>> Guys, it's--we're going to go by the clock, so it--Noah [assumed spelling], okay. As soon I get my lights up, we're going to start the meeting. >> It will fall off every time you-- >> No, it'll be okay. I can run this meeting down here. So--what? I can't find my agenda. So, we'll--Mrs. Thompson, would you please call the roll. >> Dr. Mann? >> Present. >> Dr. Bradbury-Huang? >> Present. >> Dr. Rey Castro? Mr. Baum? Mr. Martin? >> Present. >> Mr. Thomson? Mrs. Wells-Miller? >> Present. >> Mr. Abadia? >> Is there anyone present who would like to address the Board on a closed session item? If not, the Board will adjourn in closed session to look at Government Code 54957: Employee Dismissal--Discipline, Dismissal, Release; Public Employee Appointment; Employment of New Faculty for. And 54957.6: Labor Negotiations and 54956.8: Conference with Real Property Negotiator. >> Recording paused. >> I'd want to call the group back into session and I'd like to announce that the Board do not take any action in closed session and we'll begin by the Pledge of Allegiance. We must have a [inaudible]. >> Behind me. Mr. Thomson will lead the Pledge. >> Yeah, please join me. 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. >> Dr. Perfumo, are there any introductions? >> Not at this time. >> Okay, I have one card public comment on now agenda items, Glenna Watterson. >> Where do you want me to-- >> Where do you want her--where's the microphone for her? >> Are we recording? >> The microphone is on the table. >> We can hear all right. >> We can hear you. >> No, no, she want me--the Audiocast won't pick it up. >> I'm pretty loud. >> You just stand right here between Dr. Perfumo and Mr. Martin. >> Okay. >> All right. >> I wrote it down to [inaudible] it better [inaudible] and stuff. My name is Glenna Watterson and I have a lot of hots here at the institution, but today I come here as a devoted employee of over 35 years. Anyone who knows me knows that I'm committed to maintaining the integrity of the school, to support the success of the students, and to enjoy a community of my fellow PCC employee. There is no bigger family than PCC. I was in the original committee that developed the policy and procedures for the Coordinating Council. It was a painstaking labor of love. We worked hard to create language that would ensure all voices be heard. The CCC provides a venue for all opinions and those on the committee take it very seriously. This council is not made up of fly by night people, but by people who know and love this school with hundreds of years of service between them. The Board meeting of July 1 left me completely bewildered, confused, and downright incensed. I did not sleep that night. Two policies were brought to the Board that evening, one for student's service fund fee and the other for a revised smoking policy. These two policies have been through the gamut of scrutiny. We saw a well fed-up presentations, we re-worked them, reworded them, we generally fussed over these policies for--throughout the past year. They both went back and forth between council and constituency groups. We looked at them from all angles. We finally came to an agreement on both of them. We voted and it was a completely open and democratic process, a great example of how shared governance should work. I was more than impressed with the students who devoted so much time to try and get these policies right. I sit on several student committees and I know what the students wanted. I was in shock that the Board of Trustees shut both those policies down. I now question for the first time the validity of the College Coordinating Council. We have a wonderful internal process that apparently has no power or credibility and we have a Board of Trustees that sits themselves above the CCC and puts the kivash [phonetics] on all of the hard work that we have been done. You say you care about shared governance, but this is not supporting shared governance. Many people have told me that they blamed Dr. Perfumo for not guiding the Board towards the needs of the many, but I've seen her try and I believe that this Board makes it almost impossible for her to do her job. On July 1 board meeting, one of the board members was visibly shaken by the fact that the students may not trust the Board. I stand here today with many standing behind me to say we are visibly shaken by the Board not trusting us. Thank you. >> Thank you Glenna. I should have read this in advance. Members of the public may request the opportunity to address the Board registry regarding any item on the agenda. To do so, please complete a request addressed to the Board form and give it to the Board Secretary prior to the deliberation of the agenda item. Individual statements of [inaudible] five minutes, total audience participation in any item for 30 minutes. The Brown Act prohibits the Board from discussing or taking action on any item not on the agenda, but members may make a brief comment or ask questions in response to public comments. So, are we ready to move to the next item which is the Approval of Consent Items? >> I move to the Approval of Consent Items. >> I second. >> Second. >> With the amendment of the appointment on the appointment of the interim dean for physical services or administrative services. >> Wait a minute. I don't see an appointment of a vice president for administrative service on the consent items. >> Is there a P item Dr. Perfumo? >> I've got it, 9-P, appointment changes status for acceptance. >> Ten-P. >> Ten-P. >> It's 10-P? Okay, all right, fine. >> Ten-P and do we have that [inaudible]? >> Yeah. >> The amendment to 10-P on the interim says from 7--1609 until position is filled or one year. >> Not [inaudible]. >> Not 16, one year. >> All right, all right. Do I have the motion to approve that? >> Yes. >> All right. >> On the individual motion. >> Yes, okay. Is there any further discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. >> Aye. >> Oops, sorry, five people? >> Five. >> Okay and any opposed? All right, the most [inaudible]. >> I just have one comment. >> Yes. >> I just want to say with that move, we have appointed Dr. Van Pelt to be the Interim Vice-President for Administrative Services and I appreciate his willingness to take on it [inaudible]. [ Applause ] >> The next item is the Budget Update. >> The first time I've ever seen you smile. >> Dr. Perfumo, do you have any budget update or [inaudible] brief? >> It's very brief. I will tell you that this morning the CEOs have a state-wide teleconference with Scott Lay again from the League and Erik Skinner from the Chancellor's Office. You may have heard that the big five are closed to an agreement. The staffers have now been sent to work out the details of the budget language. They're hopeful that there will be a vote either late on Friday or early next week. The sticking issue at this point is Prop 98 determining whether '08, '09 ended in a test 1 or test 2 year which would determine if in fact they suspend Prop 98 funding for next year. The general consensus of the majority of the legislature is that they are not supportive of suspension of Prop 98 which is good news to us. The other thing that I will tell you is that, Scott Lay and Erik Skinner both concurred that they feel that the most recent budget for the Community Colleges is accurate and so we should continue to plan based on those figures that we've been using with our Ad Hoc Budget Committee. So, we at least know those numbers work fairly solid for planning purposes. The one other item they did share with us is that they'd really downplayed yesterday's announcement by President Obama for the 250 million per year, which if you do the math for California, which one other CEO and I had done, it turns out to be about 2.3 million per college in California. But those are competitive grants which will come with strings attached and very specific limited spending parameters which won't give us the flexibility we really need to offer more sections for students. So, Scott was very, I think right in downplaying that because he didn't want to throw the rest of the legislature off about the funding needs from the state. >> Okay, any questions for Dr. Perfumo? >> I think you have been sharing these memos from--these e-mails actually from Vice Chancellor Skinner and from the [inaudible] to all the Board, so I think we're pretty much up to date on that. Update on accreditation review, Dr. Perfumo and again I think this week can be brief also. >> Yes, and I did share with all of you the information that we did receive form the commission, the letter and report. That has already been posted to our website and I'm sure you all read the article in the Pasadena Star News. It came as a great surprise certainly to our campus. The area that they have focused in on is Recommendation 1 that deals with providing all instructional student service and administrative service program review areas with a set or fixed set of data so that we're comparing apples with apples. And what we have offered the campus community is a menu from iPro where they are allowed to select the data they want to analyze for program reviews. So, they viewed that as comparing apples to oranges in program review. Dr. Beno did call me herself and felt like it was a relatively simple fix--was her language. And then I did hear from Dr. Ortiz. I waited to hear from him until I sent out the letter that went to the campus community, which I believe I do have copies for all of you in case you didn't receive this. >> I think you've email, but some people may not have read it. >> Right, so I just think you all have a hard copy. This is what I shared with the campus wide community. But I wanted to wait until I talk with Dr. Ortiz and then I'll can--he was getting ready to go on vacation and as you know I'm getting ready to try to squeeze out a little vacation myself here next week. So, he and I scheduled a phone conference to try and to follow up. Dr. Beno asked that I clarify specifically what he meant by the language in Recommendation 1 and in fact that is the case which means we just need to get our academic senate, our other shared governance representatives with our deans and vice presidents together to identify the set, fixed set of data that we will analyze for program reviews going forward and just clarifying our program review planning process around that. So, we do have a report due to the commission no later than March 15th, 2010 and so we will work backwards from that date to make sure it gets a couple of hearings before the Board, as well as our shared governance groups so that document is shared broadly with the campus community. >> Thank you, but I would suggest because the last time after we got the accreditation report we asked for monthly updates to the Board and I would like to suggest that we have a monthly update that will be a standard agenda item. >> Yes. >> And I assume on the first things will be this calendar, this schedule for doing it. So, no one has any other questions at this time. I believe in February we took out [inaudible] an opportunity to express this with the team leader so that we have a better understating part of this and then we will defer any discussion until we each had the chance and we will have our first updates. Does anyone, any Board member object to-- >> No. >> All right, moving right along. College falls for 2009-2010 from the college goals sub-committee and I represented the Board and Bradbury-Huang and I represented the Board at this meeting. It's important that the Board review and improve. >> Improve? >> Improve--let's hope you don't improve it. Let's hope you approve it, lets you review and approve these goals so that the different departments and units can start input many of them. I would like to make a couple of comments and I'd also like to invite Crystal or Dr. Van Pelt or anyone else who was--there were several people within that project or if you want to add anything. Although, I hope we do not spend a long time on this because I'm fine with this meeting, but I think actually, Dr. Wilcox said our meeting was historical. I don't necessarily think it was historical, but I think it was very important because part of what we did Dr. Bradbury-Huang and I shared with the college group the strategic directions that the Board had it on file that we wanted to go. And instead of having a planning process starting from the units and moving up, the group decided to actually turn it upside down and to take the strategic directions the Board had approved and to put this into goals. Secondly, we decided to use the accreditation standards as the official strategic direction so each year as people go through the planning, we will be focused on the accreditation. I hope you had the chance to read these because I felt that we pretty much incorporated every single item that the Board gave attention into these goals. And then, I was on the small committee. I was volunteered by Dr. Jacobs here and I was volunteered by Dr. Jacobs to be in the writing committee after she had asked me to--she said turn around so you can see the chart and then she volunteered while I had my back turned. But anyway, the writing committee, again, this was Dr. Van Pelt's suggestion. If you remember the old college goals used to say, this person, this person will do this and so on, he suggested that we go through and we start with the verb: Re-evaluate, develop, increase, and then in parenthesis, we would identify whose responsible and then underneath that we identify where it came from. And if you look at these, many of these items did come from the Board of Trustees retreat. Dr. Bradbury-Huang, did you have anything that you would like to add to this? >> I want to mention at least that this looks like a very overwhelming document. There's a lot in here partly because if you recall at our board meeting we simply listed all the things that were important to us without prioritizing them. Therefore, I think it's fair to say that in reading these, we did not expect to meet each of these goals in the next six months, yeah, and that would be important I think to get on the record. So, my understanding is, this is an acknowledgement of what's important to us and we're asking a response, I guess from each one and sometimes that response will be we'll pick this up in the year 2010 or 2011, so and so. So, nothing falls off the table, but nor is it--nor we're expecting similar action on all items. >> I would, would agree with that. The number of actual college goals, I think this is the same as it were before. In fact, we would--is that right Dr. Van Pelt. >> I think it is. >> It actually is about the, about the same number. There may be a little bit difference in the substance, but many of the--as you can see, many of these are carry-overs from previous goals. It's only the ones that says, Spring Board retreat or trustees where you have something that actually is new that came from the trustees down as opposed to others which have often been the goal for several years. >> Right. >> So, that if you--I think mostly overwhelming, but I think we need to put that in context. That's a very important point and also it does indicate the strategic directions for the next three to five years. So, if what we really are, I think, always look at is good faith ever, what have we done, what have we found out, how much we're going to do this year, where do we need to go? Dr. Van Pelt was the one that came up with this idea, so I want to give him time to speak if he wants to, but he is going to have to stand over here so that the Audiocast picks him up. >> Anywhere? >> Yes. >> All right. >> The one thing that I do think is very important is that what this does is it focuses all the colleges' planning on the accreditation. That means that accreditation is no longer once every six-year process. Every single year, every single part of the plan is focused on accreditation. Also what that means is that as we're doing the self study, we have to draw it down from the information we've developed over the six-year period because we will--been working on it. It means that the evidence will be tailored and organized. It means that every activity of the college is tailored and organized toward accreditation. So, it means that we continually focus on accreditation. >> Does this Board have any questions? If not, I'll obtain a motion to approve this as the college goals. >> I second. >> So moved. >> Who moved? >> I think by Dr. Rey Castro, second by Mrs. Wells-Miller. Any further discussion will be [inaudible] presentation with advisory Board. Other Board members, all in favor please say, aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Mostly favors. And the next item is the Board Self-Evaluation and the Board, we have decided to defer this action to a later meeting. So, the Board will now go into closed session and there will be no action following closed session. So, everybody can take a little time off. It's 4:35, go home early.