>> I'd like call the meeting to order, Ms. Thomson, can we call the roll please. >> Mr. Baum. >> Here. >> Mr. Martin. >> Here. >> Dr. Fellow. >> Here. >> Ms. Brown. >> Here. >> Dr. Mann. >> Present. >> Mr. Thomson, Ms. Wah. >> Present. >> Ms. Israel. >> Are there any members of the public that wished to address the Board on any of the items on the Closed Session agenda? Seeing none, we will move into closed session. There are four items on the close session agenda under the appropriate government code's collective bargaining and negotiation with unrepresented employee in manner of employee discipline dismissed on release, and then the public employee evaluation of the president/superintendent. Moving to close session. [ Noise ] >> We need to-- >> I'd like to call the public meeting to order. There was no reportable action that was taken in close session. Mr. Thomson, will you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance? >> Yes. [Multiple Speakers] >> 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. >> For introductions, I'd like to turn to Trustee Brown who are hosting this meeting in her district and if there's any welcome that you'd like to offer on behalf of-- >> Well, thank you. [Inaudible Remark] >> I am so happy to be here and Northwest Pasadena among my constituents and I trust there are some in the audience. We have a very special meeting, so that tonight here where we'll be talking about the most important thing for our PCC which is the budget which is what's going to give our students classes or not classes. So, I want to welcome you if you're here and that's all I have to say, thanks. >> Trustee Mann, do you have any announcements or introductions you like to make? >> I don't have any introductions; I do have a brief announcement. I sent a personal letter for the graduation fund to about 178 people who I knew had supported me for the college in the past. And according to our Foundation Director, Ms. Abram, who had a very good response including one check for 5,000 dollars, so I must--it must have generated at least a couple 3,000 more. So I would like to encourage the other Board Members to think about sending a letter if we are contending with solicitation for the graduation fund, because this seemed that we had a note in the community. >> You are going to say there it goes again but I actually breached protocol again because there were--announcements are actually item K and I was lumping them in with a-- >> You mean, to take all that back? >> Yeah. [Laughter] Dr. Fellow, any introductions you would like to make? >> No, I'm just happy to be at Robinson Park today, thank you. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> This is a-- >> This is a quick introduction-- >> Oh, well, thank you-- >> We'll be doing announcements later in the meeting. >> Okay, well, thank you all for allowing us to be here and to address you and it's great to be in Trustee Brown's district to address you all. >> Mr. Thomson? >> No announcement or introduction. >> President Rocha, are there any other introductions you'd like to make? >> No President Baum. >> Wait, public coming on a non-agenda items, I want to make sure we have this absolutely full proof. That way, I've enlisted Dr. Fellow's assistance in processing the comment cards. Comment cards are being collected at the Board--the secretary's desk, and I think that--our cadet is noting the time of receipt of the card, they're being turned over to Dr. Fellow who will help me make sure that I don't misplace or misorder any of the cards. And so we're going to go to public comment on non-agenda items. Our public comment is governed by the rules we set forth in the--that are published here on the agenda. It said: members of public are welcome to address the Board to offer a comment on a matter that is not on the agenda submit a comment request card by the start of the meeting, to offer a comment on today's agenda, submit a comment, request card before the item is called and comment request will not be accepted after these times. Individual speakers are limited to five minutes. Total public comment on the agenda is limited to 30 minutes. And if there is anybody that has--this was modified. It's a--we will do it as our traditional practices, submitting a comment by the beginning of deliberation on that specific item. Trustee Fellow, would you help me call on the individuals who have submitted cards? >> The first speaker today is Eduardo A. Cairo, and on deck is Dustin Hanvey. [ Noise ] >> Good evening everyone. I'm here to inform you of the atrocious behavior of the Pasadena City College Police Department and the Chief of Police, Stan Perez. At the last Board meeting after coming to an oral agreement with the Chief of Police to allow one person in the meeting and one person left, the police only decided to stop allowing anyone despite our agreement. And ensuing chaos, I was hit by a cadet and a police officer. After Stan Perez came out and informed anyone that no one would be allowed into the room despite the fact that there were space and oral agreement, I demanded to be let in but he refused. I then told him that I wanted to file charges against the two individuals and a respondent that he would send somebody out to take my statement. After more than thirty minutes without anyone coming out to take my statement, I called the Pasadena City Police to file charges but was told by this Butcher [phonetic] that she would send a police officer to me. After another thirty minutes, I found the officer getting my statement and informed me that this matter was not within the Pasadena City Police Jurisdiction but would find someone from the college. Eventually, Sergeant Matchan, I believe, came out and he took my statement in what appeared to be a three by five card. Sergeant Matchan called me the next day and asked me to come in so he could ask me a few more questions about my complaint. But due to my neck and back pain that I suffered as result of the attack on my body, I told him that I could not make that meeting but would next week. And to the September 4th, yesterday, both he and Officer Perez asked me to go in to finish my statement. When I spoke to Officer Perez, I told him that I would be in class until about 5:35 p.m., he informed me that he had been very patient and did not wish to embarrass me in front of my class. I then asked him how long it would take and he said that roughly thirty minutes and I told him that I would inform my 2:35 class that I would be late because I have to go speak to Officer Perez. Wednesday, I was taken to either room B210 or B201--I don't quite remember where Officer Perez, Sergeant Matchan and I sat. Officer Perez proceeded to asked me to give him my statement about what happened that evening and I told him that I already did and he should read it. The environment quickly became hostile with Officer Perez repeatedly asked me to provide a statement to get to the truth of the matter and insinuating that I was lying. And I kept telling him that I already did and he should read my statement. Eventually, I realized that I was not there to complete my complaint, but to provide information for an investigation against me. I then asked to leave and was denied. I asked if I could use my phone to call my attorney and he stated that since I was not under arrest, that I was not entitled to a lawyer. I asked them what would happen if I refused to answer and he stated that there would be consequences but did not elaborate once again, allowing for the perception of him in arrest. After approximately 45 minutes, I was allowed to leave but once again, with the understanding that if it was necessary to ask me more questions that I needed to cooperate or there would be or there are could consequences. I am of course shortening the entire process. It is the deplorable that this college would allow this type of behavior against its faculty to occur. Whether or not my civil rights were violated is a matter for the courts. But to allow a representative of the social sciences for the academic senate, a part of the now-defunct Enrollment Management Committee or member of the Faculty Association Negotiating Team, a tenured faculty, as well as a veteran having honorably serving United States Marine Court to be detained in this fashion is absolutely atrocious. >> It's none agenda. >> This is not Guantanamo, nor is it the 1960s where authorities did not respect the rights of African Americans and Mexican Americans. Those days are over and for the Board of Trustees and the President of this college, and any other members of this administration to allow the Chief of Police or his department to continue to use his badge to treat anyone of this campus in this manner is shameful. Given his participation in this type of behavior towards myself, a tenure faculty member, I shutter to think how he and his department treat our students in that same room without any kind of representation, witnesses, and perhaps rights. To this date, I still--I am not aware if my complaint has been processed or even investigated. Finally, I ask the board and the administration for two specific items. One is to look into the disgraceful behavior of this department and the Chief of Police. And second, to disseminate information to our students, staff, and faculty as to what rights they have on this campus, what rights they do not have and what campus police can and cannot do to us on this campus, or perhaps the school news paper could undertake this task. Perhaps, we can use this incidence as a learning tool and I believe that by educating everyone on campus of their rights, this would eliminate or at least diminish any type of intimidation, law suits, or injuries to anyone in this campus. Thank you for your time. [ Applause ] >> Mr. Dustin Hanvey. [ Noise ] >> Good evening to all of you on the Board. I nervously take the extraordinary step of requesting this week to unite in public comment because I feel the need to speak to you and the public in the role of Dr. Dustin Hanvey, professor of English and father of three and not as Senate President. The speech is one long in the making. I love Pasadena City College. I came to this college very eagerly eight years ago after a decade of experience at the University of California and Los Angeles Community College District. Three days after my eldest daughter Mira was born, I came to campus, hospital tags still on my arm because I was so eager to work at PCC, well known for its exemplary students and commitment to learning. I have not regretted my decisions since. I have been fortunate to meet some of the most inspiring students in my almost two-decade career, students who remind me of the joys of learning, of achieving, of overcoming obstacles, and of receiving a second chance in life. I have been fortunate to meet some of the most innovative faculty, too many to mention, who continually remind me that the learning process never ends. I have been fortunate to work with the division of faculty and a dean, and Amy Ulmer who pushed me to improve and better serve my students. I have been fortunate to work with the Academics Senate colleagues who have reminded me that we are part of a larger system of shared governance that is meant to improve and move this institution to a strong or more vibrant even model community college. However, at over the last few years, I have noticed some troubling signs that concerned me deeply. During the campaign for Senate Office last spring, I was fortunate to meet and talk with many faculty across campus. In the course of those conversations, I was shocked by the number of people who told me that they are afraid to speak up for fear of being ridiculed or ashamed for expressing their views. Many have come to doubt that the shared governance process is working at PCC or can work at PCC, so they have become disengaged and dispirited. In that process, valuable voice that could offer ideas to improve the college are silenced. As a believer in civil liberty in the mode of John Stewart Mill, I strongly believe in the right of everyone to be able to speak freely and then the importance of mutual respect even in the face of serious disagreement. I have heard reports that some faculty are considering leaving this college or have--even have already left because of this climate. In saying these things, I am not pointing fingers or signing blame. We are all responsible for the state of affairs and we all bear responsibility for ending it. As the father of two public school girls and the son and grandson of public school teachers, I passionately believe in the importance of any--to any democratic--I'm sorry, as the father of two public school girls and the son and grandson of public school teachers, I passionately believe in the importance to any democratic society of the Jeffersonian model of public supported education, that belief is why I teach at PCC and why I have tried to become involved in the bodies that are working to improve this college. We all owe the public and our colleagues a climate of civility and true shared governance, a climate where people do not live in fear of saying the wrong thing that may upset the wrong person. I feel the need to speak for those silent people and this speech is my attempt to give their concerns a voice. We will disagree; healthy disagreement leads to growth as a society and campus. I'd like to commend Student President Simon Fraser for his measured call last week for a common respectful approach to these difficult issues and would like to second his call. We must pledge to do so in a way that understands that people have a right to their views and that people do have not have a right to be belittled for taking positions that we may find disagreeable. As Senate President, I personally commit to fostering this climate of civility and hope all in campus, faculty, managers, classified and students would do the same. Thank you. [ Applause ] >> Sam Resnick. [ Noise ] >> First, I'd like thank Robinson Park and Trustee Brown for hosting us and I'd like to specially thank Trustee Brown for being the only trustee member who has the courage to speak up and vote against President Rocha's trimester system and in favor of student success. And I am not going to get up here and talk about how important winter semester is because you've show in throughout my entire career at PCC and specially last week that you don't care about student voices. So I'm not going to waste mine tonight. But I'd like to take this moment to officially announce my recall campaign against President Geoffrey Baum of the Board of Trustees. If anyone would like to sign my recall statement of intent, I will be around for the rest of the meeting. If anyone has any questions about initiating a recall in their on own district, I will be around for the rest of the meeting. Thank you. [ Applause ] >> Kirsten Orcutt. [ Noise ] >> Hi, my name is Kirsten Orcutt and I've been looking into whether the Metro Pass that you guys require is legal or not and I don't believe in this, I believe it's breaking a lot because the Americans with Disabilities Act states that public entities may not provide services or benefits to individuals well excluding people with disabilities from programs that are only for like full-time students or whatever. People with disabilities cannot take--most of them cannot have full-time status because they cannot take twelve units. So we are--you are simply excluding the disabled, the majority of them because of that and I believe that that is breaking the law. So I hope that you're considering that the disabled student population be part of that Metro program. Thank you. [Applause] >> We have no further comments on that agenda items. >> Thank you, Dr. Fellow. And now we move on the item D, the approval of the minutes. Are there any corrections or changes to the minutes that any trustee would like to offer? >> Yes. >> Dr. Mann. >> In--on page four under the reports for the Trustees Dr. Mann where it says the governor will address this legislatively that should be the governor will address it administratively and that's--the one word should be administratively rather than legislatively. >> Okay, any other corrections or changes to the minutes? On agenda motion-- >> Motion to approve. >> I second. >> As corrected. Any further discussion? Advisory vote? >> Aye. >> All those in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Any oppose? Abstentions? Okay, the minutes are approved for the meeting of the 29th of August. Consent items. Trustee Israel, are there any consent items you'd like to call for discussion or a separate vote? >> Nothing. >> Trustee Thomson. >> No. >> Trustee Wah. >> None. >> Trustee Martin. >> None. Thank you. >> Trustee Fellow. >> None. >> Trustee Mann. >> None. >> Trustee Brown. >> None. >> That's a first. [Laughter]. Is there any discussion or questions about the consent items, or undertake--okay, motion to approve. >> Move approval of the consent items. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Motion by Trustee Mann, second by Trustee Wah. Any further discussion? Trustee Israel, advisory vote. >> Aye. >> All those in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Are there opposed? Any abstentions? Consent items carry. Now, we are going to move into a public hearing on the adoption of the proposed budget and fund allocations. We did receive a request that we are pleased to honor by the faculty association. We would like to make a presentation on the budget. But before we go into that presentation, are there any members of the public who wished to address the Board. Do we have any cards? >> We have one member, Mr. Dan Haley. >> Oh yeah. I'm going to open the hearing and then I'll recognize Professor Haley. >> Good evening. My name is Dan Haley, I'm one of the librarians here at Pasadena City College and thank you very much for allowing me to speak here tonight. I'd like to address one part of the proposed budget and there's a section in your packet dealing with capital outlay fund 41. Capital outlay fund is a little bit of misnomer, this is not a capital project's fund. This money is--the money that we've saved over the years by not expending all the money that we got in our general fund and this has been put aside as kind of a rainy day fund. Right now, there's 18 million dollars in this fund. The proposed budget proposes to spend down 10 million dollars of that amount. I looked at the list of what those expenditures are for and I see a lot of money going to construction firms, a lot of money going to software vendors. What I don't see is money going to students especially in regard to class sections. And I remember that all of you have said that students are your number one priority and you've also said that you'd do anything to add more class sections, and I wish that you would please consider using at least some of these funds to add more class sections. Thank you very much. [ Applause ] >> Okay, we have no other public comment cards so we will invite the faculty association to make a presentation on the budget. [ Noise ] >> Sorry, just give me one second here to put scale on here. [ Noise ] [ Inaudible Discussion ] >> If you could introduce yourself. >> Yes, I will. Hi, my name is Danny Hamman, I am a faculty member at CEC. I also served as the Academic Senate Representative on the Budget Resource Allocation committee, and I am the co-lead negotiator for the faculty association. Thank you for your--for the--thank you for your thankless work as PCC Trustees. Thank you for taking the time to listen. Your decision affects the lives of hundreds of faculty and staff and tens of thousands of students. I am here on behalf of the faculty association. We want to share what we are being told about the financial condition of the college and show the conclusions we've reached based on the numbers provided by the district. If there are any inaccuracies in our presentation, we welcome the administration's input on setting the records straight. We are only interested in making sure that facts are known. So decisions made by this body can be fully informed and negotiations can be productive. We are always interested in reasonable and appropriate cost saving measures. We are not opposed to appropriate prudence in these economic times. But any good thing taken to the extreme can become a bad thing. We need to remember that we are not a bank, we are an educational institution. We are not suggesting spending all of our reserves. Although dipping into them during tough economic times to provide a few more classes is what reserves are for. However, the numbers indicate that without dipping into the reserves, we can afford another year similar to 2011-'12 in which in spite of the budget cuts from the state, we ended the year with a surplus of at least 1.8 million dollars and it included both of winter intersession and 578 more classes. The suggestion of a budget crisis has led to recent decisions by both the administration and the Board that short circuit the deliberative process known as shared governance and negotiations. Of particular importance is the attempt to change the counter by eliminating winter intersession mid-year essentially in missed opportunity for students and effectively, a six-week furlough for faculty. The faculty are at least as interested if not more interested than the administration and the Board in the financial viability and stability of PCC. This is our livelihood, our careers. We have no interest in PCC failing financially. More importantly, we love teaching and we love the students we worked with here at PCC. Finally, faculty tenure tends to be much longer than administrators and Board members. We are reasonable people. We are willing to do whatever it takes to make sure PCC is the best educational institution it can be, as well as physically viable and stable. The fundamental problems seem to be a difference in what we believe the facts to be in the state of PCC's financial status. This is affecting decisions made by the administration, the Board, and negotiations. We have made similar presentations to the administration through the shared governance process and negotiations, and we received no explanations as to why these numbers or conclusions are wrong. There are two distinctly different narratives being told. On the one hand--on the one hand in February of this year, the Board was told that a letter was sent to the PCC community which read in part, fair warning and full disclosure. If you are hoping against help that PCC can solve its current budget crisis and yet preserve that status quo, this is going to be a difficult message for you. Can we end our budget crisis without making difficult choices in soon? No. Can we end our budget crisis without the end of business as usual? No. And later in that same letter, it read: But to make matters worse, this is now the fifth consecutive year that our annual operating expenses and enrollment have significantly exceeded our annual funding from the state. We have not balanced our expenses on current revenues since Dr. Costa [phonetic] retired in 2007. At that time, we did have some savings. Today, we have spent almost all of it. And as recently, as one month ago, the BRAC committee was told by the administration that our expenditures were approximately 120 million dollars a year and our expected revenues for 2012-'13 were about 105 million dollars, leaving us with about a 15 million dollar deficit. Along with this came a proposal of possible ways to bridge this gap which included among other things furloughs for non faculty, the elimination of winter intersession which is effectively a furlough for faculty for six weeks which at that time, the administration said they must negotiate with the FA. If this narrative is true, we don't understand why the administration would recommend and the Board would approve the hiring of 30 new employees the expenditure of 8.5 million dollars moving people out of the U Building, that's 2.3 million dollars over the budget and building that in the spring of 2011, the administration declared unsafe and determine it had to be evacuated by August 2011 in part, based on studies as old as December 2007. That study by the way found three other buildings with the same category, five risk factor, Building C, Building R, and Building E, and two other buildings with worst risk factors: the Sexton Auditorium and the W Building. Yet students were using this unsafe facility as recently as two weeks ago, one year after the self-imposed deadline of August 2011. And today, I was in that building because our faculty association offices are still there. The cause of this unnecessary project, 8.5 million dollars would fund 1, 700 sections, that's over six winter intersessions. The overrun on this alone, 2.3 million would fund 460 sessions, about few winter intersessions. On the other hand, the numbers tell us a different narrative. According to our year-end operating statement in financial status report, we have been living well within our means. This is a chart of our year-end transfers. It's a spreadsheet with year-end suites for the past five years. It demonstrates that our revenues have exceeded our expenditures. Let me just get my pointer here so I can point out couple things. Resulting in surpluses, an average of the last four years of about five and a half million dollars, the surplus is 2007-'08 --the dark number at the bottom, some of it goes to other out goods, some of it is in the increase in revenues. But you can see for this year, it's 1.8 million. Last year, it was almost 5 million, et cetera, et cetera. The average is about five and a half million over the last four years, every year that we have had revenues more than expenditures. Yet we are told the operating expenses have exceeded our state funding since 2007. It demonstrates that our general reserves or savings as of June 30, 2012 is about 20.7 million, that's this number right over here. We had 18.9 million; we added 1.8 million this year at ten percent increase in reserves and it's about the 18 percent of our budget. The state requires three to five percent. Again, I'm not suggesting we go down to those numbers at all, but I'm just saying that there is money there for some more classes. I have presented these numbers in the BRAC committee and there has been no disagreement as to the veracity of these numbers. But again, if there are any inaccuracies in our presentation, we welcome the administrations and put on setting the record straight. We are only interested in making sure the facts are known so the decisions made by this buddy can be fully informed and negotiations can be productive. We believe we have made adjustments in taking cost-cutting measures over the past few years in light of the state budget problems. The fact that we ended 2011-'12 with a 1.8 million dollar surplus is evidence of this. Among other things, the faculty association negotiated an early retirement incentive that has resulted in the bottom line savings to our annual expenditures in excess of 10 million dollars a year. This is a copy of the--our quarterly financial status report. This is the year-end one for 2011-'12. It's a very important document. On the second page and the most important part on this document in my opinion at this point, it's--on page two of this document is a question that reads: does the district have significant fiscal problems that must be addressed this year? No, the answer, next year, no. The next page shows the signatures of our chief business officer and our CEO verifying that this is their statement. But we are told there's a budget crisis requiring difficult choices and the end of business as usual. Yet, this document says that the district does not have any fiscal problems that must be addressed. Okay, this one, all right. No, it's not coming up, didn't work. All right, I know, you can't read this one, I'm not sure if I'm going be able to get this one up but I'd see if I can--this is the annual operating budget--here we go. The 2011-'12 year-end operating statement. Some key facts I just want to point out on here, our budgeted expenditures, the expenditures is the bottom half down here and at the top, I just want to point out is an adapted budget and then we get to actuals, I'm going to stress the actuals but I just want to mention our budget here. So our expenditures, our budgeted expenditures were 16 million. Our actual, that's this column here, were 10.4 million--I'm sorry, 110.4 million. So we budgeted a 116, we actually spent 110.4, that's 5.6 million dollars under budget, okay? We also received--again, I'm sorry, the heading is on all the way on here but up at the top you can see actual to date what we received was 112.2 million. So if you take the 112.2 million that we received, we spent the 110.4 that left us with 1.8 million in surplus and at the bottom, I know it's very hard to read, but that's 20.7 million dollars in general reserves as a result as of June 30th. [ Noise ] Oh, let's see, I got to go back. See, how do I go back? Oh yeah, sorry, I got to get back to my presentation here, I don't use this computer all the time. There it is. There it is. This is a document--this is a 2012-'13 budget in tonight's board packet, some key facts to note. The expected revenues for this year are 109.5 million and our budgeted expenditures of 111.4 million. That's one million more that we will expend this year than we spent last year and yet, we are cutting 578 sections, we're hiring 30 new employees, we're cutting winter intersession, we're short circuiting both shared governance and then negotiating process yet we're spending a million more this year than we spent, than we actually spent last year. This is the difference between a budget and your actual expenditures. So this brings me to a summary of what we discussed. So these are the numbers straight off the operating budget where we have a total expenditures of 110.4 million. We have total actual receipts of a 112.2, I believe we got another 2.4 since then, is that right? You know? >> Yes, I think. >> Yeah, we did. We got another 2.4 and then there's another 2.9 that's being deferred. So we're only being in deferred a total of 2.9 for last year. So that left us with this total surplus of 1.8, okay? So, since then or in the interim as the--due to the "Budget Crisis," the administration has suggested cost saving measures, some of which have already been implemented in the amount of about 6 million dollars. This was in a document in the board packet 829, page 33. You can see the total amount, I don't want to get into all the details but it included the cutting of sections and some reassigned time savings, vacant positions, et cetera, I think you all saw that in the Board packet. If you subtract that from the actual expenditures, so here's our actual expenditures from last year, 110.4 million, you subtract the cut--the cost savings that have--some of which have already been implemented by the college. Then the total expenditures for 2012-2013 without any other changes, that means within intersession and with the 500 and--sorry, not the 578 sections, but with the winter session, you would have a total expenditures of 104.5 million dollars. We have revenues, as I just showed you, expected revenues of 109.5. That leaves a surplus of 5.1 million dollars for next year. This does not include the expected savings of 589 thousand dollars which is really only a half of one percent of our budget, that if intersession is cut. There are variety of other cost savings measures that I haven't calculated into here but they include the savings on--for people that have retired, the ones that retired in December, we only realized half of their savings last year, for the last half of the year, and the people that retired in June, we didn't realized any of those savings in last year's budget. In addition, we were told we would save 750,000 dollars by the LED lights that were put in. My next question is: what if the Prop 30 does pass? That's another 6.7 million dollars to PCC that could be used for classes. In conclusion, the narrative told by the numbers indicates we don't have a budget problem. However, we are always interested in reasonable improvements and efficiencies and taking appropriate cost saving measures as long as the primary goal is the best interest--is in the best interest of the students, pedagogically, sound educational practices, and as long as faculty, staff, and students are fully involved in the process. Thank you again for you time. [ Applause ] >> Thank you professor Hamman. Before we go to the next presentation, is there any other--do the trustees have any questions or points of clarification they'd like to ask? Professor Hermann Lorenz [phonetic]. >> Here. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> I'd like to call on Renee Graves with the Vicenti, Lloyd, and Stutzman. Who else would like to address the Board? [ Noise ] >> Thank you very much and you have the best working air conditioner over there in the corner so. [Laughter] I may be in the hot seat but that's just a good thing 'cause on that side of the room, it is very cool. Actually, I just have some very brief comments that I would like to share with you in regard to the budgeting process for the 2012-2013 budget that is being presented to you this evening. Basically, the process was--I choose that process if you will, I started with budget assumptions. And then from the budget assumptions, it moved into putting numbers into the budget document. So my responsibility as an independent third party was to review those assumptions. And I reviewed them based upon industry information and industry standards. When she was determined that these budget assumptions were fair and reasonable, we then moved into reviewing the numbers that were put to those budget assumptions. So looking at both the budgeted revenues and the budgeted expenditures to verify that they were reasonable and consistent with the budget assumptions that were devised, all of that was done. As part of that process, we also verified revenues based on information we obtained by third parties, information that we obtained from the chancellors office, the California League of Community Colleges, the Controllers Office, and also the Department of Finance. So there, we tied out a lot of the major revenue streams that you have in your unrestricted general fund, apportionment, some categoricals that are recorded within that fund, property taxes, enrollment fees, lottery revenue, and those various revenue streams. The next area we focused on were expenditures, going back to the budget assumptions that were originally devised, we looked at positions, we looked at salaries, I looked at the benefits that are associated with those salaries as well as preparing an analysis of the various expenses we had for administrative and support cost. As a result of all that work that was done, it is my conclusion that the budget prepared by management is reasonable and based on sound practices. >> Are there any questions of Ms. Graves? Go ahead. >> If you had a chance to go over the information that we've just had presented to us by the predecessor speaker. >> I had looked at your Board packet for the evening and had printed out those documents, the one that were present is kind of little bit different then it was on included in your Board packet. The one comment that I can make is that the expenses, the savings of 5.9 million, I believe, that was indicated as not included in the '12-'13 budget would not be a correct statement, those amounts are included in the budget numbers. There are things that are offsetting those savings. There are salary increases, there are vacancies that are being filled, and some very key positions, so those are some increases that are included in this budget. There are items that--and I can probably have--if manager wants to help me out here and see if my memory is correct, there are some items that were not funded in the prior year that are included in this year's budget, the big one is being the contribution to your GASB 45 obligation or to--I believe you refer to that as Fund 64, that is included in this year's budget. So there are some additions that are in the budget that were not picked up in the previous presentation. >> That's very helpful and I guess what colleague of mine on the--on my days is a council of Pasadena, John Crowley used to say that we have not to argue over the facts, the numbers of the numbers, we have to deal and reach agreement on those. And so to have two very different presentations given with your lies in the same way--the same information and the same facts, it's kind of frustrating and difficult to come to some resolution of this. So I've--it would be very helpful if--I don't know when our deadline is by which we have to take action on this. But it will be very helpful if we get the--in some way, get to the bottom of the difference in the numbers and the facts and then figure out where we are. >> Check--before--do you want to respond this to what the deadline is for the adoption of the budget? >> It's-- >> I want to say September 15th is the deadline. >> Trustee Wah? >> On the budget, does this is also include the encumbered or allocated funds that may be aren't being shown in the line item so we know that they are already tagged or designated for a certain expenditures so is it-- >> Those would be included in the budget. There are certain amounts. If services were provided by June 30th, then those were accrued as a liability at June 30th. So that amount is already taken now and reflected in that ending surplus amount. But then, other amounts that are encumbered would be included in the budget for this next year, I mean you have some encumbrance-type items that are multiyear commitments, an example of that would be the SERP payment that you need to pay over, I believe it's a five-year period. So that is not--the full amount is not budgeted. It will be budgeted on an annual basis as each of those payments are due. But that would be considered a designation of your ending fund balance. So--and I know in prior presentations, we just talked about the fund balance as a total amount, about 2,700,000 million figure but all of that is not available for spending because there are certain designations that are required under GAAP accounting, governmental GAAP accounting. >> Thank you. >> Dr. Mann. >> I don't think that there's a difference in the figures since the presentation we just saw use many of the numbers that came from the college, I mean we were using our own budget figures. To me, it's a difference in the interpretation of what can be done with that. Now, I distinctly remember that we had a presentation about cash flow. And the possibility of which we were alerted to by our auditors over a year ago that we almost run out of money a year ago, it could cost, our payrolls what? 20 million dollars a month and projecting it out, we could see that if the state does defer the payment as the governor has said he will do where there or not Proposition 30 passes or not that we will reach a point where we will probably have to borrow money, is that correct? So I don't think that we're saying we're not agreeing that we have this amount of money in the reserves. I think my understanding is it's there because of this system that the governmental--that the governor particularly has of deferring our payments and that we have to be able to make our payroll. And I think all of the faculty in the room would agree that they would very much like to get their checks every month, am I correct on that? So I don't think we're disagreeing that there's 20 whatever million dollars. I think we're just--I think the question is that the Board, in my understanding when we actually took the action to authorize the loan projected that that money would run out sometime around November or so and that we might have to borrow money regardless of whether or not the governors initiative pass. It's also my understanding that the governor has indicated that even if the initiative passes that we will not actually get any additional funding until may be May. And so there is a possibility of even longer deferrals. That's what they're saying particularly from the--you mentioned the community--California League of Community Colleges and I'm on the Board and I have heard many presentations on that, that's my understanding so I actually don't see that there's any difference in the numbers of Trustee Thompson. I think the difference is in the understanding of what those numbers mean and what we can do with it. Except may be these numbers she was talking about, about different things. But the 20--what is it? 20.6, 20.8,-- >> 20.7 >> --20.7, I was almost there. We're not saying that that's not there. I think what we're saying is that we have to have it there for cash flow. And so for that reason, I feel comfortable with approving the budget as presented by the administration. >> So before you'll do that-- >> No, I'm not--I'm not going to--that was my question. >> Because I want to then go and do the procedural mode operation of closing the public hearing. >> Yeah. >> And then moving into item G which is now a--for consideration for the Board. >> Okay. >> The adoption of the budget and if there's further discussion, then we can go into that there so, and so there's--item G is the actual action before the Board recommended budget. And so I want to open it up to the board members. >> Did you [inaudible] the hearing? >> I did, I did. >> Okay, sorry I didn't hear you. >> There you go. >> It was a very light laugh. [Laughter] [Inaudible Remark] >> And so, is there an additional presentation? >> Well, all I would do is this. I would ask that we do not have a presentation. I would ask Senior Vice President Miller and Mary Discavo [phonetic] to the table so that they can assist in answering any questions. And in presenting item G on the agenda to you, I would say this, first of all, the adaption of the proposed '12-'13 budget and fund allocations is all right there for you to see. This is the fourth and final draft of this budget, the first draft of it based on the assumptions that Ms. Graves we're talking about was first presented to you on July--at the meeting of July 18th in Altadena, if you recall that. The--and in the course, we encourage your questions but I think that you have all of the issues properly framed. It is a budget on July 18th, the budget that we presented in terms of responding to the budget crisis and it is a budget crisis, I don't know of any independent accountant of any public agency or any public school or any public community college in the State of California would define what we are in as anything rather than a budget crisis. The revenue to the college and to all public agencies has plummeted. So that is certainly a fact. As of July 18th meeting, this budget does take from reserves almost 2 million dollars in order to balance it. You will notice that our expenditures this year which are 90 percent of the budget, which are far into the red zone of the percentage of salaries and benefits to total expenditure are actually up over last year. In July 18th at that meeting, the Board gave the administration clear guidance and its guidance was basically twofold. That it wanted a balanced budget and if you recall, I proposed essentially taking more money out of reserves by borrowing money to make up still more of the shortfall. The Boards clear guidance--the administration on that date was not to do that. So we have returned with a budget that is open, correct, credible, and has been completely supervised by an independent accounting firm. So, I submit it to you for adoption. >> Okay. So we have a recommendation from the administration about the budget. Is there a motion to approve--adopt the budget as presented? >> It's all moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. So there's a motion of second. So now, there is discussion on the budget as presented, are there any further questions that Board members have? I have a question but I want to see if any others do, Trustee Thomson? >> Well, the history of the--how we got to where we are at this evening is certainly important. But what I find somewhat disconcerting is that--if we assume that we agree on the 20.7 million dollar surplus that our accountant has mentioned, so let's just assume for purpose of our discussion that we agrees on that number. Where we differ is to how that numbers is going to be spent, I would like to have that presentation particular in light of what we've been present--excuse me, presented this evening by the faculty association so that we can get our arms around this, and knowingly, make a decision based upon what we believe to be the best information we have. >> What--can you rephrase the question? I've got a little lost there. >> Well, you've got one group saying, we've got money leftover, we don't have to go out and lay off or cut sections or lay off people or do a way at the winter intercession or anything else. We have the administration same way as we do. We seem to agree or at least I'm suggesting we agree for purposes of our discussion that we have a surplus of 20.7 million dollars, what's the difference? >> I'm not sure if I'm understanding exactly the difference for the 20 million 700--I think the difference is in the total expenses and whether they are--I'm sorry, those are new things for me so I haven't figured it out how to work this system out here. But I think the difference that you're trying to discuss is the total expenditures on the budget are 111,000, what's being proposed-- >> 111 million. >> I'm sorry, thank you, a 111 million. And the proposal on the earlier presentation is to reduce that amount by 5.9 and expenditures, would there be 104 million. And the information I don't have at fingertips are what amounts were added to the budget to come up with that 111 million. The 5.9 million has been taken out of the budget by this cost saving measures, but there are amount that have been added to it because of positions, funding of your GASB 45. You have new buildings that are coming on line that have additional utility cost, supply cost. Cost in general are increasing, gasoline cost, utility cost are increasing just in general. >> And, in addition to that, we're moving roughly 900,000 dollars of software cost and business education cost that were funded for several years out of the Fund 41 into the operational line items where they belong. So, although we won't take the time now unless the board wants, I could actually go through this summary page by page and show you where all of the increases are by way of increases in the--for example, our SERP expenses are 1.4 million dollars that we're funding. Our health is at 5 and a half percent across the board. >> Where are those cost increases summarized? >> For example, if you look at page seven on the budget summary which is there. And if--under employee benefits, that's correct, yes. The series increases are at 8.25 percent of our overall. Our health welfare, the 3,000--the 3411--33491 that's at 5.5 percent. >> Right there. >> Down at the bottom, where it says pars--I'm sorry, where it says 3911, 33930 that's where the par SERP expenses are. That's an additional expense of 1.4 million. So-- >> Well, in general I mean, the total benefits was 24.2 last year and this year, you're recommending 25.2. So in general, though the numbers of staff have gone down, the benefits have gone up a million dollars-- >> That's correct. >> Actually, the benefits--that 24 was the budget, the actual was 23 million. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And then it's gone up a million? >> Right. >> So-- >> Whatever it's going up, so that's part of it. >> That's part of it. I mean, I could go through page by page and actually--and be able to pick this out and show you where it is. And that was part of the budget exercise and the hard work that Mary and her staff and others at the college management will have you worked on. We had to balance this increased cost with their decreased revenue and try to maintain service levels to best extent that we could. Those 578 sections that unfortunately we can't fund right now, if we did fund them, it cost us over 3 million dollars, that we don't have. >> I have a question, but go ahead Trustee Thomson. >> Go ahead. >> I want to give back because I--in addition to the point made by the faculty association, I heard it from others. Why wouldn't we indicate on our quarterly financial report that there are significant financial problems facing the district? >> Well, I'm going to ask, I'm going to ask Renee speak to that but I would say this, one of the reasons why I signed it as no is because we are fiscally sound and that in order to stay fiscally sound, we're recommending this budget to you. On the topic of the 20 million or 18 million, not all that is cash, first of all. And secondly, a lot of that as I think was earlier mentioned by Rene is has--it's already allocated--it's already accounted for and not necessarily available for funding classes or things like that. It's complex in that regard. >> Now, you represent a lot of other districts. Under what circumstance would the district indicate that there are significant financial problems facing it? >> Often times, it become a political response back to the chancellor's office. Occasionally, I will see a district that answers yes in that and then has a laundry list of all the issues that they are dealing with the state budget cutbacks increase cost and benefits and they will have a super expanded paragraph explaining all of the difficulties that they are encountering. And it's really--it's more of a political statement back to the chancellor's office. There have been--I would say one or two districts that have truly been in the financial situation, the one that comes to mind there is Compton Community College District when they were about to lose their accreditation. And they, of course, answered yes in that category but by foremost districts will answer no in that area because they do have issues that they have to deal with but they are dealing with them. So it's not a point that they are asking the chancellor's office to come in and provide any type of assistance or talk even--even getting close to talking about putting in administrative trustee or something of that nature. >> So, what are the ramifications of answering yes or no on that question? What are consequences? Does it trigger any type of action one way or the other? >> Not in less than numbers support it. So if your percentage of fund balance is below that 3 percent required reserve, if you're below the reserve and you're saying yes, that would trigger response from the chancellor's office. If your percentage is over and you're saying yes, it is being interpreted as more of a political statement. And the chancellor's office will not contact them. There--a number of years ago, there was the watch list. I don't know if that's a com--or a term that's familiar to any of you. But that was based more on the percentage of the reserve versus what was indicated on the 3/11 queue. >> And I'll just add, the ACCJC accrediting body has basically indicated that they are actually going to begin with a watch list, if you will, from the accreditation point of view in the area of fiscal--fiscal matters, that's something we know about. >> Other trustees have questions. >> I'll make a statement and then we'll move to a vote. But the two most important things that trustee does is hire and manage the president of the district and adopt the budget. And I don't dispute a lot of the numbers that Professor Hamman came but the budget is a statement of principles about how the district is going to be governed and what--where we're going to focus our resources. And not withstanding the pledge that I made to the people of my district and others was to manage the finances very conservatively and there may be people that might want you to spend money one way or another. I feel very comfortable with the principles of the administration of the district as articulated by the budget and I will continue to hold the administration accountable for those numbers and I honestly believe this that the decisions we made last week and this week will actually do go a long way to helping us improve access and ensuring there's more seats available for students both in the spring and in summer semesters. So, I think this is a move in the right direction and support the budget. >> Trustee Martin? >> I'm going to make some general comments related to the budget. First, an answer to the reconciliation issue between the FA presentation and this budget. It's hard to do that sitting here on the fly but if I go to page 10 of the handout, I don't know if people in the audience have it. And you--I'm going to compare this year's budget to last years adopted budget and I'm going to go down to the total outgo, okay. We see last year was 116 and this year, 160 million--this year is a 111 million, that's about a 5-million dollar cut this year over last year. And I think that FA presentation showed us about 5 or 6 million dollars of cuts. I think, it's cluster to 6 and 5 up on the board and then when we add back the million and benefits that we saw back on page 7, we would say that if we started a 116 and we cut--you know, and you cut 6 and you add back 1, we're at the 111. So, that to me is a very over simplistic to the million reconciliation between the two presentations. The other issue then is up under total income. So total income last year, not counting the reserve, I'm just focusing on the actual new money in is a 116 million last year and this year is 109. So--and I think everybody agreed on that. It's our best guess at the moment. Who knows what's going to happen in November is 109, that's the 1.8 difference that both the administration has said we had an extra 1.8 last year and we're putting it into this year. So, for everybody's sake to me, short of somebody spending hours on it, that's an over simplistic reconciliation between the two presentations. I then want to address reserve. So, we know we have 20 million dollars in reserve and I think everybody agrees that we have 20 million dollars in reserve but we have to understand what is reserve. Reserve is a number on a page. Reserve is what would be equivalent of net worth if--it could almost simplistically say if I bought a 400,000-dollar home and I put a hundred thousand on my money in and I borrow 300,000, I have a reserve of a 100,000 in the home, you could say that, okay? Roughly speaking, it's the equity portion that we have, that's what it is. So, the issue that we then face is the delicate balance between that reserve is not necessarily in the form of cash. So that's where I made the analogy last week that yes, on paper, you know, we could go 2 million in the whole on paper for 10 years and we'd still be--we'd still, for all intense of purpose say, we still, you know, not even, we're not in debt in total. But the problem becomes then not the paper version of the reserve, but at some point, if were borrowing money throughout the course of the year for cash flow purposes, then we have to start budgeting extra money on the page the following year to cover the interest of that portion, and in some ways, slowly is like a snowball that kind of starts on the top of the hill and starts rolling down. If you don't stop the snowball, eventually, you are--agrees where you're servicing a huge debt and because you're servicing a huge debt, you have to pay a higher interest rate and the ball starts rolling faster and faster. So we currently in the college and now, we're getting into an individual's kind of risk tolerance shall we say for debt. We certainly are nowhere near a grease [phonetic] down on the bottom of the hill with a fast moving snowball. But obviously, the fact that we're borrowing trend, that we're borrowing from other funds, we--certainly, our snowball is moving, may be slowly but it's moving. So, that puts us in a delicate balance. Had we not been in a situation where the state was differing cash and in my opinion, I keep saying that in some ways, we ought to just take a portion of the reserve and say this is what the state differed; this is the working capital reserve. This is the part that if the state ever gets caught up to where it was, we should figure out a better way to deploy this. But in the meantime, that's not the case. And then you have your emergency reserve which is the 5 to 8 or 10, whatever number you want to pick, that is okay if the big one hits today, what are we doing, you know, so that kind of reserve. So, I think part of the delicate balance we have in talking about the numbers is it's easy to focus on the paper numbers but we need to be careful that we--the way that there was--the cash is deployed doesn't put us in a fast moving snowball going down the hill eventually where students, 5, 6, 8 years from now are getting classes because money is going to pay down debt and that's what I'm concerned about. Now--and then finally back to this winter intersession, I do and firmly believe, I want to put every dollar we possibly can in that seats. I mean, I want to see people get taught. To me, the shifting of the 16 and 6 instead of having 6 and then 16 and changing that to a full winter intersession or full spring of 16 with a potential of 6 on the end says, now we can offer students first week of January, thousands of students, lots of classes, keep people employed and the depending on what happens in November and depending on what happens, we can still take whatever extra money reserve, whatever we had and deploy that in the 6 week at the end in that summer section and offer more classes. It's not like we can't do that if the money is really there, we're just affording a way to reach out to the most students possible at the meantime with a full deployment of winter spring now. And so to me, that is a budgetary question that's why it comes in here and I haven't given up hope, that instead of--instead that it's a battle over the winter, it's not really--in my mind, it isn't a battle of winter, winter is going to be here. It's going to be bigger and better than ever because winter is spring. And what I'm worried about is what happens after spring, can we offer many section or classes as possible for students in the summer. [Inaudible] said to make up for what we may have lost here. So, that would be my reconciliation, that would be my perspective, it kind of comes down to how much are we willing to go in debt. So, let's talk about what does it mean going in debt. Many times, you would take a debt for hopes in the future that there would be a return. In other words, let's separate debt. Let's separate debt to do some improvements such that there will be more income in the future and investment, that's called an investment. As opposed to debt which is basically just spending over your means which is more or less like agrees. Regrettably, though our purpose and mission is student success and offering every class section possible, investing more in a class section now does not mean--it is not really an investment, it is an expense. It comes at the risk of the class section, that summer section. Or it comes at the risk of incurring debt and not being able to offer more classes to students two years from now or four years from now or six years from now. So it is an exactly at a debt investment where it comes back to us in some kind of benefit. In fact, as quite the opposite, it's causing us interest working against ourselves in the future. So that makes me a little more cautious to go in debt. I'm excited we're using the extra from last year, a compliment to college certainly on doing that. I think what have on the page is a reasonable--is a reasonable budget to do the best we can with what we've got. And of course, we can make adjustments. Post November, we can make adjustments, post negotiation settlements and everything else that all these unknowns. So in my mind, I was hoping you're going to make this presentation. I mean, I thought you were going to come out like some of this. But in your absence, this is what I've been hearing, this is how I've been trying to follow this numbers, this could be my perspective on it and I'm just really slow to be one that wants to see the snowball going any faster down the hill leading us towards any kind of a greasy situation in the future where we're cataclysmically cutting massive amounts of a class sections for future students. So, I think that's to me what I'm watchful of. >> Trustee Mann. >> Yes, I just want to make a brief comment. I am very concerned on page 10 where you look at compensation as percentage of its income and you see 90 percent. Those of you who have not read the letter that was sent to San Francisco Community College District by the accreditation commission when they were given show cost, why they should not close up and go out of business should really look at it and one of the things that was cited was having 90 percent of their budget in salaries. This is like 5 red lights circling around. So, I'm willing to vote for this but I think this is real dangerous signal and we need to be aware of that and we need to try to figure out how we can bring this down. I'm glad Vice President Miller mentioned that the accreditation commission is coming out with these financial guidelines and these reports because I think everyone was kind of taken back. First of all, that have college with the size and reputation in San Francisco was put on, you know, show cost. They are developing two plans. One plan, how to get out of this, the other plan, how to close a college in 6 months, so this is a very--and this is very, very, very serious. So, I think it's a good thing for us to be aware of and I would encourage everyone to go on the ACCJC's website and read the other 13 things that they were cited for. And I know that the board is going to discuss this and that I think we all really need to be aware that in 2015, we will be reviewed for accreditation and we all need to start working together to try to make sure that we meet the standards in a way that's acceptable, and reducing this 90 percent is going to have to be something we don't have to look at in the future. So I'm please to vote for this but I think we should be aware that there are some really dangerous things beyond the possibility of going in debt in this budget. >> Trustee Thomson. >> Two quick comments. One, I think it's really very unfortunate that we are where we area this evening with devouring views over the numbers and what the numbers mean, and whether it's interpretation or whatever else. This had been resolved a long time ago. Second, I think Trustee Martin has put his finger on those that the budget is not something written in concrete depending upon what may happen in November or whatever else. Budgets can be changed and often are changed as the year goes along so I don't think that we're taking actions this evening, if we take action and it's going to be eradicable [assumed spelling] and I think that's important to keep in mind as well. >> We will move to the question. We'll start to with the advisory vote. >> Aye. >> All those in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Any abstention? >> Okay, the budget is adopted. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Moving on to item H. Doctor Rocha, there's a recommendation for the adoption of our again appropriations limits. Would you like to explain the background on this? >> Yes thank you President Baum. This is a, if you will, a routine annual item began appropriations limit. This was--you remember years and years ago, the Jarvis-Gann folks that wrote into the California code limits on appropriations and spending. Do I have that right, Bob? >> Yes you do. >> So this is a complaints item that ensures the board that for what it is worth, we only wish that we were up to 177 million. >> Right. >> For what it is worth, we are in compliance with the Gann [phonetic] code and I move that this--I recommend this for approval. >> And this is a--motion by Dr. Mann second by Dr. Fellow. Any further discussion? Okay, advisory vote. >> Aye. >> All those in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> It was opposed, no abstentions, motion carries unanimously. Move on to item I, a resolution, Dr. Rocha. >> Okay, thank you President Baum. Now, I invite Vice President Cable to the table. And let me just make a couple of introductory comments that basically are brief--will be brief and we'll allow the board an opportunity to give the administrations questions about the action before you. Briefly, the action before you is to adopt the resolution, authorize the administration to move forward with the authorization to enter into a contract with Ellucian which represents the banner, administrative information system. A couple of things and this is--let me too make a transition from the last item to this item because they're connected and in doing this, I'm not rehearsing the last item. The dollars, the expenditures that are included for your review are within the budget that you had just adopted. I want to repeat that. The dollars and all of the financial that you see for the proposed contract are within the budget that you've just adopted. And if you wish has to do so, Mr. Miller and Mr. Cable will be able to do go through that with you, okay. So that's one thing. The other thing is--in here, you know, maybe if you give me the privilege of a sentence or two is where we can constitute may be forms of new common ground between our friend and the faculty association and the administration, because I'm actually very grateful for Mr. Hamman's presentation. I thought it was excellent and it was also the second or third time that I've heard it. So I've been listening intently. And since we are going to meet on the playing fields, so to speak, again, and I look forward to that as soon as Friday. I did want to set out some things that are guidance to the administration that the Board gives us. The faculty association and the trustees and I and everyone in the administration are absolutely on the same side of the line in wishing to put every available dollar in the classes for students, that's why we entered this profession for, that's what we live for. Everyday, because we've setup communications, I get communications from students because I needed to get this class, I add--I want to add this class. I'm showed out to this class. In our staff, let me say, well, you know, I guess we had a luck, you know. Dr. Bell and the people in student services take each student literally hand by hand. And my gratitude to the faculty association for coming to agreement last year on a new large group instruction contract that has helped this budget that enables us to add incremental students when seats are available in a physical classroom and the faculty member would get an incremental payment. That's progress and I appreciate it. I think it's fair to say that there is no dispute on the number on the reserves. The reserves are right there and that the faculty association indeed myself would wish that we could take more money out of the reserve and fund classes and here's where we--why we can't and here's the basis of some common ground where we can figure out some solutions moving forward. One reason why we can't is because there's a Board policy, long standing Board policy in place that was cited by the accreditation commission in the 2002 report, it's on our web part site. It says that the college in no year will exceed, it's enrollment funding, by more 2 percent. Those of you who have been on the Board for sometimes will recall that. It's only since the budget cuts of 2007 and after that the college has far exceeded that. The Board's guidance and the reason why classes hade been reduced is because--necessarily because of the cut and state funding that the Board's clear guidance to the administration was to return to that standing policy. And I do want to assure the Board and the faculty association and the students that the most important for judiciary responsibility is that we get reaccredited. And if we far exceed our enrollment funding, when the accreditor reported that as a commendation that we were staying with that would be difficult for us to pass master when we do the reports in this next year. So this report stays within the Board's guidance. We could choose to take more money out of reserves and put it in the classes, but only if the Board changed its own policy. And at this point, if we were to do that, the other problem which is structural and here's where we have to put on our thinking caps. Whether it's accreditation or not and we won't go into a long, you know, dissertation from Renee, when you have budget, that 90 percent of it is salaries and benefits, you have a structural problem in your budget that it's unsustainable, the accreditors say so, accountant say so. And the accreditors are requiring that we make fundamental structural changes in the budget to reduce the relationship, to reduce the percentage of salaries and benefits to the total expenditure. Reduce it from 90 percent to 60 percent? No. But from 90 percent to about the state average of 85 percent. In our budget, that would be roughly 5 million dollars. Well, what would we do with that? Put it into classes? The accreditor would say, "Well, no you can't do that because that would then violate your own policy and would exceed your state enrollment funding." What the accreditor require San Francisco to do and will indeed require us to do is to conform to the standards and the recommendations that already has made to spend money other than salaries and benefits on things that are absolutely vital for the academic program and student success. And hence, I come to the IT proposal. In 2008, this Board commissioned a report, to look at and charge and spent a quite a bit of money. I think about 200,000 dollars, the so-called strata report, to fully access our business operations and to make a recommendation as to whether we should go forward with a new AIS. That recommendation in brief was to move forward with a new technology system, not the least of reason of which was that our current computer system was installed I believe in 1984, I think, and is simply not meeting the needs. We need to meet the student standards, the standards, the accreditation standards. And so one of the reasons the Board in its wisdom 4 years ago charged the administration to move forward with the new AIS, then it was called the ERP if you remember, okay. And now, it's called administrative information system. Okay, now here we are and let me just conclude with this and then just turnover to questions because I've seen a great deal of this. This past year, when Vice President Cable came on, we knew we needed to move forward because that was one of the Board goals for the year, move forward and give us a technology plan. The authorization to forward with a contract will enable us to meet the goal that the Board designated for the administration at this time last year. I charge Vice President Cable to out there and not to write up a contract but to engage a college-wide process, a selection process in which we would take a year to asses all the available product and that the faculty, and staff, students would get together and in our process that Vice President Cable engineered and he reported to you on July 18th resulted in Ellucian banner being the recommended product. We have continued to give, you know, drafts of information that have led to this night. Now, let me say also one thing and to express my gratitude to Trustee Wah, because throughout this whole year, not just in the recent past, Trustee Wah has been a valuable resource to the administration in making this a better proposal. And I want to make clear that tonight's action does not conclude our work. But it authorizes the administration to move forward and authorizes to enter into a contract and to bring that contract back to for ratification. In my discussions, not just recently but throughout the year with Trustee Wah, there's other work that I would like us to do. And that my recommendation to move forward to authorize the administration to move forward, to enter into a contract comes with this clear provisos and charges to the staff that we should continue to do work to make clear. We should meet as soon as next Monday. I would recommend to President Baum that we convene a meeting of the budget and technology sub committee as early as Monday. And if need to be, schedule another one for September 24th, in which we can more clearly communicate to our public, to the trustees in the public. Now, whether we should do this but really what the business benefit analyses are of this. I think it's clearer to the faculty and staff inside, okay. But let me give you an example, you know, that hits--I'm looking to see if any of our HR staff are here tonight. And Trustee Wah and I discussed this and I think that I understand what further information we need to develop. There are many reasons that are clear in the previous reports that go back to 2008 why it's important to move forward tonight with the AIS. There are--the most important reason was presented last time by Ellucian themselves when they said that it would improve the student registration and the student completion process and they were very clearly presented degree works, okay. But that's a clear deliverable, that's a clear product. But I think what we should also do is make clear that from the ground up, where we sit our desk, what the actual visible change in the environment will be, that will be better than on the current system. So for example, in human resources, you may not know, we try and keep this is a secret, that everything that we do in human resources is input by hand. The seven women who work that office have all of our records, all of our records [laughs] on cards and boxes, okay. And it goes back for years and years and years. They're stored up on the third floor of the C building. Every time one of these women, good as they are, need to have something, they need--literally need to leave their desk and walk upstairs and find it and bring it back down. >> Okay. >> Okay, so that--now, that to me inside the college is a business benefit analysis. But what we also need to do, okay, is to make clearer to everyone as we conclude the last stage of this what the actual metric outcomes are in a kind of a business sense, okay? What will that save in terms of people hours? What will that improve in terms of the process? And so, that we can make sure that a year from now, two years from now that we are not just have a better computer system, but it's actually making the environment better for all faculty, staff and students. And so finally with that, so I just wanted to put that on the record and again express my gratitude for--to Trustee Wah for her assistance with that, for helping me to understand better. And finally, I'd just say a budget in IT program, a new system is not about, "These are tools. These are means to an end." What it's really about is where we go in the future. The vision of a better PCC that will graduate more students, that will transfer more students to four year, that will enable more and more of our students to move forward and realize our dreams. And that essentially is the--some in substance for the proposal. So-- >> Okay, thank-- >> We had President Baum to, yeah, yeah. >> Thank you, Dr. Rocha. Before the board, is a resolution under Tab I that is being recommended for adoption, we'll open it up to questions and then see if there's a motion and second it up for resolution, Trustee Wah. >> Yes, I know. Vice President Cable has some information prepared and presentation. But I wanted to thank Dr. Rocha for the chance to dialogue about this and for agreeing--for us to be able to come to an agreement on how we might move forward and get information I think that the Board needs as well as to move forward on the contract. So, president Rocha and I had a long, long discussion right up until the minute I had to jump in the car and come over here. So, I really appreciate that time. Throughout the day that--from the beginning, when we agreed to hire a CIO and then we agreed to move forward on the AIS, I had been asking for business data. So, what are the business benefits? What are the metrics that are associated with implementing the AIS? And as you can see from the comments that we had from earlier presentations, responsibility of the board is a fiscal and fiduciary responsibility. And that is, you know, we are making a decision to expand 13 million dollars and we're making it in favor where we've been asked to make this decision to put this in technology as opposed to allocating some of it for more classes, giving more money for more staff, making sure that there are no furloughs instead, giving it for salaries. And so for me, the--when I--for me, the business information is what the board requires not because--not to convince us that the IT project is needed, but because I think that we all agreed that technology can deliver great benefit to the college. But we have that as a concept and we can all agree that it's important to give these tools to the staff and to improve the process that deliver service to our students. What I think that we were missing with the details that allow us as a board to go before our communities and to speak to why we would make a decision to expend 13 million dollars for technology versus giving it to the class. So, I was pleased that Dr. Rocha was able to hear this communication. And apparently, we've been passing ships in the night on for the last year. And so, I'm looking forward to having this meeting on the 10th with the Budget Technology Committee Meeting so that the three trustees who are involved in that, Trustee Brown, Trustee Martin and myself can dialogue more about what those business process details look like so that we get more information to the Board and what do those metrics look like. And I've encouraged Dr. Rocha to also, at his discretion, to invite the vendor illusion to also attend if--because I'm sure that if they've implemented it in 86 colleges, I'm pretty sure you have done this kinds of presentations. I'm pretty sure that you know how to associate the benefits of your system with the business processes. We paid a half million dollars for a business process improvement assessment. We should--that should be a good starting point for us to know exactly what those business process reengineering improvements are and how this system can benefit us. And I'm pretty sure that you probably have some metrics. So, I hope that happens. And then again, Dr. Rocha has agreed that after that, they will come back to--we will reconvene the budget technology committee on September 24th. And we will then have this presentation of data and it will give the subcommittee members a chance to see whether or not we got our questions answered and we have enough information to bring before the entire board on October 3rd when Dr. Rocha is asking to, I guess, for the final approval to execute the contract. And that is with the proviso that if for some reason, all of that data is not presented to the Board or we don't feel comfortable with having the details, the business details that Dr. Rocha has agreed that they will not move forward to expend any money against that contract. So, I'm very pleased that we we're able to come to that agreement. And I'm looking forward to getting the information. >> Are there any other further questions? >> I want to obtain a motion to adopt the resolution. >> I moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second it. >> Second. >> A motion by Dr. Mann, Second by Trustee Brown. >> Question-- >> Yes. >> --is the motion what Miss Wah just said? >> No. >> No. >> Just to accept-- >> The--it's just the adoption of the resolution. >> The resolution and the final [inaudible]. >> Well, I know, but I think what Linda has said is critically important though because it specifies that we're adopting the resolution, but we're subject to getting more information and then make a final decision on October the third to our meeting then and so I think if that really should be at least implicitly a part of the motion. >> My feeling is that the--no contract is adopted without the approval of the board. This resolution is the authorization to get a contract and so-- >> Okay. >> --we won't--nothing will be presented to us-- >> Right. >> --if it doesn't meet Trustee Wah's recommendations, it won't be before us, I believe. You know, I mean, not just Trustee Wah, but our-- >> You know, that's correct. You know, we have to bring the contract itself, the ratification of the contract back to the October meeting. Yeah, and the administration is more than happy to meet with the committee to provide the information requested. And it will do so without fail. >> Okay, so just make sure that I understand. Okay, so we're approving that the selection of banner and with the processes happening is what we're going to ink the contracts between now and October 3rd. Is that-- >> Yeah, andContracts must be adopted by the board. We authorize you as we do in our--it's my understanding and then correct me if I'm wrong, anybody from the administration, just as we have authorized contracts before but we should--I think the size of this contract should be polled for a separate vote and not be done as a consent item as well. And so, my expectation is that the contract will--we will not be able to move on the contract if we don't have a majority of the Board who feels that the contract does meets the requirements of the district. >> Okay, and so, that's your understanding that that will come October 3rd. >> Yes, of course. >> Okay. >> I don't know if it's going to come October 3rd or when, but I think we had a care-- >> You know, it will come October 3rd. >> Yeah, if I may add, I think that Trustee Wah, we've have heard you very, very clearly. And we understand what you need. And we will do everything we can to fill that need. >> The contract has to come back for approval of the Board, every contract. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> Certainly, this one. So, Trustee Martin had to say--want to say something. >> Well, I think we would do ourselves as service to state the motion that we're voting on. >> The motion, as I understand it is for the adoption of the resolution that's under Tab I. >> Yes. >> That's as I stated before. What-- >> And what it says as I made the motion is that the Governing Board of the Pasadena Area Community College--I forgot to left off to where as this, authorize the districts to enter into a software license and service agreement so far maintenance program with Elecon [phonetic], with--for purchase implementation of banner, AIS. So this would authorize the drawing up with the contract, correct? But not the approval. >> Correct, the authorization--is the authorization, but not the adoption. >> Yes, right. >> This was actually, you know, and again the, the information requesting the agreement with Trustee Wah is absolutely clear. And we're happy to do that. This resolution is a common resolution that you voted on many, many, many times. First is the authorization to enter into a contract, then we bring the contract back to you for final approval. Every single contract that we cut has to come back to the board either on consent or as a separate item for final approval. We are intending to do that in October. We are not going to put it on consent. It will be a separate item. And by that time, we will provide the information that we have clearly described with Trustee Wah. >> The only thing that I--go ahead. >> I was just going to say, based on that explanation, I prepared to support the motion. I mean, we're dealing as we've said before with an information technology system that goes back in 1984, you can't operate a business or a college or--and we are a business on that basis, period. So, we must go forward and make improvements, but before we're going to be prepared to vote on a contract for 13 million dollars over a 5-year period of time, I want to know what's going to be in that. What's going to--what specific benefits will we get from all of that? What would our system do that the current system does not do? And will that satisfy as not just for the day, but for five years down the future? >> Uh-hmm. >> And are you--because I believe that we had that presentation at our last meeting, but would you like to have that presentation again because that was a quite a detailed presentation about what the system would do-- >> I would hope that we not have that same presentation. >> No, no, no, no, we're not-- >> I will certainly think that there was some interesting information. >> I believe we have. >> I understand clearly what Trustee Wah is asking for, and we'll convene on September 10th. And I think that, you know, again, the agreement is that I do want to--I know our friends from Ellucian are here. And so, I ask you to put that on your calendars so that we can all get in a room and make sure, not just for Trustee Wah, I think Trustee Wah is being helpful to the Board and the college community, and the community at large by, you know, asking us in these final few yards to the go line that we specify. So, that will be done without fail. >> Okay, so there, just to clarify again, the motion on the table made by Dr. Mann, seconded by Trustee Brown is for the adoption of the resolution to authorize the district to enter in dual agreement with Ellucian for purchase and implementation of banner. That is the authorization. It is not the adaption or the entrance of a contract. It is the authorization for the district to do that. And again, the caveat is that we expect the contract to be brought back to the board at the October meeting for consideration. >> Right. >> Any other further questions and comments? I will seek our advisory vote from our student trustee. >> Aye. >> Are there any other--okay, let's go ahead. All those in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Any abstentions? Motion carries. >> All right. >> Congratulations. Thank you to my Vice President, Cable. Thank you Vice President Miller. [Multiple Speakers] >> Thank you, Dr. Rocha. I see that there is no president's report so we move to the announcements portion of the meeting. We will start with our associated students. >> Thank you, President Baum. My week starts as rather interestingly. Apparently, people have confused and President Rocha so I've gotten a few angry students asking me what I did with the winter. [Laughter] I've spend a lot of my time just waiting that and other various interesting rumors about what's happen to the last few weeks. I do have to inform the board that the student population is uneasy, is probably a good word for it, from our various areas whether or not they're opposed to the Calendar change. And there is general uneasiness in question over how much students are represented. We've tried to answer them as best as we can. As part of that, we've been looking, as I said, last week at a role in the shared governance process and how we participate with that. And something I just want to mention briefly that, pres--not president, but Professor Joshua [phonetic] said last week was a quote from Professor Pickering. I'm using weird words today. I'm sorry it's late. [Laughter] From Charles Pickering, "That a healthy democracy requires a decent society. It requires that we're honorable, generous, tolerant and respectful." I think that's a maxim all of us should really be bearing in mind to know the associate of students is. And as we move forward and as we continue to have conversations and dialogues, we're going to do our very best but it requires I think that all of the campus really remember that we're here for the same purpose and the same goal, my success and the success of all the students at PCC. Other than that, we now have the--we're not tied to Santa Monica College for the largest number of clubs in the State of California with 71 different and varied active student organizations. Now, to that end, we have just launched our brand new club portal custom built from the ground up which should over the long run, actually save us quite a bit of money and also being credibly functional. For students, it's up to date, modern. And you're all welcome to look at it. It is on as.pasadena.edu/clubs. And also, there are lots of other clubs that are looking to start up in need of devices if any of you would like to participate. You'd be more than welcome to. Finally, club week has gone off with a rather large bang in a good way. We're looking forward to that following up ending next--tomorrow. And then next week, we will be holding a town hall on Thursday as an informational session. So, the students can be aware of not only the budget and the calendar issues about what's going on. We'll going to be asking for different resources on campus to come down and talk to us about how changes on campus are going to be implemented and how they can best be prepared with their educational plans and their future plans to proceed. So hopefully, there'll be more on all those developments at the next board meeting. >> Classified senate, thank you. >> Hello, the classified senate would like to report that we have a classified senate retreat scheduled for Friday, September 28 which will be at the Huntington Library. We're going to be giving a brief report on our various duties as officers and we're also going to be planning the upcoming events for the academic year. We'd also like to report that we met--the officers met with President Rocha on Monday, August 27th to discuss the classified senate's goals for the year. And I felt very positive about that meeting. Also, we're going to be holding a general meeting for the classified staff on October 31st and it will be held in the circadian. This meeting is usually our Halloween themed event. And we invite the children from the Child Development Center to attend. And that's the end of my report. >> Academic Senate, thank you. >> Good evening. I just have one item. I'd like to think Dr. Bell and Vice President Miller for agreeing to attend a faculty senate of sponsored special captain [inaudible] forum on Tuesday, September 11 from 12 to 1 in Creveling to address questions and concerns about the pedagogical impact of the change to the new calendar. >> Thank you, Management Association. >> Thank you. I'd like to report that there's an organization called SanFACC which stands for San Gabriel/Foothill Association at Community Colleges. It's mostly presidents but one of the things they do is they have a group of intercampus mentoring program for leadership. And I'm proud to say that they have their mentor-mentee meeting last week and we have three mentors and three and three mentees, both--all from PCCs participating in the program. Thank you. >> Trustees, Trustee Israel? >> No reports. >> Trustee Thomson? >> No report. >> Trustee Wah. >> Yes, I wanted to thank Dean Young and the Languages Division. They hosted--they are hosting an exhibit over in Shatford Library. It's the Taiwan cultural exhibit and it was partner hosted with the Taiwan Academy and the Taiwan Overseas Administration, but it's really nice exhibit. They brought in artifacts from the Taiwan Cultural Center. I think it's there until September 13th. And then on September 22nd, the president's Asian American Pacific founder advisory committee will be having our educational forum for the community. So, it will be in Creveling Lounge and everyone is welcome. And I want to thank Mrs. Chase in advance who will be doing large part of the presentation. And it's the staff that's the most important to the community about the transfers and the ability to get into the college. So, thank you. >> Trustee Martin? >> No, thank you. >> Trustee Fellow? >> No. >> Trustee Mann? >> I made mine at the wrong time. [Laughter] >> That was my fault. >> Trustee Brown? >> No report. [ Noise ] >> I don't have anything to add there. We will go on to future board meeting dates. We have a retreat schedule for September 15th. And the items that we have discussed, I will also go into the agenda items. At that, we have not determined the location. We will be reviewing the accreditation items that have been given to us by the Accreditation Commission. We will be discussing goals for the coming year and then we will also be talking about the conduct of our board meetings as well as the evaluation of the Superintendent/President. Are there any other topics that board members wish to make sure were covered or not covered? >> I think you covered it. >> And then, our meeting after that, Dr. Rocha, are we--do you believe that we will continue to have a meeting on September 19th or is there a--I know there's a couple of conflicts on the Board. >> Yeah. My recommendation since the administration has no content for the starting session. And in fact, most of the major content is behind us. And we have work to do on the IT front and every other front. My recommendation is that absent of an action by the Board, I would recommend that we not have the starting session on September 19th. >> Okay, we will keep it on the calendar, but my dispense with that if unless, just so that we don't have to reconvene to reschedule it-- >> Okay. >> --in case we have to do that, unless, there's any objections by other members of the Board. >> Dr. Mann. >> From my understanding though that if we have--if we're going to cancel it, we have to cancel it at a meeting, so we could cancel at the retreat, is that correct? >> How do board members feel about that? Will that be a sufficient time? The 15th, that'll be at least 72 hours in advance. >> Yeah, we'll set it, yeah. >> Uh-hmm. Yeah, by the previous Friday. >> Yeah, I just didn't want us to get caught and not have time, yeah. >> Or we can schedule if we need to. >> I would say cancel it know and just serve notice. And then, if there's some emergency where you need some action-- >> Okay. >> --you might have to call a special meeting or call it which we could do at the retreat. We still have time to serve it, but might as well let everybody take it off their calendars. >> Well that's a good idea. >> Okay. >> Is there any objection to that? Do I have a motion to cancel this September 19th meeting? >> I'll summon that. >> I have a motion to move--to cancel the meeting. >> I'll second. >> Okay, motion by Trustee Brown and seconded by trustee Martin. Then, all those in favor of Trustee Israel? >> Aye. >> All those in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Okay, so seeing on future agenda items, as a final comment I would like to thank the folks that arranged to have this meeting at the Jackie Robinson Center. I would like to continue our meeting at other locations within the district. And we'll work with trustee--I mean, Mrs. Thompson to identify locations and its trustees can identify opportunities or venues that would be suitable for board meetings. We will then look at scheduling those for future board meetings. Trustee Brown, do you want to say a final word of thanks on behalf of the Jackie Robinson Center in the Northwest Pasadena District? >> Well, in behalf of--I would like to thank the Jackie Robinson Park again for allowing us to be here. And I really didn't take the time to thank Vice President Miller. I think he did an excellent job with that budget. I meant to tell you publicly 'cause we beat you up publicly, we need to give you credit publicly. [Laughter] So, I think we conducted a very civil meeting today and I look forward for us moving forward to more substantive meetings where we respect, as its been said before, each person's point of view. So, thank you again for allowing us and for being here with us today. >> Thank you so much. And I want to echo that. And I feel we--if we can get to a point where we can have meetings, I just got back from Charlotte where the Democratic Convention was happening last night. And then, I was in Tampa for the Republican Convention. I represented programs on bridging the divide and improving civic and political discourse. And to the extent that we can all model that, I want to continue to encourage that. And we were talking about at the highest levels of the media on our public officials including Mervia Ragusa [phonetic] yesterday and make it--from the governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, and this is what I'd like to continue to model to and get back to a pattern where we're hearing and listening to each other and fulfilling the vision that Trustee Brown just articulated. So, I thank everybody. And we'll call the meeting adjourned. >> Oh, wait, wait, wait. >> I think Trustee Brown being in your own district here, you might want to just identify your number one constituent who's here in the audience. [Laughter] >> Stand up, Brown. >> Mister Brown, will you stand up and let them know who you are. >> It's very appropriate that we identify him. [Applause] >> Okay, the meeting is adjourned. [Noise]