>> It's--I would like to call the meeting to order. Mrs. Thompson, would you please call the roll. >> Dr. Mann? >> Present. >> Dr. Bradbury-Huang? >> Present. >> Dr. Rey Castro? Mr. Baum? >> Here. >> Mr. Martin? Mr. Thomson? Wells-Miller? >> Present. >> Mr. Abadia? >> Is there anyone here who would like to address the Board in Closed Session? Seeing no one, the Board will adjourn the Closes Session for Labor Negotiations, PCCFA, CSEA 777, ISSU, POA, Confidentials, and Management Association. And the Board will reconvene at 7 o'clock. I'd like to call the meeting to order and I just sense we're in your facility. [ Noise ] >> Okay. >> 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. >> Thank you. Dr. Sugimoto, are there--you have any introductions? >> No introductions this evening. >> Okay. We go to Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items. 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 pubic comments. Members of public may request the opportunity to address the Board regarding any item on the agenda. To do so, please complete a request to address the Board form and give it to the Board secretary prior to the deliberation of the agenda item. Individual speakers are limited to 5 minutes total audience participation, any the item is limited to 30 minutes. So I have one request to address the Board on the item not on the agenda and that's from Dean Rick Hodge who wants to give us the CEC welcome and I would say don't turn the clock on. Dr. Rey Castro. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Dean Hodge? But we are looking at approximately 5 minutes. >> I won't even take 5. I just wanted to welcome the Board for coming to CEC. It's always a pleasure to have you come to this facility and spend your time, making important decisions and seeing kind of what--you know, what's happening over on this part of the PCC campus. And I'm just gonna give you a very brief, 2 minutes, of three items that I think you should know about that are important to us currently. And the first is on our courses. You know, up to now, we've had 31 courses that we received enhanced funding for from the state. And that enhanced funding sort of equalizes the funding allocation for non-credit courses in comparison to credit. While recently, we've added an additional 11 courses to that list. So now we have 42 courses. Now these 11 are pending from the state approval but they have been approved locally. But we will have 42 courses that will be receiving enhanced funding. So that's a benefit to the center and certainly to the college. And I'll mention that those additional 11 represent 4 new programs that we are introducing to CEC, one of which is gonna be a direct partnership with kinesiology division. And I'll just mention what they are. The first one is entrepreneur success program and those are four courses that we currently operate. So now we're creating a program for that--for those four courses. We have fitness lifestyle trainer program. That is the one that we're gonna partner with kinesiology. It will have three courses. Health promotions program, that one, we will most likely utilize our health sciences department faculty to teach some of those courses that has two courses in it. And broadcast media program and those are two courses that we grouped into our program. The next thing I'll mentioned about curriculum is that we were asked by chancellor's office to submit full application on our high school diploma program because even though we are on a official state-approved program, they require that we be official through the chancellor's office, which they had never established with all of the colleges that had high school programs. So we had to treat it as if it was a new application and enlist all of our programs, all of our courses and all of our progress and we now are officially approved by the state office as well as the state to offer our high school diploma program. And then the last two items I'll mention is that some of you I'm sure are aware that we recently were the recipients of a small business development grant through stimulus funds, federal funds that came through Adam Schiff and were awarded 150,000 to operate that program. So we're waiting for the first allocation which will be sometime in the new year when President Obama signs the bill permitting the allocation. But we're very happy about that. And then finally, some of the Board members are also aware that we're thinking about submitting a grant for an SBDC, which is a small business development grant, and I can tell you that Dr. Sugimoto, and Nancy Roberts, Dr. Jacobs are working closely with us to insure that the application we submit is a good application. So those are the items I wanted to share with the group. Thank you so much for being here and please come back more and [inaudible]. >> Alright. Thank you, Dean Hodge. Dr. Sugimoto, I think there was an introduction that you forgot to make. We have a person [inaudible] in the table who has brown paper over his title. Maybe you'd like to introduce him so we'd all know who he is. He's about two people down from you. [ Laughter ] >> Hello. I guess I'm just so used to seeing Stuart Wilcox sitting down the table and I've been working with him for so long. I just completely and totally forgot. Thank you very much, Dr. Mann. It is my pleasure to introduce our Interim Vice President for Student and Learning Services, Dr. Stuart Wilcox, welcome, as our VP. [ Applause ] [ Inaudible Remarks ] >> And we have a new classified senate representative? Dr. Sugimoto, do you know? [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Okay. You're sitting in for John? Okay. >> Alright, and your name. >> Anne Ostrander. >> Anne what? >> Ostrander. >> Ostrander, okay, thank--welcome. Alright, any other--Alright, now we go to announcements and we ask the shared governance bodies, Ms. Liggins is not here. Academic senate? >> I've no announcements. >> Classified Senate, do you have an announcement? AS? >> No announcements. >> Alright. Our student trustee, do you have an announcement? >> I announcement that the associate students will be holding a Veteran's Appreciation Day and--this upcoming and we'll also be doing the Halloween trick or treat. >> Great. Mr. Thomson? [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Mrs. Wills-Miller? >> Yes, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Dr. Sugimoto for her work with REEO. I appreciate all of her efforts and I would just like it to go on the record that she has been recognized as giving leadership to this effort. So I would like to thank her for her work. >> Thank you, Beth. >> Than you. Dr. Bradbury-Huang? >> No. >> I don't have the announcements. Dr. Rey Castro? >> None. >> Mr. Baum? >> Unfortunately the Dodgers are down 6 to 3 [inaudible]. And also somebody just texted me. There's somebody named Jamie coming to meeting tonight who wanted to say hello. So I don't know if she's here. Okay. Thank you. >> Alright, welcome Jamie. Mr. Martin? >> None, thank you. >> Okay. The next item is the approval of the minutes. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes? >> Second. >> Are there any additions or corrections? Okay, are we ready to vote? >> Yes. >> Oh yes, Mr. Baum? >> On page 4 on number--H on the Selection of the College President, I don't recall that I was the one that suggested that we changed the academic senate representative. I was just saying that there is a new one but there's considerable discussion about not to change it to but whether it was appropriate to have a specific bargaining unit listed as part of that where it wasn't and as anywhere else. So I would just--I don't know if that's something that is [inaudible]. >> So you would--you say that's--you raised the question whether it was appropriate to have a specific bargaining unit? >> Indicated the faculty bargaining unit is no longer the CTA but it was not to change it but to discuss whether it was appropriate to have a specific bargaining unit when no others were listed as well. >> Do you have that Mrs. Thompson? And what you have in them--the addition. Okay, anything else? Alright. >> Yeah. >> Yes, Mr. Martin. >> On H, there was this suggestion to change "may" to "will." There was also a suggestion I think by me to leave it? >> Yes, but I think we didn't put both sides. We just put the suggestions. But we can change it. There's a suggestion that say no-- >> It's okay. >> And another suggestion to keep it. >> I'll get my lick in one more time when it comes up as an agenda item. I don't really care about the minutes on this. >> Any other changes in the minutes? Are we ready to vote? Student Trustee? >> Aye. >> Other Trustees all in favor please say "aye." >> Aye. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Did anyone oppose it? Alright. Six ayes, one abstention. Mr. Thomson was not here. Okay, the next item on the agenda is the Approval of Consent Items. Student Trustee, do you have a consent item you would like to discuss? >> No, I do not. >> Mr. Thomson? >> 61-B? >> 61-B, okay. Mrs. Wells-Miller? >> Not this evening. >> Dr. Bradbury-Huang? Dr. Rey Castro? [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Mr. Baum? >> Just gonna have 64-B and then I just wanted a clarification on 49-P, too. >> 49-B? >> P. >> P, okay. And, okay, Mr. Martin? >> A quick comment on 60-B and a question on 63-B. >> On 63-B? >> Yes. >> Okay. And I have a comment on 47-P. Okay, Mr. Martin, 60-B. >> This was an augmentation to both revenue and expenses and maybe that was clear to everybody else but me, but I appreciate getting that information from the administration, so. >> Alright. >> That was-- >> Is that clear with everyone? Okay. The next one is 61-B, Mr. Thomson? >> Yes, I read Dr. van Pelt's memorandum with respect to this and the entry deals with Pasadena Builders Inc. And forgive me I really don't understand the background of this and I appreciate a bit more information. >> Dr. van Pelt, can you that? >> The issue was that the CMAS agreement which is the California Multi-Award Schedule is a vehicle that is linked very much to the GSA Federal Government contract levels, which means that they buy in a huge volume. What our purchasing department did is they worked out a CMAS agreement to buy furniture for the new construction. That's the Center for the Arts--sorry, it's the Industrial Tech Building campus center and the Bookstore. In the purchasing of the furniture, typically you also purchase the installation of the furniture and the labor that's included. There was a decision made a few months ago to not do that, which meant that we had basically all the bits and pieces of modular furniture without the ability to put it together. So the vehicle that was chosen to be used was our general contractor for the various different projects on the campus that he would act as the general contractor and than hire subcontractors. The hope was that in the end, it would all come out in a wash. There would be enough money to handle all the various miscellaneous construction work that was taking place on the campus. During the summer months, we were working on so many projects simultaneously and I think that we something like 16 substantial buildings on the campus, six of which every square foot of which was tied up in the process and then additional projects as well. So passing the builders was working on all of those projects. The correct approach should have been to have the charged the labor the furniture to the CMAS type contract agreement. There was a decision at that time, however, to amend the Board item to lower the amount that was requested through the Board and to defer that payment into some other form. As a result, at the end of the summer there was not sufficient money to do both. This is the augmentation. Now typically, what we do is every year there is an augmentation to the amount of money for these contractors. If you recall probably six months ago, I asked for an extension for time but not for money. And unfortunately now I'm having to ask for an extension for the money to cover those costs. >> Why was a decision made not to have the labor, of course attributed to the CMAS agreement? What was the rationale behind that? >> Well, I wasn't involved in that discussion but I did--and two of the individuals. There were a total of four people at the meeting. The two people who are still with the district, I asked then the answer was they didn't wanna come to the Board and ask for that money at that time. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> That's--I hear explanation. That's not very satisfying. I mean, that's not really the way that I think this is ought to be conducted. So--And I realized that you were not one of the people involved so I'm not throwing it at Chris as in your direction. >> You're right. >> But it sounds like we have no choice now other than to approve this proposal. That's basically it? >> Unfortunately, that really is true. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Okay. >> Are these individuals who were in the room, are any of them still employees of the district? >> Could you say that again? >> I though that was a pretty clear question. You said there four employees in the room. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Oh, okay, I'm sorry. The--You said there were four individuals in the room when this decision was made and you were not present. >> Right. >> I said--I'm assuming that at least one or two of these people are no longer here. >> Two of those people. >> Two of the people are no longer here, two of the people are. >> Are employed by the district >> And you discussed this with them to try to get a better understanding? >> Yes, ma'am. >> And this as good understanding that you're able to get? >> What happened was there was a review of the consent item for the Board. During that discussion, it was decided to amend the consent item and to reduce out the labor and hope for the best later on that we sufficient money in the contract to cover it. >> Okay. Any other--yes, Mrs. Wells-Miller? >> Yes, I just wondered who are the two employees that are still here are. >> Mr. Martin? [ Inaudible Remark ] >> I don't think we should discuss it. That's like a personal matter. I was just curious if there was a way so that he could get the information. That was all the reason for my question. >> Yes, ma'am. >> So you have discussed this and this is the best information that you can find, right? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Alright, next--yes, Mr. Baum? >> Obviously, just besides raising this in a public issue where express a certain amount of concern on behalf of the Board about the specific transaction, is there anything else that should be considered by the Board to make sure the administration doesn't make this type--take this type of action in the future? >> I don't know. I'm not sure what to do on that. >> Dr. van Pelt, do you have a suggestion? >> The correct approach here would have been to have gone out to bid on this item. That would have resolved the issue. The problem is that in the manner in which it was done this went through the system completely sideways. >> So what you're saying is now that you're managing this process, it will be conducted properly in the future? >> This is clearly not the way to handle this. >> Right, so what I hear is the solution to this is to follow Board policy and Board practices? >> Yes, ma'am. >> And not to try to slip things past the Board? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Yeah. I think we can all agree with that. Mr. Martin? >> Well, you can tell I was gonna make a comment by the way I look. And as much as we don't like the news we're getting and we need to--I think--think about what to do as a Board to make sure things are being handled properly. I do appreciate when a vice president such as Mr. van Pelt is willing to call a spade a spade in a public and say it like it is and I think that's commendable. I just wanna say thank you for telling the truth, which we always expect of course. But it's--you know, there is a deeper issue here. We just had an audit committee meeting. It will be a while before we have another one but these are the kind of things that maybe we could address. >> Good. Yes? >> How are we going to be sure that this sort of thing isn't repeated? Well, for one thing, the audit committee--we just heard from Mr. Martin is aware and they will be on it. We'll expect the president and the vice presidents to make sure that something like doesn't happen again. We just have to depend on our staff. Mr. Martin? >> And lastly, I don't think it's appropriate for us to know the names of all these people but I have quite a bit of confidence in the superintendent that, you know, they're investigating and things would be dealt with it at the appropriate level and appropriate way. And, you know, sometimes--you understand the appropriate. It doesn't mean we may ever hear about it again and we probably don't need to. But, you know, I'm quite confident that that will happen. But I don't think mentioning names of employees in the public meeting is a good idea. >> I agree with you on that. I think this might be a good opportunity for all of us to go back and look at the values we hold in common, our ethics code, and I think transparency is one. And honesty, this is another one and I hope we can all uphold those. And thank you Dr. van Pelt for answering so candidly. Okay, any other questions? The next one then is 63-B, Mr. Martin? >> Yeah, I am sure many, many others are very excited some old buildings come down in preparation for our new Center for the Arts. In just some questions where I think it would helpful for me as a Board member and the rest of the Board to know that these things all are in place. One I'm--[inaudible] rattle them all out. One is just an approximation of when we look forward to the buildings coming down. When we lose that amount of square footage of building, I'm sure there is some plan for housing classes in--particularly spring when we ramp back up to a number of sections and finally some brief explanation that anytime you're bringing the building down, there are the potential for health risk not just for those involved but for the surrounding area and our students. So I would like to know that there're appropriate measures in place. And, you know, dust control, whatnot, to make sure that the campus is safe during the demolition. >> The two building that would be demolished are T-Building and the K-Building. They are now vacant and they have been for this semester. And in fact, we have removed all the asbestos, the lead, and the mercury, so they are right now ready for demolition. We would expect that and we hope that in December or early January, we would actually demolish the buildings. We have to go through the bid process. This is the first step for the authorization of the bid and in terms of dust control, there are very strict limits on that and there are regulations on that. And dust control is an important thing to various different governmental agencies as well and it's built into the specifications. >> Is that-- >> Yeah, that's [inaudible], thank you. >> Okay, the next is Mr. Baum, 64-B. >> It's just the question about the Mesa Energy System, Chiller Plant Upgrade. A couple of quick questions, is this the project that we also got a significant amount of incentive funding from the city to do? And then I have some questions but I wanna confirm that. That's the one that was on a very aggressive time schedule as well. >> Dr. van Pelt? >> Yes, sir. This is the Pasadena Water and Power had committed 615,000 dollars. They have now upped that to 700,000 dollars. So they increased it within the last couple of weeks partially to help with some of these change orders by another 85,000 dollars. So they're now our partner to--for 700,000 dollars and yes, it is a very aggressive timeline. We expect that in the next two to three weeks, the first of the chillers will be online. >> And then I just--because I think this is terrific and I'm gratified to see the partnership with the city and also like projects that's going to help us increase our energy efficiency within the district. The question that I had was when first heard this too, I thought we had projected that it would be brought in for under 3 million dollars and now it's more that 3 million dollars plus an extra 100,000 dollars in change orders is the net effect of what this is. So how we're looking on that? >> Well, and understand that this does include the total cost and passing water and power will be kicking in that 700,000 dollars. So that will drop that number--well below the 3 million-dollar threshold. >> Right. So 700,000 will be deducted, the district's obligation will be about 2.3, 2.45. >> And I would expect another change order on the order of 90 to 100,000 dollars yet for control. >> For deducting from that? Okay, I just wanted to clarify on that. >> Okay, the next is items 47-P and that's my item and I just want to congratulate Victoria Giles, who works in a mission to record, and retiring after 22 years of service. And Lucas Rodriguez in facility service, retiring after 10 years. We are always proud that we have employees who spent the major part of their career with us and we wish them well. The next is 49-P, Mr. Baum? >> And I just had a question not about Dr. Jacobs and extending their contract. I'm always pleased to support the work of Dr. Jacobs but is the time we customarily renew--do we customarily have three-year contracts for our vice presidents, and if we had non-interim vice presidents in place, would we have been doing all three together, is--or--and is this the time and is it a customary three years? For some reason I don't recall having a three-year contract for vice presidents. >> Well, Dr. Bradbury-Huang? >> Thank you, Dr. Mann. First, you do have an amendment in your Board packet for this particular consent item but I'd also like to ask Dean Engeldinger to answer the question about the three-year contracts if you may? >>A three-year contract is customary. >> And at PCC. So we--we've had three-year contracts for our vice presidents when they're non-interim. >> Yes, that's correct. >> And what time of the year do we usually approve those contracts, because we're into October and this goes back to July? >> We normally would--you know, Board would normally see this in June. >> In June, okay. >> And we express to the Board why this was delayed. I can go into that if you'd like to but I think we--there is a reason why this was delayed and-- >> It's a personal matter. It's not appropriate discussed at an open session. >> Okay. If relates to a personal matter, I understand. I just wanna know of there was something structurally an issue here. Okay, thank you. >> I do have a question though, because I did call Dr. Sugimoto and asked about this. So, this is not--we're not approving a three-year contract. This is like a multi-year and a three-year contract? >> Yes. >> And all we're doing is proving the salary increase which is built into the contract. Is that correct? Because within the contract, there is a half of percent increase each year. Is that-- >> Yes. >> And that's what we're approving. Do I have that [inaudible]? >> Yes, we're approving a three-year--basically a three-year agreement but you're approving that the-- >> We're approving the three-year agreement? >> Yes, that's what [inaudible]. >> Do we roll it every three years or-- >> We roll it. >> We roll it every [inaudible]. >> Every three years. >> Every three years [inaudible]. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Yeah, Dr. Sugimoto, I had asked if we don't usually get the copy of the contract. >> I did ask Human Resources and I said if we did, we would put it in the packet and apparently we do not normally include that. >> We're happy to do that going forward, but that has not been the practice that we're happy and I think we should do that. >> So would the Board like to pull this item on both of the vice president's contracts and actually see the physical contract? >> What I would just say is it's just contingent upon receiving the contracts because we're already delayed from June and it is impacting individuals and managers. I'm fine with approving this with a guarantee that within the week we have that and we can bring it back to the Board if we have any questions about [inaudible]. >> I have to do that. [ Inaudible Remarks ] >> Okay, wait a minute Mrs. Wells-Miller. Are through Mr. Baum? >> No, that's okay. >> Alright, Mrs. Wells Miller? >> I agree that's-- >> Talk into your microphone, please. >> I think we should go ahead with it since we're already past the time that we ordinarily would approve. >> Right. Dr. Sugimoto? >> That would be fine. I would have the Human Resources provide the contracts at our next Board meeting for you and your-- >> Okay, so we'll have them at the next Board meeting. And I also noticed for the contract for the interim vice-president of student and learning services there was no salary. When will we be receiving that? >> I know Dean Engeldinger, you've been in conversation with Dr. Stuart Wilcox? >> Dr. Wilcox and I met today and we gave him a salary proposal and based on district guidelines and also a copy of a proposed contract, so he has this for review and we expect to get this back from him and-- >> Alright, now that contract I really would like to hold until the next time when we've seen it because for Dr. Jacobs, we know what it is but we don't know what Dr. Wilcox's contract is gonna look like. So would there be any objection to holding that one until we could see the full contract? [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Yes? >> The president just approved the appointment. >> Pardon me? >> The action requested is [inaudible] to approve the appointment. >> We approved the appointment last time when you weren't here. >> Well, I'm looking at the [inaudible]. It's the right where the Board of Trustees, the governing Board of Pasadena College approved the following appointment at the interim vice president of Student and Learning Services. >> Right. Yes, Dr. Rey Castro? >> We approved that at the last meeting the appointment of--and requested that this contract be prepared and brought to us at this meeting but the appointment was made at the last meeting. >> Right, so that's--there's no reason for us to approve the appointments since we've already approved it. So what we need now is the contract which we can have at the next meeting if that's alright. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Well the sent item then is not correct. >> Why is it on the-- >> That's an error. >> It's an error. >> So we're pulling that one. >> We're pulling that one. Yes, Dr. Sugimoto? >> I think what happened is we needed to be ratify since the Board did take action at the last Board meeting. So what we can do is pull this particular item and bring back as to ratify with the contract for the Board. >> Right, and actually if you look at the minutes, it says a motion of Mr. Baum and seconded by Dr. Rey Castro. The Board voted by a unanimous vote, the five members present who approved the appointment of Dr. Stuart Wilcox as interim. So we did appoint him the last time. What we needed now was the contract. So that was--we'll just fix it. Can we fix that, Dr. Sugimoto? >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Now, with all these questions on the consent items, are there any other questions on the consent items? Yes, Dr. Rey Castro? >> No question, just a comment. There is a problem--I don't think it's just my ears, but I'm having difficulty hearing people speak and I'm gonna request that people speak directly into the microphone so that we can hear one another. If we're having problem up here, hearing one another then I would imagine the audience may also be having difficulty. And so if we make a consorted effort to speak clearly into the mic, I think we may mitigate that problem. We need to pull the microphone closer to ourselves. >> Alright, alright, fine. Are we ready to vote? Student Trustee? >> Aye. >> The other Trustees all in favor please say "aye." >> Aye! >> Opposed. Abstention? Item covers--carries. Next is public hearing and approval of contract for 2008-2009 between the Pasadena City College Instructional Support Services issue and the Pasadena Area Community College District: Discussion with the possible action. I'll declare the public hearing open. Is there anyone who wishes to address the Board on this item for the public hearing? I see nobody. I'll declare the hearing closed and we'll accept a motion to approve the contract. >> Move approval. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Second. >> Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Baum, seconded by Dr. Rey Castro. Any disc--Mr. Thomson? >> I have a question or a couple of question. Under physical impact, it says cover increased cost of health and welfare benefits, estimated cost 206,000 dollars and then it says for ISSU employees are dependents. I assume that's all one line but it says [inaudible] benefit cost regulating to 80,000 dollars. And it goes down to a step problem longevity increases, estimated cost there 210,000 dollars. Is that 210 additional to 206? >> Dr. Sugimoto, can you answer that, please? >> Yes, Dean Engeldinger has--this is his preparation for the consent, so I'll let you answer the question. >> Yes, add those two together to get the total cost. So it's 206,000 plus 210,000. >> We can't hear you, Dean Engeldinger. >> It's need to be closer to your mouth, the microphone. >> 206,000 plus 210,000 is the total cost of those items. >> 416,000 in other words. >> 416,000, yes. >> Thank you. >> Alright, any other questions or comments on this contract? Student Trustee, vote? >> Aye. >> Other Board members? All in favor, please say "aye." >>Aye! >> Opposed? Abstain? I would like to comment that with ISSU as with all the other units, we--the board continues to cover all health and welfare benefits cost for the employees and their dependents, and to include step column and longevity increases? >> Without any premiums having to be paid by the employees-- [ Simultaneous Talking ] >> That's right, without any--Without anything being paid by the employees. The next item is the Selection of College President: Discussion with Possible Action. Last time we reviewed bylaw 1690 and asked the administration to kind of compile what they heard, suggestions that we made, and make some--proposed changes in the bylaw and the selection procedure and the screening committee. And Mr. Baum--Mr. Browm--Mr. Martin, one of the things was this whole issue of "may" and "will," and if you will look, they have changed an--sentence to the board president--is this the one where we had the "may?" It says "may appoint an Ad Hoc Committee," or was--no it's the number 8, the Board of Trustees will use a first level screening to [inaudible] assist in evaluating it and that should be also on the back--number 8 "will use." And I think the reason we went ahead and put it in was on--based on kind of a struggle, more members of the board were favoring "will," but we will vote on this because we did not take the final vote, 'cause we want all the board members to be present and all the board members are now--are now present. So there's a couple ways we could do this, we could go through and I think the administration did a re--I shouldn't say reasonably, I think they did a good job of incorporating in the policy, let's look at the policy first, the suggestions which--yes? >> I didn't know, are any of the comment cards that you have at your desk related to this one. >> Yes, I do have some comment cards and I should ask the people to speak first, thank you. So before we go into that, we will hear from Mr. David Krause. >> Good evening, Dr. Mann, Members of the Board, guest. I'm Dave Krause, President of CSEA in Facilities Services, and I'm still pushing for a union representative--classified union represented on the screening committee. It's been done when Dr. Kossler was hired, and I think it should be done again. Thank you. >> Thank you. And Glenna Watterson. >> Hi! Nice to see you all again. I agree with Mr. Krause here that we should--since the faculty have a slash faculty senate association representative that we should also have a union representative under classified. We're hoping for that. But what I personally wanted to talk about is regards to number 10 on your selection of the president and I see that you're going to--it's a revised version and number 10 is including on-site visits. And I would like the board to seriously consider taking others besides themselves on these visits. We're in the trenches here, we know what's going on and, you know, I know you've had a lot of flack about what's happened in the last couple of years, we're all in recovery. And I think it would be a really good gesture to have appropriate people go with you to the places that you've narrowed down as who might be a president. So that's just my suggestion, a lot of people have called me about this so I think it's--the feeling of the majority of the people on campus that we'd really--they did a really good job when Cerritos came to us to ask about Dr. Zacovic, and all of us got to have our say and they did a really good search, and we would like to do a really good search. So thank you so much. >> Anyone else? I have no other cards. Okay, then let's go back to the policy. What I propose--propose is we do the policy, the procedures, and then the screening committee. And in the policy as it stands, I see the following changes. In number 2, whereas--the board--the Board of President in consultation, the Board of Trustees may appoint an Ad Hoc committee for the purpose of coordinating logistics and we've added--and procedures of the search, then in number 8, we have changed "may" to "will," the Board of Trustees will use a first level screening committee and we're referring to it as screening committee. And then we have removed if there's a first level screening committee and begin that sentence with "the Board." And those are the only changes that I see in the policy. Dr. Sugimoto, are there any changes in the policy? >> At this junction, no. Those were the only ones that we have. >> Alright, so those--those are the changes that we have, what I would like to do is I'd like to vote on the policy, then the procedures as I said and then--and then this. So let's--or is any have further comments on this? Yes, Dr. Bradbury-Huang? >> Yeah, it's a question. I wasn't here last week so I'm wondering if Glenna Watterson's concern is addressed with the changes made to number 2, or is it a separate issue? >> I--It has--It's not addressed because it wasn't raised last time, but would certainly can be addressed now. >> So this "and procedures," does it or does it not give us space to think about who goes on the site? >> It certainly--It was--At the "and procedures" certainly could include. And I think what she was wanting was just some written assurance but what the certainly "and the procedures" what could include who goes on the site visit. >> Okay. But if we wish to be more pointed, it sounds like we would have to amend number 10. >> That's--I think that's correct. >> Okay. >> It seems like maybe we should-- >> Excuse me, Mrs. Wells-Miller. Dr. Rey Castro had her hand up. Dr. Rey Castro then Mrs. Wells-Miller. >> Yes, number 2, the addition of the language "and procedures" does provide for the full--flexibility that we need in the process to incorporate recommendations with regard to not just the on-site visits but other recommendations that we've heard in the dialogue meetings that we had with the campus regarding the selection process itself. So I would also recommend that we leave the language "broad" as opposed to building those specific recommendations into the policy language itself. >> Yes, Mrs. Wells-Miller? >> I just wondered how we would address the concern of Ms. Watterson? At what point do we put the language in that would include-- >> Well, if you--if you wish to make a motion to amend it to include the language, you could do that anytime before we vote, or you can accept what we've heard that the language of adding "and procedures" to number 2 is broad enough to include it. >> So in other words, we don't need to be more specific? >> That's up to the board if you wish to be more specific you may or you can leave it broad. Dr. Sugimoto? >> May I suggest that your policy stay broad, but your procedures if you wish to then change those that that is where you might wish to have more specifics. >> Right. Mr. Thomson? >> In number 5, it--where it is right now, the Board of Trustees will seek input from the campus community and/or the general community. I would certainly think we want to be very specific that we will seek input from the campus community, so we either should strike "and/or," and just use "and" or we wanna have the general community be an alternative, we agree to rewrite this but my preference would be to say we will seek input from both the campus community and the general community. >> Right. Okay, we'll--this--could we just accept that as a friendly [inaudible]? I don't see anyone objecting to that. Alright! Any other--yes, Mr. Thomson? >> In number 8, like Hilary, I'd--I was not here last meeting but I don't think this is something that originated then but why we limit this to the first level screening committee? I mean, weren't gonna use a screening committee, why do we wanna limit its jurisdiction to the first level? >> Well, my understanding is on campus, that's what the--this committee that does the--screening is called its first level committee and second level committee, it's just what the campus calls it, it's a screening committee is what it is. >> Right. >> Right. >> I actually--I had suggested last time that we eliminate the first level and just say, we'll use a screening committee but--yes, Dr. Rey Castro? >> If you--I don't believe the language on the backside is quite the same. >> It says first level screening committee. >> But there is a language that indicates that the final--the final selection will be made by the Board of Trustees, and that the Board of Trustees may interview any of the candidates in the applicant pool, so the understanding was that the first level committee should therefore serve as a screening committee in terms of that process as opposed to making any final recommendation. >> Well, I don't quarrel with the terminology screening committee but its first level that concerns me. I was not involved in the process the last time around but I have heard much criticism because of different views that members of the committee had, other people. I don't favor limiting it to the first level, if we're gonna use screening committee, let's have the flexibility to utilize that further down the path. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Mr. Thomson, I think what you're dealing with is an academic term, the--this is almost always call the first level committee. This is the committee that does the screening and so forth that makes the recommendation usually up to--with the fact, that it's a second level. But there is usually a screening committee and then it comes to the--to the trustees. I think the--in my--at least to my opinion the problem last time is--it was very clear in their procedures that the trustees may choose to interview any candidate in the applicant pool, that this is a screening committee, it is not a selection committee, but the committee itself was not familiar with these procedures or this policy are, they chose to understand it in a different way or it was interpreted in a different way to them by the consultant. I don't know how that happened. These are exactly the same, this is exactly the same policies we use last time and I think it's very, very clear that this first level committee is a screening committee, but we didn't--and to clarify that was to add screenings. But if you think it would help to take out first level and just say use a screening committee, that's up to the Board. >> I thought I heard you say and perhaps I heard incorrectly that there is also a second level screening committee. >> There is in faculty positions but not in the--not in this search. >> Okay. >> The second level committee would be the board itself. >> The second level would be the--would be the--would be the board itself. What I said was, I think this is terminology that's often used in academic searches. Doesn't-- >> My preference would be to get rid of first level-- >> First level, yeah. >> Just call it the screening committee. >> Yeah. >> Is anyone objects to that, just call it a screening committee? >> Not at all. >> Alright. Let's just call it then--test--take out the first level and just call it screening committee, I have no problem with that. And we'll do that both in the policy and the procedure, right? Okay, that's fine. Yeah? Ms. Watterson? [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Would you have please come to the microphone so that audio audience can also hear you? >> Just so you understand, the first level screening committee also interviews, so they're not just screening, they do-do the first level interviews. >> That's fine, I have no quarrel with broadening the jurisdiction, that was my point. >> Okay, so are there--and I guess the only other thing is there--or I mean, is there anything else here? >> No, I don't think so. >> It's just the decision of using "may" or "will." >> Just the decision "may" and "will." At the last board meeting, the--more people favored using "may" than "will," I think that's correct. Yes, Mr. Martin? >> I was on the "may" side, and I was on the "may" side for future boards, I don't think it's worth the time here tonight. >> Alright. >> I'm--We're gonna use this--use it this time, I think it's a good idea if I'm on the board in the future, I'd wanna use it again. >> Okay >> It's not worth the discussion-- >> Okay, so what we have then-- >> --for me >> Okay, is we've added "and procedures," we've taken campus community "and/or" and removed the "or." We've removed first level, and we just have screening committee, and I think those were the only changes. >> Doctor, the faculty have-- >> Yes, Dr. Bickley? >> With respect to number 10, it reads "the Board of Trustees or designee," I don't know if you want that to be designees, but I think we had discussed, or you have discussed, the possibility of working with others in this process, so I would say "the Board of Trustees and/or designees" rather than just "or designees." >> Does anyone have any problem with saying "and/or designees" there? We're gonna address it more specifically in the procedures but this gives us a little flexibility. Alright! And/or, okay. Now, with those changes I would like a motion to approve the revised bylaw number 1690. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Right. Any further discussion? Advisory vote? >> Aye. >> Alright, the other trustees, all in favor say "aye." >> Aye! >> Opposed? Abstentions? Alright, now, we're to the selection process. Dr. Rey Castro? >> I thought that was part of 1690? It's not, is it? Separate? >> No, we just looked at that, we just looked at the policy. >> Okay. >> I like for us to vote separately on the--on these procedures. >> Yeah. I'll reserve my comments 'cause I wanted to comment on the screening committee so I don't wanna jump ahead. >> Okay, alright. Now on the--on the procedures if we make the same modifications and take out first level, is there any other changes and what we have here is we've added item 2 "and procedures," are there any changes that the board would like to make? Yeah, Mr. Baum? >> In compliance with the policy, we should--since we're looking at the procedures on number 10, we should say--we should have the designee-- >> Right, the Board of Trustees and/or designee. >> We'll conduct the background check on final candidates. >> Right. >> And include--we should also say in the procedures, add these on-site visits as well, 'cause we're not going to--the procedures, we are definitely not going to do this without conducting on-site visits. >> And so we--should there include in on-site visits, okay? >> I don't understand. >> Okay, what the procedures are really how we're going to go about doing the search. The policy is what directs us. The procedure doesn't say we're going to do on-site visits. >> Yeah. >> And I'm saying we are gonna do on-site visits and the procedure should reflect that. >> Yes, Dr. Sugimoto? >> So for clarification, we're talking about number 10, the Board of Trustees and/or designees will conduct the background checks and on-site visits on final candidates? >> Or we could say background checks on the final candidates including on-site visits as we did in the policy, so that they would be parallel. >> Okay. >> Yes, Mr. Thomson? >> Number 5 of the same change-- >> Yes. >> Change "and/or" to "and." >> Alright! >> And also 5 on the procedure says "may seek" input where as the policies say "will seek." >> Yes, that's true. It needs to be consistent. >> It needs to be consistent. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Let's make it "will" on both--in both places. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Sure. >> Okay, any other suggestions? >> Move to approve. >> Second. >> Alright, they have a motion to approve and the second, we ready to vote? Advisory vote? >> Aye. >> Other trustees? All in favor please say "aye." >> Aye! >> Opposed? Abstain? Motion carries. Now we're on the-- >> Dr. Mann? >> Yes? >> I would like to make a comment on the two things we just approved. I was happy, I had no trouble, may or will, designees, all that, the broader the better, because we don't know the circumstances to which we may be engaged when the time comes. I thought there were some things that went really well with the search process we did last time. One of the things that went really well was some of the sessions that I was privileged to attend where various campus representatives spoke about what they had desired in a superintendent and I still remember some of the comments that then--I think it was--I think it was then the teacher union president at that time, Rod Foster, made that I thought were incredibly insightful. That was a wonderful part of the process, sooner or later, the funnel of selecting the superintendent will get down to the narrow little part of seven trustees sitting in a room for an extended period of time and making a decision. And in the case of last time, that decision was made with great care, with great research, and it took hours and hours and hours. And so as much as I like broad processes and broad policies, I wanna get a tone across that in the end, it is the Board's responsibility, seven members, to make this decision representing the community. But the law wants the community making this determination, not the campus, not any part--single part of the campus, not any single student group, those students are important and staff are important, all these people are important. But it is the community represented by the Board that has to make this decision. So I'm delighted to have all this input. But in the end, I want it clear that it is the Board's decision. Like the baseball games that happen, there were some bad calls in some of these playoff games. And, you know, I'm quite confident that every one of those officials making those calls to the best of their ability to the time and place that they were in or making the best decision they possibly could make. We unfortunately don't get to wait two years and then go to the booth and look at the video replay. That's a luxury we don't get. So I think it's important through all of this to one, recognize this is ultimately the Board's decision and it's those seven members wrestling it through with the best interest of the entire Pasadena Area Community College District at heart that have to make it and we need to select a process that helps that decision in that room when it's made, be the best process it possibly can. I'm not convinced an entourage attacking a community college campus getting all the lowdown on a certain individual is exactly the best process to help seven people make that decision in a closed room. But the process is broad enough that we can look over the situation at the time when we get there and make a determination as the size of entourage that should be going out and doing a site visit and all that. But I just wanna kinda get the tone across that ultimately it comes down to that room. It's a tremendous responsibility. It was taken extremely serious last time. It was made in the best interest of the community college district and all involved and I'm quite confident that that same spirit will happen again this time. >> Mr. Baum? >> And I appreciate what Mr. Martin says. I think that we're going to have a very good process this time and I am glad that we've approved that process and I think--I'm not a place yet where I'm worried about too much feedback from the campus community and the general community and I appreciated Ms. Watterson's suggestion a search--the site visit could be a broad-based group of individuals because I will be making that decision in conjunction with my colleagues on the Board of Trustees. And when I make that decision, I will value the input that I get from just not what I've seen but what I've also heard from the variety of perspectives that will go into the search, so. I appreciate the suggestions that Ms. Watterson and others made and I think this process will be done very effectively. >> Okay. I'd like to make a comment, then Mr. Thompson for the audio audience. Ms. Watterson pointed out that the first level screening committee did interview the candidates and first level screening committees normally do interview candidates and normally do make a recommendation. That is the process that we use but thank you for helping us clarify. Mr. Thompson? >> I don't know if this part of what just approved or not, but the--I wanted to focus the discussion on the recommendation, Mr. Krause and Ms. Watterson that we--one of the classified student representatives be changed to-- >> We're not there yet. >> Okay. >> Okay. Alright, but are we ready to go there and then we can--then that will be in order? Yes, please, Mr. Thompson. Go ahead. >> Just--Right now the revised recommendation on the screening committee includes two classified senate representatives and they are suggesting that one of those positions be changed to classified senates/classified union and I just wanted to focus that and have some discussion about it. >> Yes, Mr. Baum? >> Here's where I am on this. We have a shared governance process as dictated by the education code. The faculty are part of the shared governance process, the classified are part of the shared governance process. We have a management at our governance table and we have the students. We should have those representatives selected by those shared governance representatives around the table because otherwise we'll get into like every campus group who feels they should have a voice and we received assurances from Dr. Bickley at the last meeting. He of course would consult with the bargaining units in the selection of their representatives and I trust that the classified senate would consult with their representatives--their membership to make sure that the voice of the classified is heard. >> And so I think it should remain academic senate representatives too, classified senate representatives too, management representatives to--and associated students too. >> I do think we should say Student Trustee. >> Okay, it's--I'm just saying that-- [ Simultaneous Talking ] >> Dr. Rey Castro. >> Yeah, we had this discussion at the last meeting and I thought when we left that that was--the tone one which we had left that discussion, that the academic senate recognizes that the faculty union is part of the academic senate and that they would make that decision and select a representative. But I don't think it is incumbent upon this Board to make those designations. I think it's incumbent on those shared governance representatives to make those decisions. And because of that, I support Trustee Baum's position. >> Mr. Baum? >> The one challenging part we got to--and Mrs. Liggins is not here, is the managers and the executive committee. Are we going to--The executive committee members aren't necessarily management association representatives. So, how do we feel about specifying a spot on that committee for an executive committee member or do we defer and say that there will be two managers? >> Dr. Rey Castro? >> Well, if we follow the criteria that you provided when you first espoused your position, it was the shared governance agreement and the shared governance agreement does not recognize the executive committee as a shared governance body. >> I think that would be consistent. >> So, let's be consistent and let's give those two positions to the management association and let them. It will incumbent upon them to make the choice from the executive committee with regard to the participation in this process. >> So what I hear is a--are you gonna make this a motion? >> I'll move that selection committee--that each Board member will have--will select a community representative, the academic senate will have two--select two representatives to the committee, the classified senate will select two representatives to the committee, the management association would select two representatives to the committee, there will a student trustee and representative from the associated students. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay, any discussion--yes, Mr. [inaudible]? >> We're deleting executive committee representative? >> Yes. [ Inaudible Remarks ] >> Not deleting, we're just include [inaudible]? >> Just a quick question with regards to the student trustee. Is the student trustee at the final levels of the selection process for the-- >> No, because it's a personal matter. The student trustee does not participate in the final level. >> Because I'm just asking. >> Well, of course. >> Because I'm appointing somebody to the hiring committee for the VP of Admin. Services and who also was there to participate in the entire process. I was wondering if it, you know, follow that precedent. >> No. >> What's the answer to the question I asked? >> What was the question you asked? >> Are we deleting the executive committee representative from this? >> Yes. The answer to that is yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> We're just saying two management association representatives. Dr. Rey Castro then Mr. Baum then Dr Sugimoto. >> Yeah, I think it's important to clarify for Trustee Thomson that we're not deleting the executive committee representative, that we're just being consistent with regard to the language for all the shared governance participants that the management association is recognized by AB-1725 language as the shared governance group. And if we give them two positions, one of them--hopefully they--like the senate and the classified, will choose a representative from the executive committee. So we leave it to them. >> Mr. Baum and then Dr. Sugimoto. >> There's a non-voting chair/facilitator, what I recall is-- >> Could we do this first and then go--yes, Dr. Sugimoto. >> In terms of representation from the executive committee, you should understand that the management association is a separate meet in confer unit and it's a shared governance group. The executive committee stands pretty much along at this point and I would hope that the Board would consider an executive team individual on this committee because these individuals work very closely with the Superintendent/President. I understand the logic of going through and using shared governance, constituent groups to select their individuals but I don't believe that the management association would necessarily consult with the executive team to assign an executive team member. Now that would be something I would talk with Ellen about but I would feel that they would have a very strong sense that they'd like two of their management association people on the committee. >> Okay, any other comments? >> I was just going to say that I think it's appropriate that we name the student trustee because the student trustee is elected by the students to be student trustee but I agree with this otherwise. Alright, so we have a motion on the floor to approve the--and this will be the screening. We'll take first level out. Does everyone understand what the motion is? It's to represent the academic senate to classified senate, to management association and then the student trustee and the associate students rep and then each Board member would have a community rep. That's the motion. Dr. Wills--ah, Dr. Wills--Bradbury-Huang? >> Well, if I understood the ramifications of what President Sugimoto was saying, we would in fact keep management association representative as one and executive representative as one? Is that correct, Dr Sugimoto? >> That's not the motion. >> No, I just--but I just wanna understand. >> That was certainly what I was recommending but I do understand the logic behind what the Board is recommending. >> Okay, so then I want to offer a friendly amendment to the motion. And that friendly amendment would be everything that you have just said, Dr. Mann, down to management association, one executive committee, one for the logic already expressed by Dr. Sugimoto. I--That these are the folks working most closely with the new president. >> There is--the maker of the motion accept that? >> Not at this time. >> No, it doesn't--No, that was not accepted. So if--Did you second it? [ Inaudible Remark ] >> I did. >> Oh, she--I'm sorry, [inaudible] she said it friendly and then-- >> Okay, so she would have to make an amendment of the motion. >> So do you wanna make an unfriendly amendment? You wanna make a motion? >> I must. >> Okay, so I have a motion and I have a second to have the second person in the management association be executive committee representative. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Okay, we all--we all clear on that? So are we ready to vote. Wait a minute, Dr. Bickley, I saw your hand. Does it relate to this particular item here or the larger motion? >> Well, it does but I think it's being addressed. I was gonna say we could say management association selection--selectees because you're sort of implying you want them to pick one of the executive committee but I think you're on the much better track, so. >> Okay, so the motion is to say management association representative and executive committee representative. Is that correct as it stands now? Is that right, Dr. Bradbury-Huang and Mr. Thomson? Okay--Yes, Mr. Baum? >> And because I don't necessarily agree with the motion only in that I think it's clear based on who's invited to be on this committee due to the shared governance representative. I'm not trying to quiet the voice of the executive committee. In fact, the executive committee has--is gonna have a huge voice in the selection of the president. We as trustees come into contact next to the president with the members of the executive committee more that any other group on campus often. So, I think that this is just one aspect of the search and this is the screening committee. I think, I'm not necessarily and I would encourage Dean Liggins and her colleagues to appoint a member of the executive committee. But I think that it's clear the logic behind that and so nobody can say, "Well, why is that person on the committee and not me." And so--And the managers will feel their voices even more stifled because if they only have one representative on the committee in the classified and the faculty each have two, we will hear that and Dean Liggins has made that point in our meetings before. >> Any--Dr. Bradbury-Huang? >> Well, it's a question and a comment back to Trustee Baum. The quick comment is sheer numbers alone for me suggest that the management association might appropriately have one whereas faculty which is a much larger number would indeed deserve two. But my question back to you is--clearly we do interact a lot with the executive committee but how do they get to know the potential candidates? >> I'm not sure. >> Okay. >> That procedure is yet to be worked. >> That procedure is yet to be worked. >> Is there any further--yes, Dr. Rey Castro? >> Yeah. I wanna point that I'm really--sorry that Dean Liggins is not here this evening because this was the point she raised at the last meeting. She herself indicated that they found it unfair that the management association was given one position whereas they are the shared governance body as recognized by EB 1725 and all the other shared governance bodies were given two positions because we stipulated that one of their--the executive committee would take up one of those other positions, and she also at the same time made it very clear after had discussion, a lengthy discussion that they had no problem with appointing a member from the executive committee as one of their representatives. I'd welcome anybody to go back and listen to the tape please because Dean Liggins made it very clear that they were very supportive of going and making an appointment of an executive committee representative, but they wanted the right to be able to make that appointment themselves just like the academic senate will make that appointment, just like the classified senate will make that appointment. Instead of having the board indicate, you know, for them what the appointment would be. >> That's correct. I remember that. >> Alright. Is there any further--any further discussion and if not we will vote on the motion. Again, the motion is to have management association representative 1, executive committee representative 2. >> This is on the amendment. >> I'm sorry. On the amendment to the motion--on the amendment to the motion, not on the motion. So, again, that is the amendment to the motion. So advisory vote? >> Aye. >> Advisory votes aye. Okay. All in favor of the amendment to the motion, please hold up your hand so I can count it. One, two, three, four. Opposed? Three. Motion passes. Alright. So we'll now go to the vote on the entire committee and we have a motion to approve this. Any further discussion? Advisory vote? [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Sorry. Dr. Rey Castro. >> Yeah. I--Now that we have amended the--now that we have a new amendment that we're considering, I--you know, I'm gonna take a different position with regard to this motion that's on the floor, the original motion and I wanna--I wanna state ahead of time before we vote on it that I'm gonna be voting against it even though I seconded because it is inconsistent and I think the basis of whatever we pass has to be consistent and I plan to vote no because I think we need to make it consistent. Now that we'v made it inconsistent, I'd like to make it consistent again and I'd like to see the Academic Senate be slash Academic Senate and PCC Faculty Association, the Classified Senate be slash Classified Senate and Union, and Management Association slash can be Executive Committee and so on. So that way it's consistent. If we're gonna do it for one, we need to do it for all. >> Is that an amendment? >> Do you wanna make an amendment to that effect? Dr. Rey Castro? >> If that's--If that's what people want, fine. >> Does anyone wanna second it? I guess not. So the--Are we now ready to vote on the motion which is we approve the committee as virtually as it is in your binder except we don't have the identification of the--of faculty--of the union representative from faculty. Is everyone clear on the motion? Advisory vote. >> Aye. >> Other board members, all in favor say "aye." >> Aye! >> Opposed. Okay. I have six to one. Motion carries. The only other part here is the--about the search consultant and it says here a nonvoting chair/facilitator and then the Dean of Human Resources would be the equal employment opportunity representative. We did have some discussion as to whether the facilitator should be a nonvoting chair. I mean it's where the consultant should be a nonvoting chair or should be the facilitator. Mr. Baum. >> Yeah. I feel strongly that the committee should or may select the chair that the search committee representative or consultant is not--is a facilitator not chairing this process. >> Right. Would you like to make a motion to that effect? >> Yeah. I would just strike the word "chair." It would be a non-voting facilitator or convener. >> It's in the revise. >> Is it? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So then the--I don't think we need it. >> Okay. So then--in the revise in our packet? >> Where? >> There was, I think, in the-- >> Oh, no, no. It's still the same. It's just a-- >> The red folder. >> Red folder. >> Non-voting. It's just strike the word "chair" from that. >> It's in revise that is stricken. >> At the top part, it is. In the bottom [inaudible]. >> On the bottom part it isn't. >> So we will strike chair from both of those-- [ Simultaneous Talking ] >> And so both of those, it will just be facilitator. Does anyone have any problem with that? So that means the committee will select the chair of the committee. Alright. Okay. Alright. And then at the bottom, it would also say facilitator 1, facilitator--non-voting facilitator and one non-voting EEO rep just to make it really clear who votes. Yes, Mr. Martin? >> I would like that search consultant to be the non-voting chair/facilitator so I'm-- >> Do you wanna move that? >> We still need to vote. >> Well, now that it's been changed, yes. I'll make that motion to see if there's a second. >> Okay. He's made a motion that--that Mr. Martin moved that the search consultant be the non-voting chair/facilitator. Is there a second for that? >> Second. >> Okay. There is this--I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Mr. Martin. >> Well, my reasoning is that one, I don't want this committee embroiled in their first controversy of trying to figure who a chair should be when you have seven community people who don't may or may not know anyone there in the committee. And so I could see where they could end up spending hours, you know, grappling with a rather ceremonial position. And, hopefully, we're hiring a professional consultant no matter what firm it is that specializes in facilitating and moving this forward. I see no advantage in singling anyone--person out as some kind of designated chair. I see the advantage in letting the professional guide the community members through the input that needs to be done and if there was a problem with the process as I understood it last time, it was--there was not enough time given to the first level committee to properly interview and do all that they had to do because it is a tremendous amount of work, and the last thing I wanna do is add yet one more burden on them to spend time figuring out who the chair would be. So I think we let the professional be the chair facilitator with the idea of guiding this process through and that all these members are equals and all have the single task. >> Mr. Baum? >> My impression is actually a bit different and I'm opposed. I think the committee last time deferred too much the search consultant as the chair and did not feel--had adequate time to process this. And so I'd like--and I have faith that the committee under our direction and we will work with all the representatives will be able to select a chair to conduct the business at hand. >> Mr. Thomson. >> In addition to that, I may well end up with a consultant who is from across the country who doesn't know this area, doesn't know the college that well, granted the person will be a professional. We'll learn all that things. But I think it's--it would be the state to have the facilitator be also the chair of the committee. Like maybe can get together and very easily, very civilly selected chair. I'm not worried about that so I would strongly oppose the proposed amendment. >> Any further discussion. Are--Dr. Bradbury-Huang? >> Well, just very quickly. I mean Mr. Martin's concerns are also my concerns in allowing the facilitator the freedom to either be the chair or not the chair by airing on the side of giving freedom. I think we air on the side of having the committee do better work. >> Mr. Baum. >> We--Our procedure does not prohibit also the Board of Trustees at appointing the chair of the committee or selecting among the committee members to be the chair if they're having trouble selecting that chair. >> That is correct. It certainly doesn't. Any other--Any other comments? So the motion is to have the search consultant be non-voting chair/facilitator. Dr. Sugimoto. >> I apologize Dr. Mann. Mr. Abadia had his hand up. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see you. >> I know. I see advantages of what Trustee Martin brings up, but I also--of course, I see disadvantages also that the opposing argument brings. >> I think it would be prudent for the board to--and in my opinion I think it would be good for the board to designate who would be the chair just to avoid a lot of the problems that Trustee Martin brought up and possibly, one of the community representatives. Seeing that they have no vested interests in seeing or [inaudible]--specifically who gets chosen? >> Okay. Dr. Sugimoto, did you have--or are you just pointing that I had failed to see? I'm sorry. Mr. Thomson and Mrs. Wells-Miller. >> The only point I would make is that the motion to amend would exclude the Board from having the right to make that selection of the chair. I agree that we should allow the Board to have that power if it chooses to do so like the current proposal to amend will exclude that and I therefore think it should not be approved. >> Mrs. Wells-Miller? >> I wanted to back up to Dr. Castro's where we have a 6-1 vote. >> I'm sorry that's inappropriate unless someone wants to move to reopen that subject. >> Well, I think I do wanna reopen to make sure that we haven't done something unjust. >> So you're moving that we reopen that? >> For a quick minute, I just have a question. >> Is there a second to reopen? >> Point of order. >> Point of order? >> We have an amendment on the-- >> We do have an amendment on the floor. [ Simultaneous Talking ] >> We need to resolve the amendment before we accept another. >> He's absolutely right. First. >> Okay. >> Okay. So are--is there any other comment on this--Mr. Martin's motion to change it to, say search consultant, non-voting chair/facilitator? Okay. All in favor of Mr. Martin's motion--oh, I'm sorry. Advisory vote. >> Nay. >> No. Okay. All in favor of Mr. Martin's motion, please say "aye" or raise it. >> Aye. >> One. Okay, those opposed? Say "aye" raise your hand. Okay. The motion does not carry, 6 to 1. It does not carry. Now, Mrs. Wells-Miller. >> Yes. I just [inaudible]. >> Oh, you can't speak to something unless the rest of the board wants to reopen this. So you wanna move to reopen this, make a motion and see if someone seconds. Otherwise, we're going to go on. >> Okay. I'd like to move to reopen just long enough to ask a question. >> Is there a second? >> We open what? >> The vote on the composition of the screening committee. No one else does. You can ask the question later. Maybe we can clarify it. Okay, that--I think that takes care of that. I would like to--Yes, Dr. Rey Castro? >> I just like to clarify with regard to the vote that we just took that allowing flexibility in the selection of the chair does not preclude the committee from selecting the search consultant as the chair. >> Absolutely. The search--The committee can select whoever they want as chair. It could be the search consultant. >> Right. >> Alright. So that concludes that. I would like to encourage--like what? >> I don't have that clarify--I'm not cleared on that. I don't think the committee can select the search consultant as the chair. I think specifically the search consultant is precluded from chairing this committee. That is my-- [ Simultaneous Talking ] >> It doesn't say that it just says facilitator. >> Okay. Well then I will move that the search consultant will not be the--is ineligible from being the chair of this committee. >> Okay, is there a second to that? >> I'll second it. >> There's a second to that. So we have a motion and second that the search consultant/facilitator will be ineligible to serve as chair. Anyone wanna speak to this any further? We're ready for a vote. Advisory vote. >> Nay. >> No. Okay. All in favor of the motion that the search committee will be--that the search consultant will be unable to--ineligible to service chair, please say "aye." Or hold up your hands so we can count. One, two, three. All opposed. Four. Motion fails. >> Okay. >> Okay, alright. I would like to encourage everyone to make their selection of--and start being the committee together. We're gonna be talking about selection of search firm. And would you please send the names of your representative to--I guess Dean Engeldinger, since he is the person that will be doing the coordination. Yes, Dr. Rey Castro? >> What is the timeline for-- >> For the search committee. >> --us to respond by the next board meeting? >> Well, you know that that kind of--I would say yes. By the next board meeting. >> Okay. >> Because I hope at the next board meeting, we also will--can select this--the firm to be interviewed. So if you could send it to Dean Engeldinger the representative I think that would be helpful. >> Alright. Let me be clear on what you're asking. Community representative suggestion or a firm commitment that they will serve? >> Well, I think it would be a suggestion and I'm trying to recall. Last time, didn't the board have to approve the committee or did you just appoint? [ Simultaneous Talking ] >> The Board appoints the committee. We recommend to the-- >> Right. Okay. Your recommendation. Yes Mr. Martin? >> Well, I'm agreeing with [inaudible] just said, but I think it's appropriate for us as a board member to talk to this person and say that we wanna put their name forward as our representative and they should agree to that-- >> Absolutely. >> With the understanding that the entire Board will approve the entire committee and that being said, I can't think of a case where one person--the board pulled out a name of one of the committee people that was different, that I mean it could happen. >> Right. >> But I think you want that person vying into the fact that their name is going to the Board. >> Absolutely. It would be--So our recommendation to go to the Dean Engeldinger that will then be presented the Board and they will act on it the next meeting. Yes. >> To the degree humanly possible, some understanding of the time commitment would be very helpful in getting agreement from the representatives. >> Alright. Yes. Then--Okay. So we're finished with that. As--The next item which is the search--Selection of the Search Firm, you have in your board packet the letter, which was sent to some search firms. And Dean Engeldinger, can you give us just a brief report on who you sent it to and if you can, just a preliminary on the status? >> Yes I'd be happy to. We-- >> Speak right into that microphone, please. >> I'm getting right up close to it, up close and personal. We have sent the--to 10 firms. We have heard from six, one of which declined. We have been in telephone contact with all 10. We expect to receive the responses by the 23rd. We have also received from Trustee Thomson additional search firm recommendations and we today having received that as recommendations this afternoon. Telephone, started the process of telephoning those additional groups in so we will--we've asked them to respond by the 23rd. It maybe that given the late entry of some that they may asked for an extension so the board would wanna consider whether they wanna do that or not. So in any event, we are moving along a rapid pace with good response and so far we anticipate full response by the 23rd. >> Yes, Mr. Baum. >> The Board officers have a chance to review this letter before it was sent? >> Yes, we did. >> Okay. I just wanted to make sure. >> We did review it and approved it. And as my understanding that you also call these firms before sending the letter to make sure that they were interested and telling them the date. >> We did. >> I would not have a--I think it's quite appropriate if Mr. Thomson had to be all the country if he had some suggestions. >> Yes. >> Because we wanna pass the broad net, but I do think that the all--if firm is interested, they need to have their--have their proposed one by the next Board meeting which is when we'll be reviewing it. So I think I wanna do it a couple of days later, I think that'd be appropriate. >> And that is the way we're putting it to use. >> Yes, Mr. Thomson? >> Just quickly to add that the names that I suggested were given to me by the President of Bucknell University which among has many distinctions happens to be my undergraduate alma mater. [Laughter] He and his wife were out here last week and Carol and I had the chance to get together and have lunch with them, and of course, that I asked him about this. He gave me subsequently an e-mail a number of firms I think Lile [phonetic] has looked at some of the website information that he--I was also referred to and it's found to be very helpful. >> Yes. >> Right. Alright. So as long as we have them because what I'm assuming we will do in our November meeting is we will look at the proposals and we will select the ones that we wanna come--have come and give a presentation so that we can start the search. Last time because we started late and like--we started the community--having the community hearings before we selected the firm, I would suggest this time we should let the consultant work with us through that process. >> Right. >> Alright, so in the sense, I think we're moving as fast as quickly as we can and that we right on track with this process. Any other questions or comments? Okay, the next item is Budget Update. Dr. Sugimoto? >> Yes, thank you Dr. Mann. I'd like to turn this over to Dr. van Pelt to give you a budget update. >> Okay, very briefly. The budget was loaded and the first reports are now out to the call center managers and staff. Odessa is currently finishing up on the first quarter financials and I will point out that both of those are extremely labor intensive jobs so it's not a matter that the computer does it. They're very, very laboring intensive. And of course the auditors are [inaudible] too. So it's an extremely busy time. There are people who are getting the sense that the economy is recovering and there fore there's a silver lining on the--in the clouds. The trouble is that the credit market is still extremely tight with 1.4 trillion dollar federal deficit which is tripled the previous record. The real-estate bubble has yet to fully burst because the sub-prime and the zero interest and so forth, loans are still about to come due. And we can expect it within the next year that will happen. And one of the strangest things is that with the stock market rising, this is being described as a jobless recovery. And what that means is that businesses may be somewhat recovering but not to the point where employment is rising. And for the California economy to strengthen employment numbers must go up. Clearly it's upside down at the moment. Therefore, you know, the budget predictions for the following year being pretty bleak, certainly still looks like that's exactly what's going to happen. And I think that we're on course. We're about to start in the process for setting that up. We also by the way had a meeting today with the auditors and they were describing just how many strings are attached to the federal stimulus money. And while that number is for smaller than we originally hoped and I think that probably will be on the three-quarter of a million dollar area, it comes with tremendous number of strings. So it's something that we're gonna have to work through and the auditors have committed to help in terms of navigating through that. So that's just a brief update on the budget. >> Thank you, Dr. van Pelt. Are there any questions for Dr. van Pelt? Yes. >> [Inaudible] regarding the federal stimulus money, you're talking about strings attached, specifically could you explain like what kind of strings. How it would affect us or--or the nature of the strings attached? >> Apparently it comes with 100 of pages of legal list that you have to follow. And the other thing that happens is, is that it--what the auditors described, they're called high risk fund which means that they have to be audited extremely carefully not only those particular funds but the funds that receive those funds. So it makes the audit process very laborious and very time consuming and it raises all sorts of other issues. So we will work with the auditors in order to try and to find how to best proceed through that. >> Dr. Bradbury-Huang? >> So, I understand one implications of what you're saying is it may not be especially wise for us to go after stimulus dollars. But beyond that, what are the implications of what you're telling us for out budget. >> No, I think that we will receive this stimulus money. The question is how do we go about passed using those moneys? And one of the options is that we put them in a whole series to different small pots. The challenge there is that every one of those little pots is going to be very tightly audited. And each one of the men comes with very tight strings. So one of the options for instance maybe that we put all the money into one large area and remember that we did moved two million dollars from the general fund to help in the categorical programs. So we can use our own funds to support those areas. And by using the stimulus money in the fewer areas that are more straightforward, I think it might make the process a whole lot easier for us. Certainly, we wanna take the money. >> So then for the budget--see, is this relevant to the budget that we have just approved or are we talking about the budget for next year. >> It is relevant to the budget they were just approved. >> Okay, switch--okay, so the big question on many of our minds is what's it look like for next year 'cause we've already--in some ways getting the--getting what we have to bite so far. >> Next year's budget is going to be bleak. It will be-- >> How bleak? >> Well, we don't know that. Certainly the signs on the horizon are that the economy will not recover to the point where jobs will be created. That being the case, we can expect that there's going to be a budget cut. It's entirely possible, there's going to be a midyear cut this year. And the fact is that the state budget is structurally unsound. And with each passing day that budget gets weaker. Therefore all the signs are that we are entering even rougher times. >> So we've already cut 7 or so percent for this current budget which brings us to somewhat bare-bones type scenario. We're not going to cut again and therefore to begin to really work with those cuts, we have to begin to look at areas that we have not yet cut. >> We have identified about 7 million dollars that we have available for next year's cut. That would mean that the community college system can sustain. We can sustain a 350 million dollar cut to the system as a whole. So we have already placed ourselves in a position to be able to handle that. >> Which would be what in a percentage group? We can sustain a 5 percent cut? >> Well, that'll be 7--it's going to be on the order 5 percent, 5 to 6 percent. >> Okay, so beyond that is when we start talking about bleak. >> That's true. >> Okay, okay. So maybe not quite as bleak, [inaudible], that you know, [inaudible] >> Dr. Rey Castro? >> Dr. Mann and I were up in San Francisco at the Trustees Conference two weeks ago and we heard reports that were already a one billion dollar on anticipated gap that the fiscal analyst out of the Chancellor's Office was reporting and this was in addition to already projected midyear cut. So an additional one billion dollar gap in revenues that the State was receiving from under payments in terms of taxes because of the very, very low unemployment rates. So, the picture that you've describe as bleak I think is really an important descriptor for us as we proceed into the last part of this first year and the beginning of the second year in terms of our mind set and our preparation. I think it would be a real mistake for us to read too much into the silver lining that Wall Street is experiencing in terms of an upturn. Because whatever upturns our experience at that level seemed to arrived in California last and we are after all in California. And I think that we've really have to be on guard with regard to this whole diminishing resources that's taking place here in California and the length of--and the depth of the budget gap, the fiscal crisis. >> Right. >> Dr. Sugimoto? >> Hope that this answers some of Dr. Bradbury-Huang's question about the stimulus funds. We are receiving some of those funds through the Chancellor's Office to help us with our categorical programs. So we are receiving them whether we've gone out after them or not. It's not as if we've written grants for those stimulus dollars and those will come with strings attached with many audit requirements and the auditors have been very good about telling this that they would help us through that, put together information about what we will need to do so we can not count very carefully for those dollars and meet the confines requirements of those dollars been distributed to us. >> That is very helpful, thank you. >> Any other questions for Dr. van Pelt. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next we have the Accreditation Update. Dr. Sugimoto? >> Yes, thank you, Dr. Mann. And Ms. Kollross, would you like to address this particular item? >> Sure. This is just a brief update of the activities that we've undertaken over the past month to address the accreditation and recommendations in particular we of course are focusing our attention on recommendation number 1 in which we received the warning status. I've been attending cluster meetings with Dr. Jacobs and doing sort of like information gathering sessions with the faculty and how they would like to see the data sets in the program review process. >> And they've actually have been very effective, they've been very forth coming, and I think they've really understand the importance of program review and us developing a consistent data sets. So I'm really very excited about where this whole process is going. >> Okay, any questions from the Board? Comments? Thank you. The next item is item K, Superintendent/President's Goals: Discussion with possible action and you find this behind Tab K. Dr. Sugimoto? >> Actually in you package you'll see a revised version of my goals. >> Okay. >> So hopefully, that will help you. >> Do you wanna take us through this? >> How long do you have? >> The question is how long do you have? [ Laughter ] [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Does that help you-- >> Yes. >> --if I move approval? >> Yes, thank you. Okay we have a motion and a second to approved, thank you very much. Okay, Dr. Sugimoto. >> Thank you. I've outlined hopefully on the front and back pages of my revised version with I believe to be goals. I do realized that some of the board members would like to see how some of these goals are related to the strategic goals of that college and I'll be happy to go back and look at that and identify those specifically. I don't wanna read all of these to you. There are 10 goals that I anticipate getting through. And as a board member said to me if I don't set the goals high enough and if I reach all of them then I haven't set them at the point where I need to. So, my goals certainly is to do as much of this is possible within the next eight months that we have left in the academic year. So I will open that up--this up for any questions that you may have. >> Are there any questions? Mr. Martin? >> I was gonna say that from my review. I was very impressed with the goals. I think they were--not only was I impressed with the content of the goals but the simplicity at which they were stated just connects to me with the College and I really appreciate that. I think it's a very ambitious list. I know that there--the one in our package revised from the one that I read earlier. So I don't know what you've added but it was ambitious before she added whatever she added. And though I have tremendous confidence in Dr. Sugimoto, this is--if you get close all of these, I'm gonna be thrilled. But I will say in the short period of time that she's been Superintendent, I already see progress on a vast majority of these, tremendous progress. So, when I first read, I said, there's no way in the world you'll come close to do all these and I started reflecting on what you've done in your short 10-year and I said well, maybe. [Laughter] But it is--I believe it's ambitious, I believe it's a great set I just wanna command you for the way it all presented, I'm delighted. >> Dr. Bradbury-Huang, Mrs. Wells-Miller? >> I will pass up. I was the one quoting my colleague Dr. Warren Bennis [phonetic] who encourages be [inaudible] audacious goals. My concern is not that this be met. I would like them to be meet but actually that we just to have some clarity about where we are and what need next to be done. That's the most crucial part of it. And that's for that reason that I would find it very helpful and I think support stuff could do this. I don't think you would necessary have to take time to hook these to the strategically of the college. And the reason that being so important that this time is because the last time we actually developed those goals was I think the first time we all felt finally we've got in our hands around this strategic process that may actually work so that the circle had been in fact brought together with the board staff coming in with that great annual meeting that Dr. Wilcox brings together so that's the first thing. If I might comment on a couple items, one being the budget so four for 4-B, I have that as maybe it's-- >> 3-B? >> 3-C, excuse me, 3-C. I'm gonna sound like a broken record and I know Dr. van Pelt has heard this over and over but for us on the board, it's very helpful to see very clearly what are the kinds of cuts that we might to take under consideration as we begin to grapple with this bleak forecast. In other words, given the brevity that Dr. Mann keeps you to very, very strictly--so, you know, less about the sausage making and more about where exactly we will be cutting. So that way I think we can take responsibility for the cuts that are being made. I think that's the trauma as a Board that we went through before. And, you know, as soon as possible let's start putting on the table, is it time to think about salary cut, et cetera, et cetera, so that the conversation begins to be had around the college. In addition--I really thank you Dr. Sugimoto for putting on increase revenue generating opportunities. It's new for a community college to have to think in this way, but I think this is the future for community colleges. We can not rely on the state. I have a big, old concern with regard to ERP, I understand your desire to stabilize and then move forward. I just wanna say publicly that I think we're at the stage of near crisis with regard to our need for ERP. I know that you know that, I think the sooner we can get to vendors the better. I would love to see. It happened before the end of the year but, you know, it's spring is the best we can do given that it's so important. And, yeah, just to reiterate, we don't expected it all to be done. >> Yes, Mrs. Wells-Miller then Mr. Thomson. >> I was going to say the more I have become well acquainted with Dr. Sugimoto, the more impressed I am with what she's able to get them. So don't be surprise if this list is accomplished. >> Mr. Thomson? >> Under 9 and number 6 you have stabilize the current technology. My understanding of the technology here is that's it's in the dark ages. I think we would like to improve it not stabilize it. >> I completely appreciate what you're saying. She's trying to make sure that we have some consistency that we don't keep going up and down on technology. Thank you very much, Mr. Thomson. Yes. >> And yeah, I want to second with Trustee Martin said, I think it's very detailed, it's very simple. I think he addressed it everything I could ask from President/Superintendent and I want to congratulate you. It's varies thorough. >> Okay, Dr. Rey Castro? >> I'm very pleased with the detail and the--that's provided for each of the goal areas even though there are broad areas there. You've provide enough detail I think to show what in particular in those area is you're going to target. There's one area that I think I would have like little mention of--or maybe a little more detail, 7-E, were it says identifying funding sources maybe a slash that says the foundation because the foundation is such a major priority for the board and for the college and clearly you'd be working with the foundation to identify and develop any outside funding sources. >> Mr. Tsay? >> Under 3 section D. I strongly believe that this is the way and the direction of the college should be taking and I guess I just like to offer you the resources of associate students in regards to the labor and buddies available. We have bunch of students that want to make a difference at this college so if you can think of any fundraising opportunities or any plans that you'd like to include us on, we'd be more than happy to participate. >> Thank you very much. >> And any other questions? Well, I have a confession. I meet with Dr. Sugimoto, look at these, and you know the goals offer 2009 through 2010. There're a couple things on here she's already done. And I said to her, put those on there 'cause you write it down them and always makes you feel good to look at and say something that has been accomplished. But the other thing of it is, I think it should show the whole scope of the work that she did and so just because she finished something before we approved the goals. It doesn't mean that should be left off. So I think this is kind of a comprehensive picture. And so if you look at, thinking, well, I thought we'd already done this. If that's--that--it's for the whole--that's for the whole year, okay. Yes, Mrs. Wells-Miller? >> Are we reaching out to corporations and businesses, I'm thinking along the lines of budgets that they might be willing to work with us in regard to what we're trying to do here at the college that will also benefit them. Do we have those kinds of partnerships going on? I imagine we do. >> Dr. Sugimoto? >> I have asked Nancy Roberts through Elaine Chapman to provide us with--'cause I don't think you've ever received this, a spreadsheet of all of the gifts that we received from all of the corporations in our community that support many of our operations and I don't know if you realized on your purchase orders, you approved some of those. >> When you go down through the funds, when you see zero-zero, those are the foundation numbers and one of the larger ones that you approved was a 22,000 dollar purchase of furniture for classroom. Oftentimes we will get donations from our community to support things like our disabled students programs and services and we will then purchase equipment or furniture for those programs, but I've asked Nancy to provide us with a spreadsheet of that information because I think you're probably very unaware of how many gifts we do receive from our community. I think it would be very helpful for you to know. >> Be nice to see. >> Any other questions or comments? If not, we have a motion on the floor to approve the goals, I think. Advisory vote? >> Aye. >> Okay. All other trustees, all in favor, please say "aye." >> Aye! >> Opposed? Abstain? The motion carries. The next item is Media Broadcasting of Board Meetings. This is for Mr. Thomson. It's a discussion for approval of staff time with possible action. And again, I wanted to remind the board members that anything which would require a significant amount of staff time either as an agenda item, we always wanna discuss and approve it as a board, and we had in the past voted on this item and it had not passed, but Mr. Thomson was not on the board when we voted so it's perfectly appropriate for him to bring it up. So Mr. Thomson, this is your day. >> Okay. Excuse me. My understanding from the past has been that the technology was not in place to have simultaneous televising of the meetings and all of the communities represented by the district which we represent. And I think we are now at the point where we do have that technology in place. And so I'd like to urge that we have staff investigate this and come back to us with a report on what it would cost or what the damages or problems are, et cetera. It strikes me that televising the meetings would be a form of a public service because it gives the public the chance to watch the meetings, find out what we're really doing here, what's happening at PCC, and allows them to take an interest on what we're doing here. We've just gotten through the first round of our Revision 2020 meetings which I think were at least the two that I had were quite successful, not in terms of huge turnouts of people but in terms of the interest expressed and the questions that were raised, the discussions that took place. And if we televised the meetings, we give the public the chance to really know firsthand what we're talking about, what we're doing. It gives them a chance to--it encourages them to take part or participate in the happenings at PCC so their children here, come here themselves or whatever it may be. It also encourages and builds support for PCC on what we're doing. And I think that's all in the positive side and it also--in a more general way, I think, would help us provide the public opportunity to support education. There was an article appeared in the [inaudible] section of the Wall--or excuse me, of the New York Times about 10 days ago saying--entitled "The Uneducated American." And it pointed out, the very first part of it, that what made this country great, what built it, and what separate us from the rest of the world, was education and that's all going by the wayside. We are going downhill. About--I think it was the 13th or 14th of this month, roughly. There was an article on the Wall Street Journal saying, math scores hit a wall. It pointed out that less than 50 percent of fourth of the eighth graders taking math test do well enough to qualify for college. That is appalling and I think the more we can do to inform the public what we're doing here and providing opportunities to have support for education, the better off we're going to be. So what I'd like to see us pursue this, have staff come back. I don't think it's gonna require an awful lot of details, an awful lot of time, or money to be involved in doing that. But let's take advantage, everything we possibly can to foster education in our community and, hopefully, across the state and across the nation. >> Yes Dr. Rey Castro? >> Yes. If Trustee Thomson makes that emotion, I'm happy to second it. >> I will make this motion. >> Second. >> Mrs. Wells-Miller? >> Yes. I spoke to the two guys that do the audio and whatever for us for our board meetings and asked them if this would be something that would be out of reach and they didn't feel that it was and I figured that if little cities like Sierra Madre can televise their city council meetings, I think PCC can manage to televise their board meetings. >> Dr. Bradbury-Huang? >> Yeah. I would like us to broaden our thinking beyond televising. You know, I'd be very happy to look at live streaming on the web which might be almost free, for example, that's easy to support. I think cost should be a factor in our thinking about this. I would also, if at all possible, love to know just how many audiocasts are downloaded. That would give us some indication of just how much clamoring throngs there are who really are as interested as we might hope they are. And I think that kind of data would help inform us as to how many resources to put behind this. >> Dr. Rey Castro--and then Mrs. Wells-Miller. >> Yes. Trustee Thomson raised the information about--that surfaced during our 2020 Town Hall meetings. One of the overriding issues and I think that Bob Miller would be happy to speak to this if given the opportunity or when given the opportunity, right Bob? One of the biggest issues that surfaced in the two town halls that we had in my district which were very well attended and very lively was the lack of communication with the community. The community was very frustrated with the lack of information, the lack of communication from PCC. They were dismayed and surprised by what we were doing and all the wonderful programs that we had that they hadn't heart about and why didn't anybody "come to us and share these with us and why aren't we getting the information," was--were comments that were just constantly echoed in those town hall meetings and it's just so apparent to me that the constituents, the community is somewhat frustrated because they feel a real lack of connection with the college in terms of information in this information era. We're very much in a disconnect position and I know that we serve, our students--there are--two-thirds of our students are from outside of the district so there's--it's almost as if we are very comparable because we have a full house. We're, you know--We're humming along, as usual. There doesn't seem to be a lot of demand, obviously, you know, to do more in our communities because less than one-third of our students come from the local district. When, in fact, if we were to have better communication either by cable or live streaming, or any other options that surface in this study, we may very well improve that dialog and communication with the community and increase local numbers as well to the college. >> Mr. Baum? >> Have the debate whether we should broadcast or not. We're just deciding whether we should authorize staff. >> That is the motion whether or not--whether we should authorize it. >> And then my hope is if staff is authorized, they come back with a menu of options for consideration by the Board so that we can make an informed decision because as Dr. Sugimoto and I know from our service on the cable access board here in Pasadena, there are a number of options that could be on the table. >> And that's--Mrs. Wells-Miller? >> Yeah. I disagree that the audiocast would be indicative of anything that's not the same as being able to view the meeting. It's a whole different feeling and it's done as a public service. The cities aren't charged to the television, Champion Broadband in the case of Arcadia, broadcasts the city council meeting. There's no charge for that. It's a public service as Mr. Thomson said so. We're not talking about great expenditures and the guys that do our work or whatever are here anyway, so. >> Mr. Martin? >> So it's obvious we're beating the horse here. >> Yeah. We should be. >> If not dead is--it gotta be suffering because [laughter] I have a feeling the vote is gonna go through and even I'm gonna support where I've opposed it in the past. >> I'm happy to support the staff study. I agreed with Mr. Baum and Dr. Bradbury-Huang that I wish we would look at the composite list of opportunities. My objection in the past has been with cost because if they would accomplish some of the things that have been purported here, we would all agree to it at any cost. I mean to thing that society will become knowledgeable again and all these things and I know we weren't pretending like this was a single answer. But on the other hand, the number one thing I've heard, not from one or two, not from 20 in the town hall meeting. What I have heard from thousands is we want more classes. And so I think Dr. Bradbury-Huang was right. We need to look at how we can fulfill perhaps a public service at the same time making sure that we're being cost conscious about it in putting our precious resources and offering every additional class section that we possibly can. So I support the idea of reviewing all that. Let us see what the classes are and then we can make a reasonable determination. But my top priority is still the same. I want more classes for students and I'd be happy at the same time to look at how can broadcast some of the classes for students to reach out to a broader participation. >> I'm gonna make a comment then I'll recognize you Mrs. Wells-Miller. I haven't said anything. And I'm sure you will do this. I am going to vote for the staff but I do recall one of the problems was that the--unlike the city council, we could not get any assurances as to when we would be broadcast so that we might be spending a lot of money to do this, it might be being broadcast to 2 o'clock in the morning. And so I hope that in the study make sure that we know exactly when and where and how that this would be broadcast because the cause of making this one thing and if no one watches it or is it up to watch it then the cost is really as pointless. Mrs. Wells-Miller? >> Yes. In regard to what-- >> I can't hear you. Would you-- >> In regard to Dr. Castro's comment about what people in her district are saying about reaching out. We need to do more of that all in all seven areas and I think that as I stated before the way you make parents aware of just what PCC is all about and what it has to offer is to start in the fifth, sixth, and seventh grades for getting them involved. And yes, there should be a lot more outreach. I think we can use our ambassadors for part of it but I think it wouldn't hurt if some of the Trustees went to some of the schools and spoke about what we have to offer as well. >> Can we call for a question? >> Alright, now that we're voting on whether or not to approve staff time to research this item, come back with the recommendation and a report. We all understand what we're voting on. Student Trustee vote? >> Aye. >> Aye. All the other Trustees, all in favor please say "aye." >> Aye! >> All opposed? Motion carries. President's report, Dr. Sugimoto? >> Thank you Dr. Mann. I'd like to report on a few things so I've got five items, you know, try to get through them very quickly. This past week we had our Dental Tech, Dental Hygiene, and Dental Assisting programs have their accreditation come true. As I recall we sat there, Dr. Jacobs and Ms. Kollross and I with--along with the--all of the directors of those programs waiting on bated breath. They came through with flying colors. So that is--Congratulations to each of those programs and to Dr. Jacobs for a wonderful program and great review. We also have a new approved today. On October 28th, we're having a Career and Technical Education showcase and job fair for green tech--with the green technology focus and that's for our students. So our programs will be showcased along with employers on campus to talk about Green carriers. So thank you very much for approving that program. Last Thursday, our 52 million of our general obligation bond money was wired and we're on possession of those dollars right now. So it might be very proud of that and that was a nice birthday gift for me that was my birthday. So I'm glad. Not that that money is coming to me which would have been nice. But it's not, 52 million. I also wanted to give congratulations to Chiara Thomas who brought to the campus on Saturday Dr. DeGruy and most of us who were at the YWCA diversity breakfast on Monday got to hear Dr. DeGruy, many students over 200 of them were present in the VASLA [phonetic] form for that program and they really appreciated her lecture. On Friday I was honored to be Principal for the day at PHS and got to be on campus with Dr. Derick Evans and he treated me to a wonderful time on the campus and met many of the instructors and got to talk to quite a few of the students and that was quite and enjoyable. So it was a pleasant day for me to have on a high school campus. Last, I wanna talk to you about something that we all are very interested in since we're all into our athletics. Our women's volleyball team upset the number 1 state champions who've been champions two years in a row. We beat El Camino. So on October 16th we took over first place in the South Coast conference and we have an 8 and [background applause] 0 record for our women's volley team. So congratulations to our women's volley ball team and that ends my report. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Thank you. We'll have this Shared Governance report. Mrs. Liggins is not here. Dr. Bickley. >> Yes, thank you. I wanted to thank the board members that participated in our candidate forum, Mr. Baum, Dr. Bradbury-Huang, and Ms. Wells-Miller. We also were appreciative that we have three opposing candidate show as well. I think it was a success. We have about 150 to 160 in the audience who I think then learn a great deal about the Board's role and some of the issues that the board is facing and I thank you very much for participating. The senate--And realizing at the last minute this board meeting was being held here today. I left the [inaudible] on the table back at the office. So hopefully I get those to you next board meeting. But I wanted to announce that we are now revising what we used to call the Institutional Learning Outcomes, the SLOs for the college. We're reorganizing those. We were working a little bit particularly the competencies that fall under the ILOs or the--now we're gonna call on the General Education Outcomes, GEOs. We're trying to match them with our general education requirements so that it'll be a little bit easier to assess whether we're achieving as a college. What we have said we would--and that students are able to do. What we say they'll be able to do with a degree from PCC. So we hope to get that to you sometime this semester. Hopefully sooner than later. We also will soon be sharing with you what we call the academic integrity policy. All groups on campus are being identified as having a vital role in ensuring academic integrity on campus. And so what we would like to do the fact we've help draft this policy shared with all the shared governance groups including Board of Trustees and have you go over this section that we wrote for you but give you the opportunity to rewrite it or edit it in accordance with what you would like it to say regarding our views and academic integrity. We have in the past work hard on developing a student code of conduct and then we worked hard to develop definitions of academic dishonesty so hopefully they will in someway be clearly referenced in the Academic Integrity Policy. So we're looking for that to come to you sometime this semester as well. So that ends my report. Thank you. >> Thank you. Classified Senate report? >> Just a few items. First I'd like to thank--Classified Senate would like to thank Crystal Kollross for making a presentation to the Classified Senate about the program planning process as it pertains to the Senate itself and to all of classified employees in their respective areas. Classified Senate has made appointments to the accreditation response during committee and response task form teams and/or involved in our work of addressing the recommendations for accreditation. The Classified Senate would like to extend an invitation to the Board Members to--for our October 30th, Halloween event, our annual Halloween event. >> It will include a raffle, opportunity drawing and costume contest and it will be in Circadian. I believe it's 12 to 1:30 on October 30th. And the last item is our first e-newsletter would be expected in early November. >> Thank you. AS? >> I guess I said--should have said this during announcements before the audience left. But the associate students wants to--is committed to building a community so we'd like to invite everybody to participate on lot of our events, similar events that we have include Halloween trick or treat where we take the CDC kids around and trick or treat in their cute little costumes across PCC to the different departments. There's also the Veteran's Day as well as Taste of the World events at focuses on cultural diversity and the different desserts and foods from the different cultures. So I'd like to invite to the--to come and most of all I also like to invite everybody to come to our home coming which will be on the first week of November climaxing on the Saturday of the 7th to have our final events. So anybody like to participate, just let me know. >> Alright, thank you. Student trustee? >> Yeah, I'm [inaudible] associated students, our experience. We are at CCCSAA this weekend. It's California Community Colleges Student Affairs Association. So we met up--I met with a lot of students leaders from across California of all community colleges. Met up with other trustees and other executive boards of associate students and we had a great time. It was--we've done a lot of workshops and it was a very--it's a very insightful trip. >> Right. Mr. Thomson? >> Yes, a couple of things. First to add to the kudos express for Dr. Sugimoto, I was talking with--I was in official representative of Caltech recently and at the--who I guess had gotten together with you and had nothing but very, very [inaudible] things to say about you including being a breath of fresh air. And so I though it would pass that on to you and say that we're very pleased to receive feedback on the excellent job that you're doing. I was able to--and privileged to make a presentation at the Kiwanis Club about a few days ago, the able assistance of Bob Miller, talking about Vision 2020 and PCC. And tremendous interest in what's happening here in education in general and the role the central--the central role that community colleges play and specifically PCC and the jewel it is in the midst of this community. And so that was very, very terrific as well. Also in the courier this--and one of the editions that was in our packet October 8th, there's an article on page 4 about stem cell grant puts students to tasking working in laboratories. And then in the Star News, a couple of days later, appeared a little article saying professor be honored for leadership, Pamela Eversole-Cire, a biotech professor at Pasadena City College to be honored at October 22nd, tomorrow, at the 8th annual Los Angeles County Tech Week with the leadership in technology education award. And this for her work on the stem cell grant and I would like to urge that we formally have her come to our next meeting and recognize her for this tremendous recognition that she has received. And also I'd like to have for a future meeting a presentation by Dr. Wendie Johnston and her department, the Biological Technology Department, the work that they're doing on stem cell research and the biotechnology work in general creating and--or not creating, but the training lab technicians which is a very vital occupation much needed in our area and our nation. And I think that part of that can deal with the bioscience collaborative. I think we had one of these also in our board packets recently. That's part of the work that Dr. Johnston's group is doing in correspond--or in collaboration with this. And if you take a look at that, I think you find that to be very impressive. But Oak Crest Institute also is something that we work closely, with Dr. Johnston's group works closely with. I like to encourage us to invite her and have a presentation hopefully soon about the wonderful work that's being taken--that's happening in her department. Thank you. >> Thank you. Mrs. Wells-Miller? >> No, thank you. >> Dr. Bradbury-Huang? >> I don't have an announcement. This is a report. >> Well, I have kind of--two things first of all at the ACCT meeting in San Francisco I was--There's one back there. I was a part of a panel. We talked on how the board can work with their public information officer which I think went very well. And then Dr. Rey Castro and I did a presentation on our board norms and protocols which also went very well. And there are a lot of questions. We ran out of handouts which I think is always a good sign, and people were--we took our folders and show to people, here's how we use them. But people kept asking "How do you actually use them?" They couldn't really seem to understand then we actually took them out and open them up and read them closed session and commented on our norms. So I think that all went very well. The second thing I would like to report on this is maybe more of a remainder. A couple meetings ago I reminded people about how we get items on the agenda. I would like to remind the board members that we do have a board policy that request which would involve staff time in preparing an answer should all come to the president of the college of the board president. Board members are not to ask individual staff member to prepare reports for them. And I think if you go back and look at the protocols it addresses some terms of compliant. But the same thing is true in the policy of any item which requires significant staff time or even some staff time to prepare is to come through the board president and appropriate through the entire board like we just did with Mr. Thomson's item on televising the meetings because we know that will take a significant amount of staff time to prepare. So just a reminder, that it is the protocol that we have agreed on and that is in our policy. Dr. Rey Castro? >> No reports. >> Mr. Baum? >> A week from Monday the committee college, board of governors will be meeting so I'll going up to--for that meeting and I'll share the report from the activities from that meeting at the--our next board meeting. If anybody had a chance on Monday morning to go the Hilton, you would have found the YWCA women's Leadership Breakfast for Racial Justice and Equality and PCC was in the house. It filled the ballroom. But there is not only a PCC table, there was a table hosted by Johari Dewitt-Rogers. There's another table hosted by Ernestine Moore. And it was a very inspiring program. And if you ever need to kinda shot in the arm about why do you do public service, you just had to listen to the honorary of Marge Wyatt who gave a very inspiring address about why it's important to remain involve and committed to serving students in our community. I had the pleasure of meeting with our friends in Altadena Town Council. And I'm sorry Odessa is not here, because I got a chance to meet Odessa's son and her nephew. Her nephew serves on the Altadena Town Council and they have a great deal of interest in the work at PCC and would welcome an outreach on behalf of the Vision 2020 planning process. I know they got the word out for our meeting in Altadena but they would also welcome us to come up there and talk because we have almost of a thousand students at PCC that lived in Altadena and they're very interesting in what's going on. And I appreciate the opportunity to meet with the students and faculty and--at the candidates' forum last Thursday and I saw supporters and then a lot of undecided people. And so I'll just leave the other folks as undecided and I hope I had a chance to touch some hearts and minds, that option. And for everybody who's interested just as a heads up. If you're gonna be in the area of the Arroyo Seco on Sunday night, there'll be--U2 will be playing with the sound system above the top of the Rose Bowl structure in order to have a 360 degree seat view. And so anybody within a mile of the Arroyo can just set up a lawn chair and hear the U2 concert. So--And I'll be there but I'll be inside the house. Thanks to Mr. Thomson and I'm looking forward to that. >> You live a little bit farther in a mile away you probably will still be able to hear the concert very well. [ Laughter ] >> The tickets for that is sold out in less than an hour. It's just been incredible. >> [Inaudible] Mr. Martin? >> The audit committee had a meeting. We met with the auditors. The fieldwork on this year's audit is going forward. They're out this week. So far so good, but, you know, we're in the middle inning so no comment on that. We were hoping to have an audit presentation to the full Board on our December 9th agenda. It's when we hope to have it back, if you wouldn't mind. This is board of president making a note of that. >> December 9th audit committee report, right? >> Back from--Yeah, and actually be the audit back from the auditor so he sets the current target which--'cause there's a deadline to submit by the 31st. >> Right. >> Areas of concern, Dr. van Pelt mentioned the stimulus money and the other area that they're watching not just--not PCC in particular but in general is cash flow for all institutions of which we would of course be one and I appreciate that. So that kind of just gives you a quick update on the audit process from the committee. >> Thank you. The next item on the agenda is Future Board Meeting Dates. Our next meeting dates are Wednesday the 4th at our normal time and then Wednesday the 18th which will be at 12 noon. Our closed session starting at 11, that's our meeting with the associate students. Is that not correct Dr. Sugimoto? >> That's correct. >> Yes Mrs. Wells-Miller. >> [Inaudible] decision made about meeting at 5 or is that coming late? >> We will discuss that later. Right now there isn't any decision made. Future Agenda Items, I heard one, stem cell research report, the work being done there from Mr. Thomson. Any other future agenda items? Dr. Bradbury-Huang? >> Yeah, I think we need perhaps a policy to bring more transparency to two areas that are currently not given enough scrutiny. One, how much money we as a board spend of the PCC resources? And so that should include and separate out the travel stuff that recently came to us. But also, there's been these floating amounts of money that come up in the consent items and I'd like to see it all gather just to get a handle on how much we as a board cost that would allow us to police ourselves. And then perhaps along with that, I would like to see more transparency with regard to the personal spending of a sitting president. This is not at all related to Dr. Sugimoto. Currently that comes under the wire. There's no scrutiny at all and I think it would benefit the campus if there were a policy on that. >> Okay, I think I have that. There is, as far as travel, there is--there in the board policy, there's a statement on that and of course the budget. So you must be talking about non-general funds, is that what you're discussing at the board's expense? >> I don't know what I'm meaning until I actually see it. But for example this one here came with mistakes and it takes too much arithmetic to actually figure it out and that's just related to travel. But what else are we spending money on? I'd like to see it on one easy to read document. >> Mr. Martin? >> Maybe for starters, Dr. van Pelt, can you just give her a simplified version of the budget, both for the Board of Trustees and for the Superintendent/President's office. It's in that really thick book, it's a little hard to find. And once you find it, you got to know what you're looking at but maybe you could simplify that and present that. And once you've seen that, maybe that will help formulate better direction to what you'd like to see in addition to that. >> And that would be all the general fund and I don't think the board spends any money outside of general fund money. So I don't--I mean I think that would be it. Yes, Dr. Sugimoto? >> Dr. Bradbury-Huang, also, the information on travel, the reason why it was restated was because we were to combine the '01 and '03. We, in previous years separated the two and your policy requests that it's just given in its particular percentages. And then also we recognized that the president's travel from last year was also included in the Board of Trustees amount, and it really shouldn't be there because that position is not a Board position. It should be under the administrational management. So that got moved into that category. So, we wanted to make sure that you had the appropriate information through the Board policy. And that's very helpful, believe me. The spirit of my inquiry is to increase the transparency. This is of course what we're asking off the campus, I think we need to demonstrate what we're asking. >> Yeah, Mr. Baum? >> I don't object to it or walking through again if that--the page is in the budget that described board or trustee travel. I mean or--I'm not sure [inaudible], but board expenses or presidential expenses and so that we could ask questions to be clear and then let the public ask questions as well. >> Dr. Rey Castro? >> I think this is a valid item for the agenda but--and I don't think we need to discuss it now. >> Alright, anything else? Alright, we are adjourned.