense and lets see, which I'll just read it as I wrote it. If we were--if we are unsure, should we not reduce the expenses, you know, such as income from new people? Also the reduction in income in October should have been corrected on the projections. You, yourself spoke about the 2 point some million that was taken off but I believe it was still on your projections. We received it already, why was it on the projection? I mean the attraction of out of state students, I mean, not to disavow the importance of education for all. I mean, at the time where we cannot even provide for our own students, it seems to be greed based to move toward the acceptance of higher income potential from this out-of-state students. Additionally, will the students from out-of-state have classes in a trimester system? Again, I mean this is furthered by something else you spoke of which is that 578 sections that were cut, how does this help the student body? You know, we failed to catch the additional 2.3 million, that's a huge oversight. And who is responsible for that? Obviously, this is mismanagement, we should know. You know, we have, honestly a responsibility to hold them responsible for the false mismanagement of our funds at a time where we're pretty much broke. I mean, we have made the move to accorded Science Village and other locations without actual conclusion to solve the U Building issue. No one, as you guys spoke of, had any awareness of where we're going from here. We're just guessing and we spent 8.5 million which was approximately 20 percent of the cost of rebuilding. It just seems so idiotic to me. [Applause] I think, in conclusion to be honest, I feel sorry because I defended you, Rocha when you and I had proposed cuts due to the sacramental actions. I now see a real issue with you as our president in the quality and honor that you posses. Thank you. [Applause] >> Bill. [Applause] >> So we have--we're going on to item--the presentation on item N. And so we've heard the public comment. Dr. Rocha, would you like to present on item N? >> Yes. Thank you, President Brown. Item N is the--is not an action item. It's the--actually, a proposed board policy, proposed reinstatement of board policy of 2001. Actually, back in the day in Chancellor Jack Scott's stay when he was superintendent president Pasadena City College, he had an annual board policy called Board Policy 2000. So, this is 2001 because we already have a 2000 that's shared governance policy. I offer the actual copy because it was the practice then which is--and we departed from it at sometimes, some years ago to routinely have the superintendent president bring forward to the board of trustees to propose administrative organization for the coming year so that the board, to college community, and the external community would know very clearly who to hold accountable. And it is only the superintendent president and the administrator is charged through the superintendent president who are held accountable for the outcomes, both Ed code outcomes and the accreditation outcomes for the college so that's why that's there. There's a lot of information here for the case four and I won't go through it for the proposal. I would only say this. There is a clearly stated case that I know that the board has read. I know also that this, I would say as the board well knows that this is far from a hasty proposal. This is the third consecutive year that I proposed to the Board of Trustees a proposed administrative organization that is based on what is informally been called a school-based architecture. And there are many reasons that I've stated both publicly into the board for why this administrative organization is in the best interest of the college that the board can hold the administration accountable for achieving the goals. I do also say that this proposed policy is before you because the board has asked for it. Last September 10th, the Board indicated, passed and approved that its number one goal for the year was the realignment of the administration including the realignment of instruction. And we won't go through the whole story of the extensive consultation process that occurred this year for many, many meetings and Vice President Miller helped quarterbacked that at the College Planning and Priorities Committee. So there has been extensive consultation on the proposal and this proposal essentially is the same when I presented to the Board of Trustees and to the college last summer. There's no question that the College Planning and Priorities Committee did not come up with this, all right? They did come up with an interim plan and the interim plan is good and we came to agreement with the management association about retaining the current divisional structure and moving forward and slowly because it was tied with an interim plan by the College Planning and Priorities Committee and moving slowly towards the proposed structure that you see here today. Finally, I might also point out as I say in my preamble on the policy that the four, the so-called four--what I call the four-school architecture is in our current college catalogue. In our current college catalogue, there are listed only four divisions and they are listed as they're essentially--so this proposal takes what was once called as divisions and turns them into four schools. I do not know how those divisions were turned into multiple divisions and multiple subdivisions with deans but again in terms of the accreditation compliance, it's extremely important that what we see in our catalogue, we're actually doing. Finally, finally, I'd say is that the most important reason for doing anything for any proposal whether it's this proposal or any other proposal is the academic mission of the college. Our mission is teaching and learning, our mission is graduating students. Two years ago, when I came in and the college had--was on accreditation warning for its second consecutive year. The college had received a number of recommendations from the ACCJC. Recommendations are actually citations, that is, the things that push you on the line. They were very specific. One was that the college had no link from planning to budgeting. And there were others, the SLOs the program review and so on. One of the difficulties, for example, in getting program reviews done especially in this day and age is because the incredibly diffuse organization of the college makes program review very difficult because you have to go up through departments, now 11 divisions, up through three or four vice presidents and on up. It's a cumbersome process administratively that makes it harder and not easier to comply with the ACCJC and program review. But much more importantly, much more importantly, and we showed this with the SASI that you supported two years ago. There was no budget dollars, none, until I recommended it and you supported it for research and development for faculty, some of whom are in this room, to move forward and develop innovations, innovations for improving teaching and learning. Just the one grant that President Hanvey mentioned today was the result of that SASI. That proposal never would have happened unless two faculty from two completely different divisions were able to come together. You cannot move forward in a 21st century environment within silos. So, I think the academic proposal here will be to actually make it easier for the faculty, who are the most important stewards of our academic program, to work together in groups, to improve the academic programs and the quality of our academic outcomes. That's some of the content. I've heard a lot of process questions and, of course, I included in the packet the opinion that I requested from Mary Dowell and Liebert Cassidy Whitmore on the issue of administrative reorganization and I might point out--let me just ask informally, Mary. Mary, how many community college clients does your firm serve? >> That's a difficult question to answer at any given time, Dr. Rocha, because we work with community colleges around the state in many different capacities but at any given time, our firm is providing assistance and service to a roughly 90 percent of the districts in the state. >> So roughly 90 percent-- >> That's right. >> --of the community colleges in the State of California. Okay, so one of the ironies of my proposal, the original proposal, and we did listen to the info. One of the ironies is that my proposal was to actually return the academic management to the faculty in what I would call a normal administrative operation in which faculty chairs elected by the faculty themselves would manage the disciplines and these at least to my observation is the most prevalent kind of organization. Is that a fair statement? >> Again, this is based on anecdotal experience, Dr. Rocha, not any empirical study that I've done. There are districts that have similar to what Pasadena did move way form the department chair structure to the--a more heavy reliance on deans. But in my experience, the more common structure is to still have department chairs. >> Okay. So, Mary, if you could just--we have your legal opinion, but if you could just amplify that and be able to educate us as to the consultation requirements, the consultation process and what the requirements of the administration and the Board and what the authority of the administration and the Board are with respect to any administrative proposal for administrative organization. >> The question of the responsibility to consult collegially is always circumscribed by the list of academic and professional matters that the board of governors enacted. And now I'm speaking more specifically about the obligation to consult with the faculty. The so-called Ten Plus One list applies to the obligation of a board to consult collegially with the faculty senate. There are also obligations to consult with classified staff and with students on matters pertaining directly to the classified staff or directly to the students. The--there has been more discussion I think, more litigation over the obligation to consult with a senate than there has been--I'm not aware of any cases that have arisen that have addressed the obligation to consult with either a student body group or a senate. Although that obligation certainly exists in Title V. But there has been litigation on the obligation to consult collegially with the faculty senate. And the case that most directly pertains to what is before the board for information tonight and what will be before the board for potential action at a later board meeting. This is a case involving Diablo Valley College. And at Diablo Valley College, ironically, what the college was doing was going from a department to restructure to an all day structure, the opposite of what you have been talking about doing here. The negotiations with the union over the rights of the department chairs were concluded, and the district to move forward with this administrative reorganization. And I use that phrase very specifically, because what the district was doing was an administrative reorganization. That is it was making no changes to the job obligations or anything relating to the faculty. It's solely related to the roles and responsibilities of administrators. And the court relied upon an opinion that had been prepared by the General Counsel's Office with the State Chancellor's Office. The Board of Governors and the State Chancellor's Officer are charged by the California Legislature with the obligation to interpret the shared governor's responsibilities of AB 1725, and the regulations enacted by the Board of Governors. And the Generals Counsel's Office had concluded that this was not a matter encompassed within the obligation to consult with the senate. The Court of Appeal relied upon that opinion from the Chancellor's Office concluding that similar to opinions of the attorney-general, that it was bound to give difference to the agency with the responsibility for enacting and enforcing these regulations. And the court said very specifically that where--what is being addressed is on reorganization of the administration of the college, that it is not a matter encompassed within the academic and professional matters on which the board is obligated to collegially consult. This is the state of the law. I make no comment on, you know, what Dr. Rocha is proposing here, that's totally outside my area of expertise, but I am reporting to you what the court did in a similar case where what was being addressed was solely a reorganization of the duties and responsibilities of members of the administration. >> Right. That's very helpful. Let me just ask a few other questions and this is unrehearsed and-- >> Very much so. [ Laughter ] >> Okay. So you've said that actually, there is no basically legal requirement to consult on matters of administrative organization, basically. >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> However, we could voluntarily do so. >> Certainly. >> Or we could voluntarily do so. So, I'm going to turn to Dustin Hanvey and then without again, I have not spoken to you about the merits of the proposal. We're just--because most of the objections I heard were to the process that this was a--this has been rushed up without any consultation. So I appreciate you not speaking to the merits, you're just speaking to the process. So again, I don't ask you to take any position whatsoever on this proposal. My simple factual question was, did the administration consult with the academic senate on this proposal? >> Oh, which part of it? [Laughter] >> Oh that's, the part that came from the college planning and priorities committee after the initial proposal from the administration. >> We had a vote in June. And I think that's actually here in the packet. I don't know if it's labeled as the academic senate vote but we did take a vote on the policy that the priorities committee passed forward. >> Okay. >> That vote was in the first last--the first week of June. >> So you did have a consultation on matters of administrative organization? >> Yes. >> And you had that because the administration through the College Planning and Priorities Committee brought a request to consult? >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> Vice President Miller? >> Yes chair. >> Okay, chair of the College Planning and Priorities Committee, okay, you started a consultation--no, let me say, did you have a consultation process with the College of Planning and Priorities Committee? >> Yes we did. And that was broken down working in consultation with the academic senate under shared governance groups into various task teams, two task teams specifically which spent nearly a year developing recommendations. The two task team is going to report about Planning and Priorities Committee which in turn made adjustments. They in turn reported out to the college council. The college council made the further adjustments. And through the shared governance process, the academic senate president at that time, Ed Martinez, took it to the academic senate. The academic senate then discussed it over to possibly three meetings extensively, and then the academic senate took action and then what is in the packet represents what the college council approved which is essentially what the academic senate approved. >> So this has been, and as the board as well know, this has been an active issue for the entire academic year. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. And my last question to Dustin, is there an instance, since I've been superintendent president, in which the administrative have trespassed on Ten Plus One. [ Pause ] >> What is Ten Plus One? >> It's what Mary referred to--Mary, explain what Ten Plus One is. >> And I'm not going to be able to recite them all because I don't have them committed to-- >> I have in my wallet. [Laughter] >> That--as you should. I'll do it first for president Hanvey but what is colloquially or, you know, informally referred to as Ten Plus One is the list of academic and professional matters identified by the Board of Governors in the Title V regulations as being those areas in which a board should consult collegially and rely primarily on the advising judgment of the senate. >> You want me to read them or no? >> Yes. >> No. >> Okay. [Laughter] >> I mean, have--has the senate ever come to the administration and said, "You know, you're now over the line. You're making decisions in Ten Plus One and stop." >> In terms of the Ten Plus One, no. But I would also like to add on behalf of the executive committee that, you know, I have to read the case law that Mary just referred to in a little bit more detail. It is our perspective that number six on the list here that does cover faculty governance structure does apply to chairs. And we would--again, we need to read the case law and see more carefully exactly what it says in terms of chairs because we do believe that that is a senate matter. >> Right. >> But as far as up to this point, no. >> And, with respect to that, and I appreciate you raising that. Because the administration including myself, I just had direct consultations with you and the task team three, a group--okay, and you are quite right that the disposition of matters of faculty management of discipline programs, faculty chairs, is something that we must consult on with the academic senate. And we have consulted with you and it is in this proposal that we have not decided that issue, that we have agreed with the senate that during the coming year, we will enter into a process and rely upon the senate--rely primarily upon the senate to bring forward recommendations that may include your task team three, okay, or may not about what the faculty want in terms of the disciplinary management chairs or not of its own programs. Is that correct? >> We would appreciate that very much. >> Okay. That's in this proposal, okay. So if the board acts on this, and it is not acting on it tonight, that's in this proposal, okay. And finally, Mary I think finally, you know, on this, well anyway-- >> Yeah, I like to let board know I have the opportunity. Thank you for-- [Inaudible Remark] No, no, no, no, I do. Thank you very much for that comprehensive review of both the policy, the procedure, the president, and the legal justification of the recommendation. As a board, we did adopt with--the goal of how can this institution most effectively serve students and direct the administration, and the only person that we direct is the president to look at realignment in a way that would better serve students. And I want to express my appreciation on behalf of the board to you and the other members of the campus community who have now come forth with a recommendation that we will be able to consider, take the public comment, take comment from the campus constituents and then I expect for the board to then act on as we request it. So now I want to provide the board members an opportunity to make--see if they have questions about the specifics of the recommendation, about anything that went through. And we will be coming--bring this also back for further discussion before we take action ideally at that August 29th. So, Trustee Israel? >> If I can recognize President Simon Fraser, I know he had a few things to say about this. >> Sure, and I will be exceedingly brief because I know the late hour. One of the reasons that we--the Associate Students have been looking over Title 5, and very closely this week is because of this item, and we have our own Nine Plus One or as I like to call them ten as a math major. [Laughter] And we very clearly feel that this is a matter that needs to go through the full shared governance process and I would have a very unique perspective I think without calling too much attention to myself more so than any one in the room, because I served from a task team at the very bottom always with the call--Planning and Priorities Committee, to the college council. And then to this board at several town halls and I think even at this meeting I remember speaking directly to you, President Baum, and saying that I have faith the process was working the way that it should be and that things have been executed in the right way. I'm concerned that the latter tail of that didn't quite match specifically to area 4, 5 and 6 of our Title 5 responsibilities. You can find those under section 5103.7. I know we're being audio cast so I won't read them, I'll just leave it for reference. Specifically, we don't take position on the specifics of the proposal except to note that the first that we found interesting that the proposal that we very first received the planning and priorities was one that immediately raised a lot of questions, and that's essentially what we have here. The second thing I'd like to point out to the board is that the task team three, a lot of that was a product of task team one which I served and we looked at many different community colleges around the state. I personally interviewed two different community colleges, one of which is happy with that current faculty chair situation, one of which actually made a very recent move, a lot of the time recent from chairs to deans. And then came back and we looked at business models. We looked at how to effectively move, like kind of mass production, it was a bad knowledge at the time because students on mass production, but there were some thought behind some business schools and business models that we wanted to apply. And a lot of that came into what is now task team three. I was assured that students will be part of that although I haven't been aware that they'll be meeting over the summer. I did raise that at the college council. Our main concern is ensuring Title 5 responsibilities are fully respected for all of the campus constituents. I greatly respect the academic senate. We are also a campus constituent with our own areas of Title 5 responsibility. And so our concerns--the only position that I've been authorized to formally take by the Associated Students board is to ensure that our shared governance rights are protected and that we are concerned the first paragraph, our proposed policy 2001 does not quite do that, specifically the specification that the formulation and submission of policies and recommendations is vested in superintendent president where Title 5 specifically recognizes that there will be the joint opportunity for formulation and development of recommendations to the governing board. We haven't got a legal opinion, we don't have legal council. This is just our best interpretation as students. However, that's the one thing that I want to make sure that is protected and I want to make sure that the students continue to participate in task team three especially as a--I think my B in English was attributed to putting too much time into realignment as opposed to my studies which is my fault. But that's something that I would like to make sure continues, especially with the US school of innovation. Thank you. >> Thank you, President Fraser. So if there's no objection from the board then we will continue this conversation at the next board meeting unless there's-- >> Just there is-- >> Go ahead, Mr. Thomson. >> One comment, I don't really want a response to the saving, but it strikes me that the issue at least the most, it catches my attention, it is--the discussion ought to be on, is this better for the college, and if so why? The process issues are important and all that, I'm not trying to detract from those, but the real question is, why is this better for the college in the system we currently have, period. And unless I asked that tonight, but let's focus on that next time. [Applause] >> I just wanted to--just to take your question. I've been in university administration, a university professor and researcher for 28 years. I had served at private schools and public universities. And when I came to PCC I was kind of astonished, I've never seen a structure, an academic structure like this in anywhere I've ever been, which is why I'm very interested in this restructuring. I've never seen a non-Carnegie schedule. I think it's--I can't imagine as a professor to put students through a non-Carnegie schedule. It's a very big disadvantage. And our students are going to start losing I think federal funds if we don't get in line with the other colleges throughout the United States. So I'm very interested in this and I intend to--when we get to this discussion to use my experience and background at--and I think as Bill said, to make this a stronger and a college that's supposed to operate as other colleges throughout the United States. I never been at a college where faculty are teaching overloads, it's kind of illegal in the state university system, your pay just stops after your units. So I'm very concerned with this in making PCC to become in line with other colleges and for faculty to serve students the way they're supposed to be served. So I hope to say more when we get to this level. >> Trustee Wah or Trustee Brown? >> Okay. >> Okay, so we're going to move on to item O now and talk about the calendar and we do have some request to address the board. We'll start with Nathan Dickey. [ Pause ] >> Good evening ladies and gentlemen of the board. My name is Nathan Dickey and I am the inter-club council representative at PCC. And as the current president of my club University Christian Fellowship, I know that many of our members are struggling to finish their associate degrees and transfer in a timely manner. That's been very difficult for them with the financial hardships with them and a shortage of classes. Therefore, I'd like to add our voice as a small part of the student body to the statement of the ASPCC. We're not against removing the winter intersession or transferring to the Carnegie or becoming a trimester system. As my idea, giving PCC students, staff and faculty less than two weeks to alter their plans for the next year is in our opinion a mistake. These changes, we understand have yet to be fully evaluated to the extent they need to be by all the groups affected by them. Postpone it for one or two years with a clearer and clean transition would be our suggestion. The fall semester is starting soon and there is a great deal of preparation to do by everybody. Such a drastic change would inevitably create a storm of emotional reactions which I'm sure many of you can--or at least have heard about from previous semesters, from both faculty and students. Given enough time, research and involvement but by the various parties affected, I do believe we can come to a satisfactory resolution for as many as possible. But in summary, as a small group on campus we feel that these drastic unilateral changes are simply too much too soon. Thank you. [ Applause ] >> Next is Kevin Clinton. As he is arriving, I do want to make a point which I forgot to make before when one of the other speakers are--this is a meeting of the Board of Trustees, it's a decision that we are considering. So, please always address your comments to the Board of Trustees. It's inappropriate for any speaker to address a member of the administration. We're here to hear from the public as we consider the decision and I think that the previous speaker was out of line and inappropriate in his comments. And so, I want to add but you're up Mr. Clinton. >> Hey, everybody. So, I'm going to--basically, this is about the sub--the trimester and summer of--and the removal of winter. I'm going to talk--speak back to the February 22nd surprise. In that comment, I talked about how sure governance was just not being listened to at the time. And if--and so basically, I'm going to really talk about three things doing this. The first is the complaints during this meeting have largely been about shared governance and largely have been about not being, you know, listened to. Secondly, I'm going to talk about the legal opinion, that's in the packet on page 87 I believe. And finally, I'm going to talk about possibly implementing or researching, not implementing, sorry, just researching the idea of a quarter system as an alternative to the trimester. So, first, let's begin. It's now August 15th. I made my statements on February 22nd, 2012, shared governance is not being listened to that is why we have a huge protesting crowd with--at this meeting, that is why people are angry, that is why there is an emotional reaction, et cetera, et cetera. We will continue to hear this now except for now, it is not coming from me. It is coming from different speakers continually in different statements. When you look at the board packet on page 87, you see a legal opinion from Mary Dowell stating that the board and the superintendent president are the final authority on decision-making within campus. PCC has a long history of including members of the community, students, faculty, staff, I mean, I've seen classified staff, I even facilities on the shared governance committees and they are listened to within the committees. But then, when it gets to here, there is something lost in the process. And finally, how the merits or, you know, idea of quarter system been thought about because that is the system most students will be moving to whether we are prepared or not for that system, could be a question. The pros and cons could be a question but they have not really been thrown on the table. We have continually heard of the trimester or the removal of winter you said which is only one million dollars annually it might add. And while that sounds like a lot with 105 million-dollar budget, it isn't. It's chump change and I just want to make that clear. I think the possible pros might outweigh the possible cons of a quarter system, but if this was what, you know, that with shared governance, this kind of--this is just a preliminary idea, would be--I mean, would be found out. So, just to go back to what I said, the complaints about shared governance is meaning--really need to heavily be concerned expressive with the choices of switching to a trimester midyear when our calendar has already been approved. The legal opinion while we already do that as it is part of the shared governance process, that yes, you are the final authority, the board is the final authority. We understand that, that should be not discounting. That's very much what it came across when I was reading this board packet. And finally, possible considering it to an alternative of the quarter system to be looked at and vetted through the shared governance process because we continually run into this winter intercession issue. And time and time again, we continually hear complaints and no, we don't want the winter intercession. I mean, no we want the intercession, we do not want it gone. And just to repeat, one million dollars annually is just not worth the money saved to lose something that is so vital to students transferring. So, thank you very much for your time. [Inaudible Remark] [Applause] >> Professor Carol, you're up. [ Applause ] >> Again, thank you for letting me speak. And I apologize for my informal attire. I did not anticipate speaking today so I apologize for this. Let me first begin by offering a formal public apology to Dennis Hamby. As I was mulling over my words after I spoke, I think there is a possibility that he might have taken my words as insult to him thinking that I might be saying that he was lying and I did not meant it that way. And if you took it, I apologize. What I meant to say is the information that was given to him was incorrect. So, my apologies if you took it that way. Let me speak now into the--I'll be very brief, by the way, regarding these matters since I already spoke on it and since I'll be brief and I'll be under my time limit, maybe the Board Of Trustees can roll over my minutes for the next time. [Laughter] Let me begin by--I agree with the statement made by one of the Board of Trustees member saying, "How will this better serve our students?" I absolutely agree with that. And that is how we should always look at any type of decisions, how will this better serve our students? Currently, our students have four opportunities, fall, winter, spring, summer to move on, to improve their grades. The trimester will eliminate that. We'll have the spring, we'll the summer, we'll have fall, and there is no guaranteed of two summer sessions. So, one of them definitely will be eliminated. And I don't see how that will be beneficial to the students by eliminating the winter intercession. So perhaps, in your decision-making process, what I would like--really like to emphasize is if you can do some diligent work here in the sense that rather than basing your decision on information provided to you, maybe you can come on campus when classes are in session, when students are here, sit on the classroom, have a sign to come speak to you, ask them if they will benefit from the trimester or if they will benefit more from the current system that we have. Who better to ask than them? There is no sense in asking the administrator, no sense in asking a faculty, we are here for them. This is our purpose. And if you were to get information directly from our students to find out if they will benefit, I think you can make a very informative decision this way. So, when--as the weeks approach and you are discussing and decision to vote, I hope that by then, you have acquired the information from as many students as possible, not 10, not 20, but hundreds. Again, we have, I think, maybe 20,000, 30,000 students. So, as many students as possible to get that information I think would allow you to make a very good informed decision. Thank you. [Applause] >> Last public comment is from Ali [phonetic]. I don't see--did Ali leave the room? Oh, there she is. [ Pause ] >> So, I like to start this comment by saying thank you very much to our associated students because they have made the effort to gather information actually and put from students about this winter intercession under very short notice. So, that's kind of in response to the last comment. Kevin noted that students are angry and emotional and protesting but I would also like to add that we're pretty well-informed. And my memory goes back to the time when we were considering the cutting of winter intercession for the first time with Perfumo. And then again, only maybe a year and a half ago was Dr. Rocha when it hadn't been successfully vetted through the shared governance process. And when there was a lot of protest against this kind of decision making, and now, here we are again. And since 2009, we've heard the same reasons as to why we need to cut winter. And I don't understand how in the past three years, there hasn't been any concerted effort to gather data to say why this would be a beneficial cost-wise for the college. Additionally, as a transfer student, this has great impact on transfer to the UC system because courses from the summer cannot be transferred if you're going to transfer in the fall. So that would set back students an entire year. This kind of decision making if it's to move forward and the decision is made at the next board meeting without input really parallels the same kind of decision making we saw with the construction projects that are now three million dollar short. And now, we're having to dig in to our pockets and say, "Hey, what did we do wrong?" It's very clear what's going wrong and so, I ask that the board reconsider this method. Thank you. [Applause] >> So, Dr. Rocha, there is a proposed change in the student counter. We're not taking action tonight. Did you want to introduce some of the changes based on what's in the packet and any other--and then I'd like to allow the trustees to have a chance to ask. >> Yes, thank you President Baum. And the materials here and I won't make a long preamble, I'd ask Dr. Bell--ask Dr. Bell to make the presentation on the trimester and then to ask any questions. There have been many--many good questions that had been raised tonight and I think that they deserve good answers. So, thanks Bob and you're on. >> Thank you Dr. Rocha. Trustee Baum and the members of board, ladies and gentlemen, in the answers with time out, very brief, what I'm going to do is really go through and sort of highlight at the major proposals, principles of the proposed change in the calendar, is you have it in your board packets in the TAB O, so the detail is there for you. Much of what you've heard tonight is about the--what appears to be a sudden consideration for this change. I would suggest that it is a not a sudden consideration. I do believe that my time here that--I know that in my time here has been given great consideration. I know you've heard that there's been concern from previous opportunities and previous attempts to change from our current four-period session: fall, winter, spring, and summer, to a trisemester. Much of this today is a necessary move. It is born on the necessity of responding to what you've heard before from Vice President Miller, the fact that we are looking now if we go forward with mounting a winter class schedule for 2013 was really only represent 50 sections for students. And in my opinion, that's an inefficient academic period because students will not be able to access the classes that they need. So, that's one of the immediacy. Globally speaking, if we go to a trisemester and the concern that is presented about stu--whether or not students will be able to access classes. We will be able to put classes in the place in a trisemester. For example, if we were to move to that in the current spring 2013 class schedule, if it were to move a January start date versus the mid of February start date. And then the construct of that term length period of 16 weeks, we could in fact mount classes which would serve students for whatever need they have. We could pretty much parallel whatever classes student needed to access doing the normal 6 weeks period from January to mid-February, which would be traditionally a winter class schedule. Those could be mounted within the construct of a spring schedule which would start earlier in the calendar year. We could also put any term link forces in there or any other configuration of course is modular. For example, a 5-week, 5-week, 5-week configuration, classes right back to these other--so in fact, in many ways, it would excel--allows students the possibility of accelerating the access to classes across a spring semester if it started as early as January, early January then mid-February. The--another advantage is when we look at how our faculty currently meets the obligation of loading their full-time schedule. It's currently a done--for them across fall and then spring semester because clearly in the winter, in summer, it's not part of the faculty load. A trisemester, if you will, will allow the faculty the opportunity to be able to load their schedule across three academic periods as opposed to two. It would also move our summer class schedule up to an earlier start date. And by moving to an earlier start date, that date will in fact correspond more closely to the conclusion--our spring semester would correspond more closely towards the conclusion of the spring schedule. For most of our premier transfer institutions, it would also elevate our summer schedule to the earliest start time so students will in fact be able to complete courses in the summer. Time more effectively when those courses had to be available for transfer to four-year institutions. So, we parallel really what the receiving institutions are looking forward, one of the challenges I have experience for student very much indirectly obviously since I don't take classes is the fact that as one individual at this podium stated, it is a challenge for our students to be able to complete classes in the summer. And in fact, we have those done in time of the transfer. So, it would benefit students in that respect. You have in your packages the area where we had anticipated savings for what we would realize going to a trisemester. Again, I'm not going to detail out those savings, but as was indicated before, we anticipate that there would be savings somewhere in the neighborhood about 750 dollars--750,000 dollars excuse me, to the elimination of a winter intersession and moving directly to a trisemester--the spring semester moving up early. And another advantage not only to the district, but to students is that we would be able to develop a full-term summer schedule which would be comparable in length to the fall and the winter. It would benefit students to be able to take classes across that entire term length of the summer or any part of that summer, I eat earlier than when our normal summer period ends. So again, it would be advantageous to them to be able to transfer classes to receiving institutions. From the college's standpoint budgetary, it will also allow us the flexibility of being able to utilize the FTE generated in any physical year since those classes will begin much earlier than July--well, first would be the year we would have the flexibility of taking any FTES generated and a--in an academic year and have the option of taking those summer FTES and apply them to the current fiscal year or to the next fiscal year. So, it would give us a great deal more flexibility in responding to what our work load obligation would be from the Chancellor's Office and from the state. Now, ladies and gentlemen, those are just a few of the major highlighted reasons behind it. Another one I am going to point out quickly is operationally for the college. And I can tell you this as the vice president who oversees the student learning services side, it would be clearly an advantage to the operation side of the house also to the learning services staff and many of our staff who support the academic divisions if we only had to do three startups for registration as opposed to four, so that's an advantage as well. Those are some of the primary global, if you will, principles under the proposed change in the student calendar. Obviously, we change this, it would have an impact on our faculty and we're going to talk about what the impact the many change will be. But those are, if you will, the grounding principles behind it. And with that, I would be happy to take any questions from any member of the board. >> Thanks Bob. Okay, members of the Board of Trustees, questions, clarifications, or comments. >> Again, and I appreciate the presentation you made because the way I look at this decision is again, how will this benefit the college or will it benefit the college. And so, you've addressed that question and I appreciate that. I think that people who are on the other side of the argument, again, the same thing. Perhaps again, still the emotions a little bit and really look at that question, how is this going to benefit or will it not benefit students, will it not benefit the college. That's the key question as I consider this. And so, I appreciate the presentation you made. >> Trustee Israel? >> Well, you know, students are the largest constituent group on this campus and they've had overwhelming support for winter intersession starting from when they voted it in from a trimester system at PCC to now. I am a 3rd year PCC student and this will affect Ed plans if we implement this or if we vote to implement this within the '12-'13 school year. This will set a lot of students back in their Ed plans and they will not be able to transfer, I will not be able to transfer. I'm sure President Simon Fraser will not be able to transfer and this will-- >> Why not? >> Why not? >> Because we haven't completed our Ed plans and we're depending on winter to finish our Ed plans. >> Dr. Bell, did I hear you correctly? You know, because I'm confused now, okay. There's two things that we're talking about. Winter session which is a calendar issue and winter session classes, and I'm confused because I keep on hearing people conflate the two, that is connect the two. And what I heard you say is, and clearly the board understands, I think BRAC did not recommend and the board accepted in an action in open meeting that we would only run as many classes as the state was giving us an apportionment for. So, that's correct. So, given that, did I hear you say that no matter what we do with the calendar, that we're only running 50 classes in the winter session? >> The 2013 winter intersession would only encompass approximately 50 class sections. >> So, it would virtually serve no students except for the few fortunate ones I guess in certain disciplines that, you know--what do you--what classes are those, those lucky 50? >> To be perfectly honest Dr. Rocha, I can answer that we have not completely developed the winter intersession yet, so I can't tell you exactly which classes those would be. >> Right. >> It would obviously be focused primarily on classes for students who were in programs where they had to continue which would be more any of our allied healths for example. >> So, would this be fair to say and listen, I'm just, you know, because we are all--and the Board of Trustees is--and I think Trustee Thomson's question is spot on. I mean, what's best for the students? But if we do nothing, I am hearing that we're going to schedule virtually no classes in the current winter session and we will have no students here from the end of December to the end of February, but we will have our administration and staff here. >> Sure. >> Is that correct? What I have just said? >> Yeah, that is essentially correct. >> Okay. So we ought not to complete, tie together. Just because you're saving the winter session calendar does not mean that you're saving a single class. In fact, you've just pointed out quite well that students would have more classes in the winter, that is the winter in January, than they would have because we'd actually be scheduling 2,500 sessions. >> Right. >> That would start at the beginning of January. >> Right. Perhaps Dr. Bell would like to speak a little bit more to the--or repeat about the flexibility associated with an earlier start and also about the ability to manage our FTES over two fiscal periods and how we might be able to do essentially what we did last spring with Dr. Levo and other people's help which was to create certain courses to help complete students and get them out of here so they can move on to their four-year school. >> I'd be happy to do so and I hope in doing this, Trustee Israel, I get to your point and if I don't, honestly, I'll be happy to address it. Again, in the construct of a spring class schedule which would begin in January for example, early January as opposed to mid February, we have the flexibility of mounting any configuration of class schedules within reason. And obviously, we'd have to meet the necessary hours of instruction. But we couldn't mount what would an essence be the same class that a student would take during a normal winter intersession. We can mount that class session in the same time period, January to mid February. It would just be part of a spring semester as opposed to a winter intersession. We could mount classes again which would be modular in my terminology in the sense that there would be classes that would be accelerated. So across a 16-week semester, a student could take classes in 3, 5 week segments which basically would move through. Any in all of those configurations are possible as we did this past spring, mounting a special spring intersession where we put 12-week classes within the contract of the spring semester. We've funded all classes to the graduation fund. We've focused those classes on completion and graduation. Those are all concepts that we can do and we also have the flexibility since there is a source of funds in the graduation fund account to be able to configure classes within a spring class schedule to meet the needs of students as best as possible. And again, to the point Vice President Miller made about the FTES that we generate. Our FTES that we generate and count towards our work or obligation is FTES that is generated from July 1st of any fiscal year through June 30th of the next year. Typically, our summer classes count into the next fiscal year, the succeding fiscal year because many of those start dates are after July 1st. Any summer class or any classes offered at Pasadena City College would start date prior--on or prior to July 1st can be counted in the fiscal year or the following fiscal years. So for example, any summer class that we offered in the '12-'13 academic year that had a start date prior to July 1st of 2013 that FTES could be counted from its summer either in the '12-'13 year or we could count it forward into the 13th, 14th fiscal year. By starting a more full form, full term summer session, a summer trisemester if you will, with many of those start dates prior to July 1st. It gives the district the flexibility to be able to do that which is a valuable--value added in my opinion, given the fact that there are so much uncertainty coming from the state with respect to the budget and with the uncertainty that we will have with respect to what our work, what our obligation will be for '13-'14. >> Trustee Israel and Trustee Wah. >> I just want to finish my point. So between--when winter was first being discussed and now before these two available options, there was the option of having a very small winter would just GE, it's just general ed, now that's out, I assume. >> When we--I've mention in the discussion of roles that we were not facing the situation we are now. So-- >> Right. >> Among those 50 sessions, could they all be GEs? That is definitely a possibility. >> So does the administration think it's a good idea to put more class--or give--how do I say this? Make the student take more classes sooner before they live. Do you think that's going to be good for retention for a student to take more than they feasibly opt to just so they can get out in time for their transfer? That's--what I'm hearing is that there's going to be a front loaded more classes in the spring if the spring starts early. And so, students can get in and out in time. That's what I heard from you. >> Let me try this again 'cause what you just articulated, I'm not necessarily sure is what I try to convey so let me try this again. Just--this is the front loading Trustee Israel. My--what I was attempting to say is that if we mounted a 16-week spring class schedule, let's call it the spring class schedule but the starting date of that spring class schedule was for example, January 7th of 2013. Within that period, we can mount the classes that would normally have appeared in a 2013 winter intersession. Again, a 6-week session, those classes could be mounted into the spring class schedule along with alternating classes for that spring class schedule along with any other configuration of length of class, term and length of classes, short term classes within that semester. Now, if your question is specific, if you took that 6-week class that you would take in the winter intersession, the first 6 weeks of a spring session, would you in fact be facing a shorter timeframe to complete a class for the rest of the spring than you normally would? The answer to that will be yes. >> Okay. So, the administration's answer to this is to--and I'm just trying to get this correct in my head. For a student, in order for a student to transfer in time, basically, the answer is take more classes in less amount of time and condense them in less amount of time. >> What the purpose of this discussion and what we will be looking at if this came about for the 2000--calendar year 2013? That would be the case. And it would be the--the alternative would be a 6-week period in January whereas students would probably have no access in the classes. A little access in the classes, excuse me. >> Yes. Dr. Bell, I was just wondering, do we have any idea about how many students would be affected by the change? I mean, I know everyone would be affected by the change, but I guess I'm trying to figure out with the students who have these ed plans who are anticipating that they will matriculate within 12 months or less, how many might be affected and have to delay their matriculation? And would we be able to offer any especial counseling to help them either modify their ed plan to help them get out on time? >> Well, Trustee Wah, the answer the first part of your first question if you will, the number of students that will be impacted is a number that I don't know. It's a number that however I think we could relatively quickly obtain by looking at student's educational plans, determining which students had an ed plan which was authored with--had specific classes for winter 2013, and for this to--for the board to make this decision to go in this direction, then immediately, what we would do is identify those student's outreach to them, determine if they are still on path for that ed plan and seek again either within a normal construct to developing a spring class schedule or putting classes in place to a graduation, supported by a graduation fund. Put those classes in place and allow those students access to those classes. [ Pause ] >> And Trustee Brown--Trustee Fellow was next. >> I just--I think you already touched on this, but I'm--in the summer, it would be a 15 or 16-week semester, plus 5--like 3, 5-week summer sessions. >> The summer, Trustee Fellow, is would be again, a 15 weeks session. It could be mounted--[inaudible] doing this week, a 16-week summer session if you will which could be mounted as 2--8--2 distinct 8-week sessions, a 16-week term in class, 3--4-week classes, any configuration that you could do within the 16-week term period. Again, given a class that was--a class that was a need for students, obviously, one that could be developed and offered in there, and the one that met the necessary hours of instruction. >> Yeah, I think one of the big benefits is that if you did this to--the study of broad students would save tremendous amounts of money if you get them out by June 1st instead of right now. At our university, we're not offering much--we're offering 3 classes that are online when there is just no money in the state of California right now. >> Trustee Brown and Trustee Thompson. Any Trustee Brown? >> I don't have any comment. >> No, I think I've made my point. >> Trustee Wah and Trustee Israel? >> I don't have anything, but I think President Fraser-- >> Thank you, Trustee Wah. Obviously, the Associated Students has taken a position to support winter. The main reason, I would love to come to you with more substantive discussion on why we do or do not like the trimester. Unfortunately, the information on the pedagogy of it has been lacking. The studies just aren't there. As the institutional effectiveness report itself, it demonstrates that the only evidence we really have is from the K through 12 system. My main concern is that I know the disadvantages that removing the winter into session will have. And I'll be honest, I started in the winter. So, my very first semester at PCC was winter 2010 in the Communications 1 class. So, I found as a brand new student, a tremendous benefit to it and I will be here for another year probably, either way at this point but definitely, I'll be here for another year, so I apologize. The reason that we continue to support winter is, again, every student that we have spoken to and we have had numerous studies, numerous surveys as many opportunities to get involved as we can has said that they have benefited from winter and has give--have given us reasons as to why they've benefited from the winter. So that's why we continue to support it. We would love to study the trimester calendar because it is entirely possible that the benefits exist. Our concerns with the couple of the options that Dr. Bell has mentioned, if I was to take a short term 6-week class during the spring trimester and also a long term class, I'm not a perfect student, but I think--I'd like to think I'm a reasonably good student, but I know I would spend all of my focus on that 6-week class and not paying enough attention to my 16-week class. And that is the concern, is that then I would be front loading with short term classes. In order to get through the longer term, I would have--I will be behind effectively because I haven't given enough attention to the condensed classes. The configurational options, frankly, this is just too much, we don't know about how it would work out. And right now, to make the change immediately, I worry that we would--could potentially detrimentally impact students with how we offer the classes if we don't do it in the right way. I think we may be accounted to changes. Is it a good idea? I don't know, that's my honest answer. And I'd like to just make sure that before we do something that could affect how student learns, I wouldn't want to take three courses of math in four weeks for example or five weeks because that wouldn't be, in my view, having gone through the entire course now experience the best way to do it. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Trustee Wah? >> So Dr. Bell, to President Fraser's questions then, do we have models where we can say that that trimester or the compressed schedule has been put in place? That's sort of a hybrid I guess, trimester compressed schedule, and has it been successful? >> We--to your question and to President Fraser's question, there is not a great deal of empirical evidence and empirical research on trisemester. I mean for the part of the advantages of the winter intersession, part of that is given the fact that we are one of, I believe and I don't want to be quoted on this one, but I believe we're one of maybe only 18 to 21 campuses in the system that does not operate on a trisemester. And of those institutions, admittedly, we haven't--at least I haven't outreach to them to get the--that kind of empirical data that is something that my office is going to look to do. So we do not have that now. But for those institutions that are on an academic account and comparable to the one that we currently mount, we're gong to look to do that. And one of those campuses happens to be Santa Monica which is a campus against one we compared ourself a lot. So that will be the first campus to which we outreach. >> Thank you Dr. Bell for presenting--making the administration's proposal and walking us through that. Thank you, Dr. Rocha for sharing that as well. And we will continue the conversation when the recommendation comes to the board for action. >> Our next item is the--the next meeting is scheduled, so our next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, August 29th. I do intend and I will look to Dr. Rocha and Mary Thompson for identifying a venue for the meeting that we can continue to reach out to the district. If we don't have something that--I'm hoping that we can either meet in District 2 or 3 as originally indicated. If not, we will find another location. As well, the next meeting after that is on Wednesday, September 5th and that will be when we adapt the budget. And we are hoping to have a board retreat on September 15th, this Saturday and that venue is to be determined. Any question or discussion about future board meeting dates or venues? Future agenda items, we have a lot to talk about. Does anybody else want to introduce an item for future agenda? Therefore, I'll call the meeting adjourned. [ Noise ] [ Silence ]