>> It's 6 o'clock, Mrs. Thompson, will you please call the room. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Present. >> Dr. Bradbury-Huang. >> Here. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Present. >> Mr. Baum. Mr. Martin? Thomson. >> Here. >> Mrs. Wells-Miller. >> Present. >> Mr. Abadia. >> Okay, is there anyone here that wishes to address the Board on closed session agenda items? [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Yes, you wish to address the Board? Would you go over there to the microphone please and identify yourself and remember this is being audio cast. >> Kenneth Lawler. >> Go ahead and address the Board. You had something you wish to say Mr. Lawler. >> Go ahead. >> My name is Thaddeus Culpepper. I represent Mr. Lawler. What we have just been told by Mr. Engeldinger, am I correct? We were under a separate like a difference of opinion as to what the letter that was sent to Mr. Lawler was basically saying we understood the letter to say that he was gonna have the right to listen in our closed session. And we're now hearing from Mr. Engeldinger that that's not the case, that he can ask that the complaints and charges and the deliberation by the board be heard in closed session but that we would not be present. Is that--my understanding, is that correct? >> I would like to, is that your understanding Mr. Engeldinger? >> Yes, an advise to counsel, that's my understanding. >> And actually, our counsel is here. >> Sure. >> And I would--I would like to ask our counsel to give us some advice. Not that I don't trust Mr. Engeldinger but would you please take one of these microphones and identify yourself. >> Good evening. Mary Dowell, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore and general counsel to the Board. Mr. Engeldinger is correct. Under the Government Code, Mr. Lawler has properly been given notice that the Board is going to consider matters relating to his employment this evening in closed session. If he wishes to have those matters discussed first in open session, he has a right to request that they be discussed in open session. But he does not have a right under the Brown Act to be in attendance in a closed session deliberation over matters relating to his employment. >> The issue then becomes--electing to hear the complaints and charges being brought against him in open session, we have a concern at the moment for whether the things discussed in open session would be actually made part of the minutes. Obviously, we've talked to Mary Dowell at length through a letter and had been trying to work with the Board on some sort of closed environment negotiation but that's never happened. So, what we'll do at this time is just to elect to have these matters heard in closed session. We'll leave from this place and then wait for the Board's decision. But at the same time, I would like to ask the Board now, who would be amenable to service. We've actually filed a complaint in Federal Court of--for the constitutional claims that Mr. Lawler has and we just wanna make sure we can get that done today and be as efficient as possible while we're here. >> You wanna know who should be served? Is that--is that your question? >> No. We would like to serve you. That's for sure. >> Well, come and serve me then, I'm the Board President. >> Yeah. That would be correct. >> You're welcome. Do--do I have to sign anything, sir? >> No. >> Alright. I've received this. Now, I may now give it to my--to counsel, correct? >> Yes. And thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else present who would like to address the Board in open session? Alright, the Board will then adjourn to close session. Government Code 54957, employee discipline, dismissal, release to employees and Government Code 54957.6 Labor Negotiations. We will reconvene at 7 o'clock. [ Pause ] >> --in the meeting. [ Inaudible Discussion ] >> Okay, I need some help. [ Inaudible Discussion ] >> Operator here. [ Inaudible Discussion ] >> Mr. Martin, will you lead us in the pledge to the flag? >> Well, can you please rise, place your hand over your heart and join with me. I-- >> --pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Well, I was going to ask Dr. Sugimoto if there are--any introductions but I don't--I don't see her, I guess she's not--she's not back. The next item is a 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 [inaudible]--public comments. Members of the public may request the opportunity to address the Board regarding any item on the agenda. To do so, please complete a request the--to address the Board form and give it the Board secretary prior to the deliberation of the agenda item. Individual speakers are limited to 5 minutes. Total audience participation on any agenda item is limited to 30 minutes. I have 2 cards here which say they wish to address keys--kinesiology and football. And I don't think these items are on the agenda. And so, Dr. Beverly Tate? >> Hello. Good evening Board of Trustees and Superintendent President, I wanted to introduce to you tonight acting head coach, James Cook, and 2 of his players. And Coach Cook made this presentation at the Quarterbacks Club on Friday and I wanted you to hear what he had to say about these two young men. James Cook. >> Good evening. I'm glad to be here. Dean Tate had me come in. I know it's short notice but thank you for the opportunity to share with me some thoughts that I was able to share at the Quarterbacks Club. This was basically an attempt to address some of the things that we do as head coach on a day to day basis. And it basically goes as this--imagine if you will assembling a roster of over a hundred prospects from local, regional, out of state and college transfers. Each wanting an opportunity to continue playing the game they love with the intent and purpose of using football as a vehicle to advance their lives in a positive direction. The coordination and countless hours spent on registration, scheduling transferable courses, placement tests, eligibility, financial aide, counseling meetings and parent conferences--the challenges of daily attendance, off season workouts, weightlifting programs and basic life skills workshops. The daily grind of maintaining order and a sense of organized chaos amongst the group of the most volatile, violent and aggressive young men imaginable, tripled in with the harsh reality of dealing with the environments and youth of 17, 18 and 19-year-old--19-year-olds independent for the first time in their lives with no immediate parental guidance other than a staff of coaches, coordinators, and administrators. It's one thing to be fully--to be a full scholarship athlete in a division 1 program where all your--where all your basic necessities like food, books, housing and expenses are provided. But it's another one, 2,500 dollars is supposed to last 6 months and the very--and cover these very same expenses. That roughly amounts to about 400 dollars per month in which today's economy can cover a hundred square foot room off of Colorado Boulevard. A typical day for a football player begins at 7 AM where morning classes begin and must be completed by 2 PM when weightlifting begins. Weightlifting ends by 3:30 and marks the beginning of special teams meetings immediately followed by offensive and defensive meetings. At 5 PM, we prepare to hit the field and practice begins at 5:15 sharp. A typical practice will run two and a half--two and a half hours which means players are done with their day by 8 PM. We do these 5 days out of the week and we all know what happens on Saturdays because that's what newspapers and local media sources report. However, rarely do the newspapers speak about the truly meaningful stories that make junior college football unlike other any other arena in the world. >> Imagine if you will, a young man with 3 brothers and sisters growing up in a small two-bedroom house just over the hill on Boyle Heights. A young man who grew up riddled with drug and gang violence, relative encarf--incarcerated in [inaudible], victims of drive-by shootings and tragic gang violence. Without the support and guidance, this young man never graduates high school and would inevitably become another statistic. Often having ten--tension with a struggling single parent mother, without a support of a father, taken in by an aunt and having to have take the bus at 6 AM to attend 7 o'clock classes at Pasadena City College is a last chance to further education. A hometown favorite from the [inaudible] at Roosevelt High School, with an entire Latino community polling for him, his sister who plays defensive end for the junior varsity football team undoubtedly looks up to him in hopes of becoming the first child in the Aguilar household to receive an athletic scholarship. His perseverance will pay off because he will be graduating in June accepting a scholarship to a new division 1 program at Georgia State University where he will be playing his home games in the Georgia Dome, home of the Atlanta Falcons, will be preparing to play teams like the University of Alabama. But before he leaves, he will be representing California and Pasadena City College in the first ever National Junior College All Star Game called the Triumphant Sports Bowl on December 12th in Chandler, Arizona. He is PCC's middle linebacker, wears number 30, makes all the calls in the huddle and is currently leading the National Northern Conference in tackles with 74. And that young man's name is Jeremy Aguilar. [ Applause ] >> Imagine if you would a young man of Samoan descent in a family with 1 boy and 5 girls raised by a mother after a separated marriage growing up in Tacoma, Washington. Growing up, he learned how to channel his energy into basketball and football. Always using sport as an outlet to escape troubles at home. His blessed combination of size, strength and quickness allows him to rush for over 500 300-yards--5000 300-yards as a running back in high school, scores 75 touchdowns and scores 75 tackles as a safety. Ranked number 57th running back in the nation by scout.com, he received scholarship offers to Oregon's State, BYU, Idaho--Idaho State and Eastern Washington. Unfortunately, when academics prevented him from qualifying to division 1 schools, he reluctantly accepted a scholarship to Eastern Washington. Disappointed with the level of play, his failures in the classroom--driven by the hope of one day playing at a division 1 university, he connects himself with a family friend and is recruited to attend Pasadena City College. As a freshman, he immediately becomes an impact player. He rushes for 11 touchdowns as a short yarder's running back and ranks up 75 tackles as an outside linebacker. He plays with a passion and excitement that is infectious and energizes Robinson Stadium. He currently ranks third in tackles in the National Northern Conference and he's on pace to have another stellar year as he has accumulated 62 tackles to date. He has also been offered by Georgia State University and as well will focus on completing his associate's degree by June. He wears number 44, he's Pasadena's weak side linebacker and his name is Roman Pula. [ Applause ] >> So in closing, hopefully I've been able to paint a better picture of the true and very real stories that come out of our program. I think most of you understand why those of us involved in athletics do what we do. Yes, it's a dawning task in trying to assemble a gro--a group of young man from all across the nation to win football games. But the end result is what drives us. When you can look across the room and see young men like these have an opportunity to move on to greener pastures by pursuing education and playing the sport they love is the most professionally rewarding gift in the world. And I thank all of you for sharing that mission and supporting PCC football throughout the year and for years to come. Thank you. >> Thank you Dean Tate [inaudible]. [ Applause ] >> Mr. Baum. >> I have just one comment in response because I was at the Quarterback's luncheon on Friday where Coach Cook and Dean Tate where in, Bill Thomson joined me and I just wanted to say that it was very gratifying to see the affection that this community has for Coach Cook and the--the leadership of the Quarterbacks Club singled him out specifically to praise him for the--the spirit of energy and the--everything that he's done to--to build a strong program for Pasadena City College. And this was before a room of--of a--a hundred community leaders that are actively contributing and supporting financially the--the--our program and--and--and programs across the--the region. >> Thank you. Mr. Thomson? >> It was a--it was a very rewarding experience to be there and listen to Coach Cook because he did an excellent job in making the presentation and obviously the two players themselves were very appealing as well. It was taken and received rather very, very positively by the Quarterback Club and the people there certainly made a very, very fine statement about PCC and athletics of PCC. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Dr. Sugimoto, did you have any introductions? >> Actually I do, if Dr. Dave Douglass would come forward to make an introduction. >> Alright, it's my great pleasure to introduce Dr. Pam Eversole-Cire and I'd like her to step up. Dr. Cire was recognized by the LA Tech Week group for her excellence in technology education. You've seen her name recently as the principal investigator for our 1.75 million dollars serum grant. You've seen her name as a new fulltime tenure track faculty. Now she's here shortly thereafter winning awards from the local technology people. Now, I'd like to read the citation that they gave her at the award ceremony which took place in Northwest Pasadena a few day--a couple weeks ago. Dr. Pam Eversole-Cire helped Pasadena City College become the first community college to offer stem cell training in California. As director of the biotechnology program at the college, she created a [inaudible] cell culture lab on campus. In 2005, she received the PCC Foundation award to transfer stem cell technology from Caltech to the PCC biotechnology program. In 2009, she was awarded as a Bridges to Stem Cell Research Grant from the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine. PCC is the only community college to win one of these eleven grants in the state. So we're really proud of her and she's very--she's a very understated person but she has done marvelous things in getting this program off the ground. And so we're proud to introduce you to Pam tonight. And I'd like her to say a couple of words if she would-- >> Good evening. I received this award primarily for bringing stem cell culture training to PCC and that would not have been possible without the support from the school and support from the Board of Trustees. Well, I'd like to thank you all for that. And also as Dr. Douglass mentioned, I received an award from the PCC Foundation in 2005. It was about 200,000 dollar grant and that paid for the transfer of stem cell technology from Caltech to PCC. Without that award, we have not been able to start this program, so we started based on that, so I would like to acknowledge the PCC Foundation for having the foresight to grant an award that funded to transfer such an advanced technology to a community college biotechnology program. And finally, I'd like to recognize both Dr. Douglass and Dr. Wendy Johnston who's sitting on the audience, for all of their support and assistance throughout the last 4 years. Without their support, the program would not have developed as it has and it would not be as successful as it is. So I'd like to acknowledge both of them for all of their--their help. I would also like to introduce Mark Starbird, if you would like to come up. Mark is a student in the program and he is also the technical assistant for the serum Bridges program. So Mark is one of our students and assistants who is doing very, very well. He's gonna be applying for the Bridges program next year, so he will be most likely doing research at either Caltech or USC or even Children's Hospital in the fall of next year. Thank you very much. [ Applause ] >> Congratulations. [ Applause ] >> Dr. Douglass? >> I'd like to just say that Dr. Eversole has--most of you associate our biotechnology program with Dr. Wendy Johnston who you'll hear from a little bit later on in tonight's meeting, but Dr. Johnston has effectively passed the baton to Dr. Eversole and she's taken it and really ran with it, so we're very proud of her. Thank you. >> Congratulations. [ Applause ] >> Next item is approval of the minutes. Do we have a motion to approve the minutes of the October 21st meeting? >> [Inaudible] the approval. >> Second. Would someone second it? >> Second. >> A second, alright. It's been moved and seconded. Are there any additions or corrections? Mr. Baum? >> I had a--and one is just a--I wanted to just note for the administration on page 3, the contracts for vice presidents will--were to be brought back to us and so I just wanna make sure about that. >> Wait, where is that? >> Page 3, item 49P, at the bottom. >> Okay, it can be provided in the next Board packet which--which they were not apparently. >> I just wanna make sure that that--that we request we do that again. And then on the-- >> Wait a minute, wait a minute. Dr. Sugimoto. >> I don't mind sharing those with you, I did speak with the board officers about who normally looks at those contracts and certainly can provide them for you after they're signed. >> Yeah. >> I mean we're not talking about that specifically, I just--it was noted in the minutes and-- >> Okay, go ahead. >> And I'm just making the request-- >> Right. >> --that we follow through on that. On page 8 just on mine, I just want to clarify the third bullet point of my announcement. It says I met with friends of the Altadena Town Council, so I met with the Altadena Town Council who would welcome a dialogue instead of just on the vision 20/20 planning process. We'll welcome a dialogue on issues of--facing PCC and service to the Altadena community. >> Alright, would you read that again. >> I would rephrase it just to say I met with the Altadena Town Council who would welcome a dialogue on issues facing PCC and service to the Altadena community. >> Do you have that, Mrs. Thompson? >> Yes. >> Any other corrections or additions to the minutes? If not, we have a motion to approve, student trustee, advisory vote. >> Aye. >> Other trustees? All in favor please say aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed? Abstained? Motion carries. Next is the approval of the consent items. Our student trustee, do you have any consent items you would like to address? >> No, I do not. >> None. Mr. Thomson? >> None. >> Mrs. Wells-Miller? >> None. >> Dr. Bradbury-Huang? >> I do not. >> I have 52P. Dr. Rey Castro? >> None. >> Mr. Baum? >> 75B. >> 75B, okay. And Mr. Martin? >> None, thank you. >> Okay, Mr. Baum 75B. >> Just again, we've talked again about the--the chiller upgrade which we're looking forward to installing but I noticed another 95,000 dollar change order and I just wanted to get a sense of the--the rationale for that. Because we had discussed before we were hoping to bring this project in for under 3 million dollars and now it's looking like it's closer to 4 million dollars. >> Dr. Sugimoto? >> Thank you, Dr. Mann. Dr. van Pelt, I know this is your item. >> Last time I mentioned that there would be--we would expect one more change order and I expected it'd be between 90 and 100,000 dollars which this one is. This is for the control systems to integrate the various different technologies that are in the chiller plant. And this is the last change order that I would expect. The net cost to Pasadena City College will be for the entire project should be 2.7 million dollars. >> And so what will that--it will regulate which again? What will this-- >> Well, that the sequencing of which chiller comes on, at what point the motors that have to come on, the cooling towers and so forth, all it has to be computer sequenced. So what this does is it integrates the four chillers that we have, the three cooling towers and all the various different pumps. >> Okay, and so it integrates all of the-- >> Correct. >> Okay. For everything on campus. Thank you. >> Any--anything else? Any other? Okay I have 52P and I was concerned with 52P with the--the stipends for Janis Dwyer and Michelle Ireland-Galman. Not that I don't approve of it but our--our justification says due to the uncertainty of funding from the Hixon fund, the request for the stipends for their work was delayed. What uncertainty of funding from the Hixon fund? I thought that was a million dollar endowment? Dr. Sugimoto? >> Dr. Jacobs you--you [inaudible]. >> I haven't been aware that there was an uncertainty with it. And then I read it but in some of the interests and the spinning in of what we could only spin above that amount, their--the amount had been reduced that could be spent. >> Because the interest went down on the fund? >> Yes, it went down. >> Alright, so it was--that was what it was. And if the interest goes back, then it goes back up, right? >> Yes. >> Okay, and then 50--that there was one of the P items has been revised and that is-- [ Inaudible Remark ] >> 53-P. >> 53-P has been revised. Is that correct, Dr. Sugimoto? >> That is correct. >> Alright, so with that--yes, Ms. Ligons? >> There is an error in 68-B, the date should be March 16th 2010 not 2009. >> Alright is--in 68-B the date should be March--2010 not 2009? >> Right. >> Alright, we have--do we have that correction, Dr. Sugimoto, yes? >> Also, I'd like to make a correction to 52-P. There are two I believe items that should also say 2010, that would be the first one, Altounian and also Flores on the list. And it currently states 8/31/09 to 6/30/09. Alright. So we can make that correction. >> Okay so then--so now we have corrections in 52-P, 53-P and 68-B, is that correct? >> It's correct. >> Alright. Do the makers of the motion accept these as just technical corrections? Do we have a motion? >> I don't believe we do. >> Alright. Can I have a motion to approve the consent items? A second? >> Second. >> And that includes the corrections. Alright, the technical corrections, thank you. Are we ready to vote? Student trustee? >> Yes, aye. >> Other trustees all in favor please say aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed? Motion carries. Okay, the next item on the agenda is the authorization to transmit first quarterly financial status report, a discussion with possible action, Dr. Sugimoto. >> Thank you, Dr. Mann. Dr. Van Pelt and the quarterly financial statuses, this one is yours. >> Okay, so the first quarter ending September the 30th has now been summarized into this 3/11 Q report that has to be sent to the Chancellor's Office. We are precisely where we expected we will be at this time, so there are no surprises. And if there are any questions, certainly we will be willing to answer those. >> Are there any questions for Dr. van Pelt on this item? >> Mr. Baum. >> Just on the annualized attendance FTES on part 2, we're projecting a 20 percent drop in FTES for this year. >> Odessa [phonetic]? [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Dr. Sugimoto, could you address that. >> Well--maybe 15 percent from 24,000 to 20,800 is what it says. >> Actually, I can address that. This is the workload reduction issue that we have been asked to in order for us to be paid to a certain number. And so part of what-- >> So this is just--this is for budgeting purpose. This isn't a cap being lowered as a result. >> Yes, yes sir. >> So that's not really an accurate-- >> It's a projection at this point. And we're trying to bring it in line with the numbers that Dr. van Pelt gave us. >> So, this is for more for budgeting purposes than it is actual enrollment projections. >> Correct. >> Okay. That makes sense. >> So this is the number if we go over we would--this is the base we would go over, is that correct? >> Correct. >> Any other questions? >> So, the only question that I have is the--is our actual enrollment will largely--will likely be more than 20,800 FTES? >> Yes. >> That's correct, yes. >> Right, okay. >> That's fulltime equivalent students. >> 'Cause and I--at the Board of Governor's meeting, we did talk about a reduction in the cap because we're getting less funding from the state. So, that's what's reflected in here. But we're still gonna be serving more--more students than that. >> Yes. >> Dr. Sugimoto? >> I think what's a--a little bit ingenious here was not to reduce the amount of money we got per FTES because we struggled to do this equalization many years ago, so we could all receive the same amount of dollars for FTES's. So the other way to lower our revenue was by saying we won't pay for as many students. But when in fact we'll be able to lift cap we will still make then the same amount per student. So in many ways it was an ingenious move. Although it's a little difficult to think we're lowering the cap. >> Okay. >> Dr. Bradbury-Huang? >> Yeah, I wanna thank Trustee Baum for bringing this to our attention. I wonder if it might explain the error in The Courier a week or so ago that also seem to presume that attendances were coming down. >> And then more generally, when such errors occur, how actually do we address them, because that is the information then that we as Board members would more likely that the larger community take, and it is confusing at this time and I would imagine people think it's a result of cutting of classes, et cetera. >> Dr. Sugimoto? >> I can try to address that too. Every time we look at enrollments, it's a snapshot in time. What we really need to look at is what the enrollment is at the point of census and it's time of census this particular semester, we came at it at 105 percent filled in our classes, in our seats. >> And what was that number? [ Inaudible Remark ] >> I apologize, I'm gonna guess but-- >> Are you talking about the total number of students we had? >> At census, yes. That's what Dr.-- >> It's a little over 26,000. >> A little over 26-- >> We're talking about FTES's. >> Oh, FTES, that's a different number of course. Now, I think we are like at 89--8900, somewhere. I don't really know right off the top. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> About 89. >> Well, 8900, yeah. >> 8900 students? >> 89-- >> Yes. >> 89,000 FTES. >> 89,000 FTES. >> 8900 FTES and then 26,000 students. >> Right. >> And that is compared to what from last year? >> That actually what we tried to do at this year is base it on last year's numbers. So our goal was to be equal to last year's number. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Dr. Sugimoto, was it equal to last year's number? >> Actually, I think we're a little over last fall's because we're in 105 percent over what we were from last year. >> Okay, alright. Does that answer your question, Mr. Baum? >> Sure. It probably begs the question at some point. We don't need to do it here. You should get an enrollment report that we can all go through. >> Okay, that we can all go--oh wait and wait, people will have-- >> So we can understand. >> Alright, do we have a motion to authorize to transmit the first quarterly report, status report? >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second. >> It has been moved and second, any further discussion? Are we ready to vote? Student trustee? >> Aye. >> Other trustees? All in favor, please say aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed? Motion carries. Next, we have a Pasadena Bioscience Collaborative presentation by Dr. Wendie Johnston. >> Yes, can I ask Dr. Jacobs to do the introductions? >> Right. I think we all know around here know Dr. Johnston who really started out biotech program and I always like to tell the story how she got started but I won't tell it all tonight. But when I was dean of Life Sciences and Allied Health, Dr. John--I asked Dr. Johnston and another faculty to go to San Antonio, Texas because that was the kind of the beginning of the study of biotech grant and getting us involved. And she didn't wanna go. And the other faculty didn't want to go either. So, but it ended up the other faculty chose not to go but I kept pushing Dr. Johnston and she went, she's just like, "I don't wanna go," but long story short, she went. And she came back and she's been going every since. She took a sabbatical the next year and went around the US and worked in labs and now she has built the program. So, we are very proud of Dr. Johnston, all that she has done for biotech. Thank you. [ Applause ] >> Before you begin, Dr. Johnston, where else do you not wanna go? [ Laughter ] >> I have to say I had spent probably 20 years very comfortably teaching physiology and working with Workforce Development in the emergency medical area. So that was a lovely comfortable place and I did get winkled out of that and caught fire. I was a molecular biologist to begin with. So, we didn't have molecular biology when I came to teach here. It was not a lower division subject. Thank you, Dr. Jacobs. I think the story has grown. I brought the program from that even to share with Dr. Jacobs tonight. I was asked to speak briefly on the Pasadena Bioscience Collaborative and I'm sorry that Mr. Bruce Blomstrom who was the president of that organization could not be here. He had another event tonight. The Mayor Bill Bogaard is the chair of this project and I have put in your packets last week a very nicely documented piece and I chose to approach it from a different direction. We have always expressed to you what we feel the Bioscience Collaborative is and I am the lab director that is in right in the sweet spot of the mission of the Biotech Center grant, the Economic Workforce Development Grant is to work as much with the industry and workforce development. So, when this position evolved, Jackie threw me out and I ended up there. I'd like to tell you how it looks to a young entrepreneur. We are low-cost. We are nonprofit. We generate a workforce for them, that is we, PCC. We rent month-to-month. We have resources who are willing to work with these young entrepreneurs such as former mayor Thomson, Trustee Thomson and Dr. Eversole-Cire among others. And we take no equity. So, that sounds pretty good to a young entrepreneur in the sciences. We are a wet lab incubation facility and we really don't have competition in the niche that we've chosen. It's sort of a model of altruism. What I did was to show you typical letters of support that we not only generate but also expect to back up. One of them was a letter of support for our perspective tenant. I worked with that tenant today. She will in fact be--and it's a USC spinout with--whose--one of whose sponsor is actually a professor at Caltech. And they have a piece of intellectual property and have great ideas about what they're going to do for muscular diseases. So, we write letters to funding agencies in support of the fact that we provide a facility which has a full range of wet lab equipment, much of which belongs to the community college has been donated through the years to the Biotech Center and we put that through the foundation. Our president of PCC is always a board member, so Dr. Koestler [phonetic] began that and Dr. Sugimoto is currently on the board and they have a meeting Friday. We--I gave you a letter for support for a CSU earmark and we're going for yet another second one. The PBC is a proof of concept for what would be 3 facilities, one in the Bay Area, one in San Diego and ours that would be CSU aligned and would be doing incubation and training. Several of our incubatees have in fact gotten some very nice grants recently and I just spoke with the gentleman who is the CEO of Calimmune which is David Baltimore's spinout from Caltech. They've been a tenant for 3 months and they just received last Wednesday night a 20 million dollar serum disease team grant. And we're very pleased about that. We have had 13 for profit and one nonprofit company in our facility. We have 5 companies of that that have graduated. They are all still in business, some with a revenue stream and some not yet. This represents 42 employees and 69 interns, most of which have come from the community college, most of them from us of course but from some of our neighboring community colleges also. The facility started as 500 square feet, it is now 3000 square feet and if the board approves our project on Friday, it will move next door and become probably double its size, 5700. I just approved the proposal from the contractor. So, that's all very exciting and we have 2 companies that have just taken leases home to show to their boards. So, we're very excited about how this works. I gave you a letter for--letter of support for the SPDC grant that [inaudible] just put in through the Community Education Center. That's very much in the mission of the incubator. >> We feel that the SPDC certainly, we need to have one here in the San Gabriel Valley and we're willing to put a letter of support out with some tangible items in it. We have also some interesting training, one Saturday a month, I invite high school students and high school and/or college teachers to come in and work for free and they make the components of the Amgen High School biotechnology curriculum. We shipped--today is Wednesday, yesterday we shipped 3 kits to 3 high schools. They will have them for 3 weeks. They get 20,000 dollars worth of equipment to use for 3 weeks. They get all the supplies free. Their training was free and we actually work with 80 high schools. Last year, there were 12,500 students. So, it's okay for Amgen to give us the ability to buy the materials. Somebody has to put them together. And we have decided that high school students are exactly the somebody because once they get into the incubation facility and get their hands dirty, if you will, actually we glove them up, and we take pictures and we put them on the website. They really start to feel like they could be scientists. They could go to the lab and go to research. It's a reality that they love. Oak Crest next door usually has some of their scientists have pizza with us at noon. So, I--it costs me a pizza and a Saturday. It's been a wonderful project. We've done it for a number of years. It is a Board reported series of projects and it's very exciting to work with these young people. ELAC sent a teacher last time, October 3rd was our last event. And they sent a teacher. She is going back to work with them. They are now using the kit as a starter for their nascent biotechnology program. They intend to emulate us and we certainly need that assistance. It is not possible to let high school students go into any other real facility because of insurance and reasons of intellectual property and all the other reasons that companies say, "I'm sorry, but you can't do that here." So, the incubator gives us the opportunity to give students a real taste. So, that's what the incubator is and I would welcome any questions you have. >> Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for Dr. Johnston? Mr. Thomson. >> Just--I asked to have this presentation brought to us so that the public and ourselves could really become better educated and knowledgeable about what all the magnificent things you do there. One question, describe a little bit what Oak Crest does because that plays in my understanding a very key role in the industry. >> Absolutely. Oak Crest's mission, it's Oak Crest Institute Science. It's a nonprofit. It's next door to us and in fact, they will be moving into our space and become twice as large and we will be moving next door and become twice as large. Oak Crest's mission is to train researchers. And they start with them in high school and they have students in training all the way up through post docs. It was started by 2 gentlemen who are still visiting faculty at Caltech. They have--they are grant-based. They're also based on doing jobs for industry, studies that need to be done. One of our tenants--in fact our first tenant, Oratech Pharmaceuticals went next door and set up a shop within Oak Crest and what they do is drug delivery. So, these are drugs with known efficacy but the question is delivering them in a way that works better, stays longer. For instance one of the drugs is for AIDS transmission, it's to stop AIDS transmission between nursing mothers and children but it's very difficult to get those people once a day to give the drug. So, the question of drug delivery is a separate question than drug discovery. Drug delivery projects are very easy projects to start students on, lots of data, easy to run. And so, this entrepreneur has essentially based his company on the fact that trainees are taking that data and the oversight is from Oak Crest. So, we had an NSF undergraduate research grant with them. I was a co-PI on that. And that one is over at the moment but--so NSF recognizes that facility. And you were there, you were with us one day and you said, "I wanna be on your resource list." [ Laughter ] >> That was wonderful. It is such a very real--we're really doing things there. >> Well, if you ever wanna be--do something quite different, ironically the name of the head of Oak Crest is Mark Baum. I don't think he's a relative of Jess but if you walk through there, it is--they do more things in less space than anyone can possibly imagine. I mean, just a walkthrough there and not knock something over is a challenge. So, be moving next door and double the space, they won't know what to do with it. But-- >> Oh, I think they know what to do with it. >> Well, I'm sure they do but when I went through there, they had 2 post docs from France over there in training and on down is when he said the high school students. So, really tremendous things are happening and PCC as right in the heart of it. So, I just wanted to--nice to know that. >> Well, I felt very good because I saw the LA Times article on Muir High School this weekend and we have had a number of Muir students come once a month with me but we've also had their teachers in the summer at Oak Crest. So we worked very well together. I have to say that I owe a lot to Dave Douglas and Jackie Jacobs for giving me the ability to expand into these places. Jackie threw me out but it has been a wonderful trip. I have been here. This is my 42nd year I believe. So, it's never the same twice. Thank you for allowing me to bring this to you. >> Mr. Baum, did you have a question or comment? >> I just had a couple of questions too. But first, we're so fortunate to have you at PCC for all these years and to launch such innovative programming. A question specifically about the program, how is it funded and how were you funding your involvement with the program? >> Which program? >> Well, the bio--I mean how the bioscience-- >> Oh, Pasadena Bioscience? >> And then your role as the head of the Biotech Center. >> Pasadena Bioscience is funded by the tenants along with some donations from the city, from--we had one generous donor from Caltech. Mr. Blomstrom is pretty well connected. He is right now the chair. >> So, it's an independent nonprofit that's funded-- >> It is and Mr. Blomstrom does not get paid. We only have one paid employee and she comes in 10 hours a week to do books. I am the director of the LA/Orange County Biotech Center. That's grant-based from Economic Workforce Development from the chancellor's office. We have had that grant for almost 10 years I believe. And it is directly in the mission of the grant to work with the industry to do training, to do incubation. We are the only center out of the 6 that actually-- >> That funds all of your time too [inaudible] operate? >> It does, exactly. >> Yeah. And then my other question, so I just was wondering where the funding came from. The other question too, it was great to hear about the work with Muir and can you describe some of the other outreach that involves Pasadena Unified School District schools into this because I noticed on the back too, it's great to have interns from Crescenta Valley and Gabrielino and what other types of outreach are we doing for Pasadena Unified? >> That's a big question. But I will explain the groups that are here. There are 4 high schools in our area which have developed one year biology biotech curricula. Muir was the first. It's actually replication of something from San Mateo. Muir was the first and we worked--I worked with him to get UC [inaudible] approval for that. They now have 5 sections of that running that Arcadia has the same program, Blair has that program and Crescenta Valley. And I believe there's one in Hacienda Heights if it has started. >> In any event, this has become a big deal. Gabrielino is about to embark on that. Those students need experience and internship hours. So those are the teachers to whom I send the invitations first. But I'm more than happy to have 2 or 3 students from any one school on a Saturday. We mix them. We then put them together in teams. One can't discuss last night's prom. There are--our students are mentoring. So, Mark [indiscernible] that was here has-- >> Alright. The main question was because I'm really thrilled to hear about the initiative taken at Muir and hearing that it's at Blair and it's at Arcadia too, the more we can engage our district-based schools the better. And the more that they're aware of these types of partnership opportunities is terrific. And so I'm really pleased to hear that. >> But we wrote the CTE Community Collaborative grant with Glendale College specifically to do this, so those--a lot of the high school related things are being funded. A lot of the workshops that are going on and there are a great number of them are being funded by that grant now. >> And I'll be a little provincial too. It's a--I'm glad to have that with Glendale and Crescenta Valley for them. I really wanna see as much as possible with the schools within our district as well. So, the more we can continue to expand that, the better. >> Okay. Any other questions? Alright, well thank you, Dr. Johnston. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Oh, I just want to say I also visit this facility about a year ago and it is very, very impressive. And if anyone wants to take a tour, I'm sure that you could and it's kind of hard I think to visualize until you're actually there and see that little tinnie space as Mr. Thomson said and all this activity going on. And the other thing that I thought was wonderful is it's across the street from our warehouse, so anytime they need a forklift, they can just call one. [ Laughter ] [ Simultaneous Talking ] >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> The next item is confirmation of bond sale-- [ Applause ] >> Cost representing Pasadena Area Community College District 52 million 2002 election general obligation bonds, 2009 Series D and 2002 election tax for general obligation Build America Bonds direct subsidy 2009 Series E, presentation Dr. van Pelt. >> Okay. As you know the Measure P bond passed in 2002 and there have been a series of issuances of that bond debt. Up until this point, we had issued 98 million dollars and this latest issue was for 52 million dollars that brought us to the 450 million dollars. Through refinancing and investment, that 150 million dollars has actually grown to more than 171 million dollars. However, the education code was amended in 2006 to require a public disclosure of the actual cost. So this is the first time that we've come to the board with this document. And you'll notice that there are 2 series, Series D and E. D was the tax exempt and Series E was the taxable which is brand new concept which is the taxable, where there is federal government subsidizes it in order to make it more attractive. The idea is to pump money into the system. You also noticed that D and E are roughly equivalent, 26,700,000 for D and 25,000,295 bringing it to 52 million dollars. You also noticed that for technical reasons and there--we have bond counsel here who can explain that, the proceeds were 51,768,000 to the County Treasury. So we do have Lisalee Wells from Fulbright & Jaworski. We have Ryan Vollmer and Brian Garcia from RBC Capital, our bond brokers who can answer any of the technical questions. >> Thank you. Does anyone have any technical questions for our bond brokers? Yes, student trustee. I'm sorry, I recognized him first. Oh, you're appointee. I'm sorry. Mr. Baum, it's really hard to see up here. >> Yes, it is. >> Well, sorry. >> Yeah. Okay, we received in addition to what's in the agenda a couple of memos. So, there is some confusion going on here. So, I think that you should probably have some people come to the podium too. You just indicated that we issued a 51--52 million dollar bond but deposited in our account on the Treasury is 51.7689 million. So, where is the extra 200,000 dollars? Lisa? >> Ladies and gentlemen, members of the board, members of the public, I'm Lisa Wells from Fulbright & Jaworski who acted as bond counsel for your last issue. The difference is an amount of money that was spent for the cost of issuance of the Build America Bonds. The technical reasons that you've heard mentioned included developments in analysis of how Build America Bonds are supposed to work. As Dr. van Pelt mentioned, this is a new product this year that derived from the stimulus bill. And sadly the treasury department has been slow and reluctant in providing guidance on how all the technical aspects of these bonds should operate. So as a result, there are presently discrepancies among bond counsel firms as to how to treat, how best to treat the cost of issuance of Build America Bonds. And on balance, our firm recommended that the money should come out of the proceeds rather than come out of the surcharge on the tax exempt issue. I'm happy to add to that if you'd like. >> And I should say, I'm glad to see the disclosure of the cost of issuance. I remember in the last time we issued, I said, "Okay, so, what is the fee that RBC is gonna collect? What is the fee that the attorney is gonna collect, because that wasn't a publicly acknowledged fees?" And they're considerable that the--there's considerable fees that are--go along with the issuance of the bonds, so. >> Well, to be fair, the--in the past, most underwriting firms including RBC have provided a pricing book to the district. It displayed all that but as you say, this is the first time this board has had to take the information item before the public. That's true. >> Right. And I think that's good. I think that's--I'm glad we're able to do that. So again, what you're saying is that because of this new bond tool, equipment, product-- >> Build America Bond. >> We--when we saw the bonds and we saw 52 million dollars worth of bonds but we only got 51.8 million dollars, that we decided to take that extra funds out of what we would get into our--as opposed to the cost that would be added on top of it. >> That's correct. That was--the original technique for paying these costs was that methodology we had hoped to use original issue premium on the bonds to pay for their costs and sadly that did not occur in connection with [simultaneous talking]. >> So theoretically, we could go back out for another 200,000 dollar bond to make up the difference for what the taxpayers had voted. >> No, the principal amount that was issued was the 52. And so, that money having been issued, that's not still available to add to another bond issue in the future. >> And any of the 150 million that we've sold for the bonds, did we have to take any of that out of that principal? >> No. This is the--as Dr. van Pelt mentioned, this is the only Build America Bond taxable issue that you have done, that you could have done. >> And-- >> And the risk, just to explain, the risk that is inherent in these transactions, because of the lack of guidance, is that if the decision is wrong on how best to structure these transactions, at risk was 12,575,000 dollars worth of tax subsidies. So, in weighing those things-- >> Right, but could we have structured the Build America Bond to have recouped the entire amount of the 52 million dollars? >> It would have been possible but for the timing of--and it was not the underwriter's fault, it was that the discussions that were had about the best structure in our tax department took a while to bubble through and by the time the announcement was made that this was the safest methodology for the district, the pricing had occurred and it was too late to undo the pricing. >> So, it was a decision on timing which resulted as in-- >> Yes. That's correct. Yeah. It--it's--that's correct. >> And so, where did that money--where--so where is that 200,000 dollars? It's-- >> Oh, that money has not been lost. That's actually been used as a credit to the taxpayers. So, that money has actually been applied as a relief to the Pasadena Area taxpayers for the-- >> That 200,000? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes, that is a credit to the taxpayers. >> Because one of the things, Dr. van Pelt or Dr. Sugimoto, you can help me understand, you'd circulated some information that's earlier saying that because of our increased bond rating, we were going to be able to save the taxpayers upwards of 600,000 dollars. And so now are we saving the taxpayers upwards of 800,000 dollars? >> Well, I think that there's one that's in savings and this is a credit. >> Okay. >> So, it's essentially repayment. >> So that money is not lost to the taxpayers, that 200,000 dollars? >> It's lost to us for the ability to use it but it's gone to the benefit of the taxpayer. >> Okay. That's helpful to understand because--so what that means is we have 200,000 dollars less to build the arts building for example than we would have otherwise. >> Correct. >> And so, then you're gonna have to--we're gonna have to figure out ways to make up that. >> Correct. >> That money is still going back to the taxpayers. >> The 231,000 dollars. >> 231,000. >> That's correct. >> That credit will be applied for the fiscal year starting July the 1st. >> Okay, so--and then the last, just very pointedly to why didn't we know how to time this properly because the reason we hired experts like you is to make sure we don't make mistakes like that. >> Yes. No, I appreciate that. And I guess the best explanation I can give you is that because of the novelty of this Build America Bond process and because of the lack of guidance from treasury and just as an aside, last week there was a national conference of bond lawyers, and that was conducted in Phoenix, Arizona, the bond attorney workshop. And several people from the Treasury Department were there. They were asked specifically the questions about payments of cost of issuance and they declined to respond. So, it's more of an art than a science at this stage and it's unfortunate [simultaneous talking]-- >> But if we didn't know that this product that well, then why did we pursue it too? Because if we're not getting those answers. >> I believe that it still resulted in the substantial savings to your taxpayers at the end of the day. And, you know, it was not as good a savings for them and for you as it could have been. But that's the way it transpired. >> Dr. Bradbury-Huang? >> Good evening. Would it be fair to boil down the problem, perhaps oversimplify it to this that there was an organizational delay, you talk about a bubbling up took, if I understand right, 2 days. It's a 2-day delay in getting information and as a result, we're short 230,000 dollars. >> That's a fair description of what transpired. >> Okay. And so, I as a board member feel like a 230,000 dollar mistake is a big one. And so I'm wondering what has been put in place inside your organization to circumvent future delays? In other words, can we trust that your organization can do our business? >> Well, believe me, we've had extensive discussions at our firm regarding this issue. It has been honestly about as painful a process as I can imagine. And we probably are more smooth and lean on this particular issue now than anyone. However, I agree that it has--was a problem for the district and in terms of the service that we are providing presently, I hope it's satisfactory and yet I understand your concerns about the past service and I have nothing further to say about what else could have been done because sadly, it was not. >> But your organizational learning cost us 230,000 dollars and I'm delighted that there has been organizational learning. I mean that's a very important piece for me to hear. Although it came rather late in the conversation, what I first heard was a lot about how the delay was caused by, you know, the folks outside who are being a little circumspect about how this process is supposed to go. >> Well no, the Treasury Department's lack of guidance has required that law firms make their internal analysis and conduct a lot of best guesses on this subject. That's all I'm saying. That's where I started, that is the basis of the challenge. If these were perfectly clear, and there were clear guidance from the Treasury Department, there would not be a dispute among law firms as to how to handle this and this issue would not have arise--ever risen. >> Right. I wanna thank your company for waiving the 40,000 dollar fee that you would normally ask of us I guess, right? >> Uh-hmm. >> So, that brings us down to 190,000 and as I understand it--no? >> No, it brings it. That fee, it was more than that. It was 270. Is that not correct, and then you waived 40? >> I think that's correct. >> Yes. >> Oh, I see. I see. So that the 270 was the mistake and then the 30 is off the top of 270. Okay, great. >> Great. >> Well, great clarification. But I also understand that your firm is suggesting there are ways to make up this additional money through risk-free investments. And in some ways, I have to wonder why wouldn't we engage in investment strategies that would any way yield us such benefit. Why do we only do it under these circumstances? >> Good question. >> Dr. van Pelt, can you address that? I think that really is our--yes? >> The issue is that the way that we have structured this in the past is that as the bond money comes to us, all of it is available to us. What we now have to do is we have to very carefully structure specific times when money comes out. That means that we have to go to great lengths to predict exactly how many million dollars are due basically per month for the duration of the Measure P Project. What that then does is because we have the specified term, the yield can be increased. There is--I mean the challenge for us is that we can exceed to draw on our bond money. So, it raises the significant issue of complexity and how we manage the money but essentially, if we can get about another half percent of yield, we will more than make up for 231,000 dollars. And I think RBC Capital would say that that is a very doable process. Right now, we're developing the systems to define precisely how much money is needed per month for the duration of the Measure P Project. >> So financially, it may seem very wise to move in this direction but the organization is a whole host of complexity that in some ways is an additional burden or a cost on you. >> It is indeed. >> I would like to end with just a question to the board 'cause I--my colleagues on the board, 'cause I don't know that I can answer this myself but, you know, it just come through an election, so at least we won't have to face an election over this. But essentially, we're being confronted with a mistake which relative to the size of the bond may appear rather small but nonetheless, it's a 270,000 dollar mistake, an organizational delay. And so, I just wonder what is the best response to this in terms of our fiduciary responsibility? >> I don't wanna--I don't want to attempt to answer that question. >> But you wanna--okay, we got [simultaneous talking] that one on the table. Go ahead, we'll-- >> But I wanna ask some other question. So, if there is somebody that wants to answer that question, let them. >> I didn't see anyone raising their hand. Go ahead with your question. >> I'm trying to understand everything that's been said. So I want to start with understanding the way the cost of issuance, that options for cost of issuance. And so, let me play it back and you tell me if I've got it. One method would be to get the full money and the expense for cost of issuance is built into an interest rate that as we pay a little higher rate, it's paying back the cost of issuance but we got the full 52 million on the front. And another way is there was a cost of issuance, you just don't get the full 52 million 'cause you're paying the cost of issuance. Now, are those basically--are we--is that kind of what happened here? So, we're just not getting the full 52 'cause this 270 was part of the cost of issuance? Am I getting that right, how the two methods? >> That's essentially correct. In one case, the interest level is increased slightly so that the taxpayers pay more but the cost of issuance is paid from the original issued premium is the name for that. >> Okay. So, it isn't as if the 270,000 or whatever amount was actually lost. It's just a matter of we didn't give the benefit of it to build the projects on the front end. It's really almost more like instead of 150 million, it was 200,000 or 200 less. >> Correct. >> Okay. On the Series D, Series E taxable Build America Bonds, where and how was it decided that 26 was gonna go this way and 25 was gonna go that way? How did all that come about? >> Right. >> Sure. Ryan--my name is Ryan Vollmer, Vice President RBC Capital Markets. We provided the district with an analysis on a--we provide essentially 2 different skills. One doing an issuance on all tax exempt basis and the other doing a all taxable. And we'd run a kind of a savings analysis, if you will, based on those separate yields to come up with where it would be beneficial for a district to--what would they make a benefit in savings to the taxpayers by issuing those America bonds. And that's essentially how it was determined based on that analysis. >> Now, in the Build America Bonds, if they're taxable, you obviously have to have a higher interest rate to encourage people to buy them. So is there some subsidy from the United States government that back fills that? >> That's correct. >> That's the 12 million, 575 numbers that I mentioned. >> So the--the paying agent on behalf of the district will be sending to the IRS twice a year for the rest of the extent term of the bonds. An IRS form which reimburses the district for up to 35 percent of interest paid that period. That goes directly to the county. >> Right. >> Which will be put in the counties that serve as fund to offset the tax levy to taxpayers. >> Okay. So that 35 percent is the 12 million. >> That's correct. >> Yes sir. >> And that happens on a periodic basis or quarterly basis, how--when do we get the money from the government? >> There is a special form that the IRS provides that the paying agent will handle for you. They'll prepare it for you. It needs to be signed every 6 months in connection with an interest payment date. It gets submitted on your behalf and then the money is transmitted actually to the treasury pool to the credit of your interest in sinking fund. >> So it has nothing to do with the principle of the 52 million but basically we're paying a higher interest rate out on the bond and the federal government is subsidizing that. >> That's correct. So for example at the rates here, the taxable rate, excuse me, the taxable rate on the 20, 30-term was a 6.5 to 9. And then when you multiply that by 65 percent in essence, you get the 4.24 which was about 50, excuse me, about 40 basis points of the savings compared to the tax [inaudible] equivalent yield at that time. And the same math works for the taxable term bond in 2034. The actual yield is a 6.654, the taxable portion. But the true net yield for the--yet the yield the district will be paying is a 4.32. Again, if we would have done all tax exempt, that would have been about 30 to 40 basis points higher. >> So the--the reason to split it and have some of these tax exempt when there was money to be made on the taxable was what? >> Yeah, what-- >> Savings. >> Yeah, savings. Well, it ultimately works if--we're not seeing a benefit to issuing taxable or Build America Bonds in the front end of the curve as we call it. And based on that savings analysis that we run, it showed negative savings all up until we switched over to Build America Bonds. >> So the short-term issuances were tax exempt and the long-term issuances were taxable. >> That's correct. >> Okay. It wasn't like they were parallel series or anything. >> And the tax rules are the same with regard to your projects, that is just because Build America Bonds are taxable does not mean that there are different rules. So they're all the same tax rules. >> And in essence, the argument to get the money back is just for the district to tie up some of the money in a longer instrument where we don't have access to it so you get a higher yield 'cause you're going along with it, hence you have to more meticulously guess when is the construction company gonna complete a certain phase. >> That's right. >> When is it gonna rain and be delayed and all those kinds of things that make life interesting. >> No, just a point of fact. The district's money still is at the county and is earning an interest at the County Pool's rate which is a varying rate but I'm sure the district has and we could provide if necessary or if you like what that rate has been. So there still will be returns on the investments that are sitting on the county's pool. >> Okay. So I think I understand [simultaneous talking]. Yeah, I think that helps me understand. >> Mrs. Wells-Miller have a question. >> Yes. Did I understand you to say that the problem was due to the Treasury Department? >> Well, it was the perfect storm of a lack of guidance from the treasury department, and the fact that the pricing data reflecting the structure for payment of cost of issuance. By the time it reached the senior people and the tax department, the pricing had occurred and it was too late to move money from one category to another. >> Okay. Any other--any other--yes, Mr. Thomson. >> Just one question. What steps have you implemented to prevent this from occurring again? >> Well, as I mentioned, we've had extensive discussions within the tax department and we've implemented rules regarding making sure that pre-pricing data gets delivered to the tax department and the senior people in the tax department earlier. >> And how will that help us? >> It would not help you because it's prospective. >> No, I understand that. >> I'm sorry. >> I mean if you had had that in place before, you would have known earlier and the two days would not have-- >> We might have asked the underwriters to delay pricing for a day while this went through the analysis process. >> Yes, Mr. Brown. >> I just have two other questions. One is on--we're gonna be asked to approve this confirmation of bond sale cost, correct? >> It would actually legally doesn't--it requires a presentation to the board. >> There's no action on this. They were just giving us the information. >> But I see that the clerk actually signs something that we didn't. And it says at the time of the board's adoption of the resolution, authorizing the bonds, the cost of issuing the bonds were estimated at 2 percent of the principle. And the cost of actual cost of issuance was 0.90 [inaudible] percent. Who said that 2 percent projection and was that in our original bond documents? >> Yeah. That was in the resolution that you passed initially asking the county to issue bonds on your behalf. The number was established in consultation with the underwriters and staff. >> About 2 percent. >> That was the maximum that could be-- >> Right, so did we--did we set us a set of 2 percent level that we knew we could just like beat the heck out of it and come in half that. Or is that standard 2 percent is the cost of issuance? >> Ryan. >> It's pretty much a standard but at that time, we weren't sure if we would be issuing insurance, which again the district saved on by not having to ensure the bonds, which is a reflection of the strong rating of the district. So we did have that savings and have that cost been on top of it, that would have been closer to the 2 percent exactly. >> So in one sense, we cut our actual cost of issuance and half of what we have projected at the time of the resolution. >> That's correct, and that is the standard number. >> For this series. >> Where have we been about the same about less than a percent for each of the series that we've-- >> I could pull that data up. I don't know if [inaudible] but I know we've always been about the same range. >> Mr. Martin. >> Well, I don't think Jeff is done. I was-- >> Yes. >> I'm sorry. Are you done? >> No. Dr. van Pelt, you talked about the monthly distributions and projecting that out. Is that only--is that primarily so we manage the funds more effectively 'cause it was my understanding that we don't have to do a monthly distribution but we just have to use it within a 3-year period or something like that too, and we would take, we've taken larger lump sums in the past rather than do a monthly distribution. >> Well, we've drawn it down as we need to as the bills come in to us. But what this does is it forces us to do a cash flow analysis that's pretty careful because to the extent that we know when we need money, then we can invest differently. >> Okay. And then well that if we invest differently, we would say we could squeeze out an extra half percent. Are we incurring additional risk by trying to make up for this? >> No, it's still fully within the treasury so it's all in the treasury pool. >> So there won't be additional risk. >> Correct. >> It's just the way we manage it as far as the cash flow. >> The only real risk is you don't know exactly what the yield will be but it's going to be what the treasury is able to get. >> And then lastly, just my response to Dr. Bradbury-Huang's question. The first step for me would be to turn to the administration to say, what is the administration doing and how does administration recommend the board respond to this 200,000 dollar problem that have--we've disclosed through this discussion. And so that's what I would wait for and then we would decide among the board what kind of recommendation we would act upon. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Yes, Mr. Martin. >> I just had a legal question. When Measure P was approved by the voters, was there any language in that documentation that said that these were gonna be tax exempt bonds and are, you know, is there any--and I guess I'm asking for some assurance that there wasn't a violation that the Build America Bonds were even acceptable in that context of the Measure P promise. >> The language in general obligation bond measures generally and then yours specifically doesn't talk about tax exemption. It does set a maximum interest rate which is the one permitted by law at 12 percent per annum. Within that, it's traditional that you could carve out a piece for taxable purposes. The more frequent passed use of taxable bonds is to buy a piece of property that's currently leased by a for-profit for a period of time and then use tax exempts to take it out. >> Are there any other questions or comments? >> Maybe just a quick one. So thank you, Trustee Baum, for answering that. I wanna extend my gratitude for your coming. I can't imagine it's pleasant standing there and hearing all these kind of nasty questions and I particularly appreciate the organizational response 'cause in the end if the organization is not learning, we can't trust that we can continue to partner with you. But in any event, we do await from Dr. Sugimoto a reflection on this and whether, you know, the organizational burden on our end is--is, you know, it somehow it all--it all pays off. So thank you. >> So my understanding is what the clerk is signing is that this information was presented to us at a public meeting. There's no resolution here. There's no action. There is no vote. Is that correct, Dr. Sugimoto? Is that what-- >> Yes. >> Yes. >> That's--that's what the clerk will then certify. >> Yes. Yes, that is correct. >> And then the next thing is we will be waiting for a recommendation for the--from the administration in response to Dr. Bradbury-Huang's question as far are we going to do about this and how will we keep something like this from happening in the future. Of course this is our--last of our bonds, of our Measure P bonds so--but who knows what will happen. Does everyone agree that that's what we've agreed on and what we're going to do? Alright, well thank you very much for coming. Okay, the next item on the agenda is the selection of college president discussion with possible action. We have the bylaws and they're behind [inaudible] J. >> J. >> Yeah, I'm trying to--trying to find them. I think that--I guess what I wanted to do was ask if there were any other changes, additions, or corrections that our people wanted to make in the--the policy, the procedure, or the composition of the screening committee. Mrs. Wells-Miller. >> Yes, I have something on 1690. >> Wait, on what? >> Bylaw 1690. >> On policy. That's right. >> Yes bylaw 1690, right. >> And also 1320. On 1690 number 11, it seems to me that the wording should be the Board of Trustees will discuss the final candidates in closed session seems like anything is important as that should be affirm, not left to chance. >> Actually, I think the Brown Act would require us the discussion in close--in closed sessions. >> Well, we might change the word may to will. >> Alright, okay. The--so change the may to will. Any other, any other suggestions. If there are suggestions at this level, then we might just take them all in one thing. Any other suggestions on 1690, the policies or the procedures? [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Okay, so do I have a motion to make that change? The may to will on number 11 on bylaw on policy, I mean on bylaw 1690. >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Any discussion? Oh, student trustee. >> Aye. >> All those in favor please say aye. >> Aye. >> Closed. Motion carries. >> Just a quick point of clarification too. The--at our last meeting, we had already approved all these other changes, so even though that the strikethroughs are still here, those that are already been adopted-- >> They should be. >> --at the last meeting so. >> Yeah, and that's--that's we need to clean that up. >> Right. >> Yes. >> So we don't need to have the other. >> No, we don't need to have that other, but I think that was a good catch by Mrs. Wells-Miller. Is there--is there any--anything else here? >> 1320. >> 1320. Is that--is that on--is that this bylaw or is that another. >> No, it' the next one. >> Okay. Okay, I'm not with you. What's 1320? >> It's bylaw 1320 letter K. >> Okay. >> That's not--this is a different topic, 1320 is another policy. We're not on that, we're still on the search--okay. >> Oh, you're still on this one. >> Yes, we're still on this one. Okay. So are there any other--any other changes either that on the--or the composition of the committee. I had asked the--all of the board members to submit a recommendation for the community representative and I had asked the shared governance bodies to submit recommendations and to do this as designated here and to do this by this today. We have most of the recommendations from the shared government from the trustees. We do not have any recommendations from the shared governance committees except I assume the student trustee will serve as himself. I do not know who are represented or have you given as a recommendation on who will serve the student for as Associate Students. >> I believe I will be the representative. >> Okay, so we have those--we have those two. I discussed this with two of the shared governance heads and they assured me that they could--would have a recommendation for us by the next board meeting. Now, I have--I need some direction now from the board. I think there're a couple of questions we need--we need to look at. First of all, we are--we as we all know, we will have two new board members at the meeting in December. I have received recommendation from one of the Board Members who will not continue--be continuing on the board. I think the board needs to decide if we want to on November 18, appoint the committee and with the recommendations from the currently sitting Board members who are still legally on the Board or do we want to wait and appoint the committee in December when we would then have recommendations from the newly elected Board members. And I'd like some guidance on that. Yes, Dr. Bradbury-Huang. >> Just to start the conversation. I was very concerned when I saw 10 search firms come to-- >> We're not on the search firms. We're talking about the committee. We'll do the search firms next. >> Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. >> Okay, right. Right, we're gonna do that next. Okay, go ahead Mr. Brown. >> My own point would I would encouraged the Board president to consult. I mean we're still in the very early stages, not all the results are in and things like that with the election. We're--I don't think we should act on this tonight. I think we should hold this to at least the next meeting and as it becomes clear if there are new trustees that--that they should be consulted before the committee is finalized because they will be actively involved in the selection of a new president. >> Actually, I did--I did call both of the people who at this point looked like maybe the new trustees and did alert them to the fact that--that each--each of the composition of the committee and if you know--if for when they are sworn in that they would do this, but I think we could certainly wait to the 18th to resolve this matter. >> I would recommend that we do that. >> Alright. Does anyone have any problem with that? We'll wait 'til the 18th, alright. Now, Dr. Bradbury-Huang. The other part is the selection of the search--yeah, Mr. Thomson. >> One quick question. Is there gonna be some procedure to make sure that there is some communicate--well, I mean obviously by the 18th we're gonna have the election finalized. >> Right, but we don't have a finalized now. >> That could go on like Minnesota did actually around that. [ Inaudible Remark ] [ Laughter ] >> But assuming that the results say is they are--at least as of this morning, is there gonna be some way of communicating with the new Board members and with respect to representatives or those that have been recommended by the current board members and where we find--gonna find ourselves sitting here on the 18th on the same situation we are right now. >> That's why I--we had been suggesting the board president communicate with the perspective new board members and then bring back any of those findings to us at the next meeting. >> I have actually already anticipated that and have--have talked the new Board members. Dr. Bradbury-Huang and I both went--are going to meet with them to try to bring them kind of up to speed on this and I have indicated to them that--that if you know--and see that they will be making the recommendation and I can--we'll share with them who has been recommended if that is--if that is what the board thinks is--is appropriate. And then we'll ask them--I--and if we're gonna make the appointment on the 18th, then we--we'll still need their addresses and we'll need maybe their recommendation. So I think we're gonna have to decide how to do it. >> Well, that was my point because, I mean certainly by law, we have sitting trustees who are authorized to make the determination. However, we gotta be pragmatic of this too and that's the conundrum that we're faced with here. And if there's a way to resolve this, because if we don't do it then, we're looking at December the 9th which means we're not gonna get anything done on this until probably mid January or late January of next year. >> Well certainly, we're gonna get something done before mid January. If nothing else, we'll have special meetings around the clock. [ Laughter ] >> Yes, Mr. Baum. >> Let me clarify the way I see the process too that we have a little bit of time if we are as a Board are able to identify the search firm. Because the work of the committee won't necessarily begin until after the announcement of the opening is drafted and distributed and candidates are coming in which probably still won't happen until after the first of the year. >> I think that's accurate. I think we can wait 'til December the 8th to appoint the committee. Although I think it would be good if we have all the recommendations in. And I do wanna stress that, you know, these bodies make a recommendation to the Board and then the Board actually appoints the committee. No one appoints, makes an individual appointment. So I will again communicate with them. Actually, I have shared in one instance a recommendation from one of the other members and I think someone might be interested in that. But I will communicate with them. The next then item is the search firms. We received the names of 10--well, not the names, proposals from 10 search firms and Dr. Bradbury-Huang, you had a--you wanted to address this. >> Right. It picks up on the previous conversation in a sense that we know that the board may be differently constituted as we move forward. So, how do we best bring in the newcomers so that they feel that they have a voice in the selection of the search firm? What I think would be best for us is to proceed tonight to whittle the number 10 down to no more than say 3, in the ballpark of 3. And then assuming we can reach some agreement on who those 3 are, that's probably--that would then be the meat of the conversation tonight. If we can do that, then invite newcomers if there are indeed newcomers into the conversation about who should be the final selection. To do that, that would mean that in that meeting in December, we would actually invite some of these search firms to come and do a brief presentation to solidify our decision about who that would be. >> Okay, so what you're--what you're recommending is if I have this is tonight, we would go from 10 to 2 or 3 search firms. We would invite them then to make a presentation in December, our presentation on the November 18th. >> In December when the--when-- >> When we have the new, right, okay. An alternative to that would be to wait 'til the 18th to decide which ones we want. That then would only give the firms a couple of months, I mean a couple of weeks to get ready. We could though share the--we know we could at least that way consult with the new people. How--how do people wish to proceed? Mr. Baum, are you-- >> I agree with Dr. Bradbury-Huang's suggestion that then I think we should be able to be prepared to have some discussion and perhaps narrow this down to 3 tonight that we would invite for presentations. >> Okay. >> And ideally, we would be able to make that decision at the next meeting so that they could get started on draft--helping us draft that description. But that may not feasible because if they make--if presentations of the December meeting and then we make a selection at the December--'cause we'll wanna make a selection promptly because of--if that's not gonna happen, then we're pushing this off into the New Year. And they won't be able to work in earnest till after the New Year. >> Yeah, I think we have to make the selection at the December meeting. And so the question is, do we wanna have the presentation the same night we make the selection, which is what we normally have, I think we have done. >> Right. >> Yeah, Dr. Rey Castro. >> I support us going ahead and narrowing the list down to at least no more--no more than 3 and preferably less than 3. If we could get down to 2, that would be even better. But I think 3 is probably more realistic. And then have the presentations at the 18th. >> The presentation is the 18th and then the selection in December? >> Yes [inaudible]. >> We could do that and we could invite the--if there are gonna be new Board members to be present at the 18th, or they can do the audio. Watch the audiocast. >> Exactly. >> And then we would have the vote in December. Mr. Engeldinger, you have been in contact with these firms. Do you think they would be ready to make presentations on the 18th? >> Anticipating that this might occur, we've notified the firms to be available either on the 18th or the 9th. >> And have any of them said they would not be available on those dates? >> Some have indicated they would prefer the 9th but they understand the situation. >> Okay, alright. So shall we now proceed to move from what, 10 to 2 or 3-- [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Student trustee. >> Just additional question I have. What criteria would we use I guess right now in whittling it down to 3 from these 10? >> Well, there was a form that was given. Did he get the--did he get the packet, the material we did? There was a form in there that had a rating, I mean an evaluation sheet. That would be the criteria I guess. I would--I would propose that we just each go and say which our top two are. And then--and then move into discussion. I have found this is very, very helpful, the search committees because you can start from the bottom and go through all the pile. Everyone usually knows who their top 2 candidates are. So we have had the proposals. We had the grid. We had the opportunity to evaluate them. I'm assuming we're all evaluating the same grid and would just like to, I think it would be a good idea just as kind of throwing it out just see who the top two are. Dr. Rey Castro. >> Yes. I'd like to ask our Board president to please advise us as to your two or three top preferences and the rationale. >> It was my understanding if we have the recommendation from. >> Yeah, we were gonna have a recommendation from the officers. Okay, I would be happy--happy to do that if I could find by--if I could find them. The--I have three recommendations and the three that I am recommending are Ralph Andersen & Associates, ACCT, and PPL. The reasons why, ACCT is obviously the National Association of Community College Trustees, they have a very comprehensive proposal. The--and reading the resumes, I'm assuming the person that would be working with us would be Dr. Pamela Fisher [phonetic]. Is that your assumption Mr. Engeldinger. Since her resume is given, she would be the California contact person. >> That's correct, and we asked. >> They have a very extensive network of contacts. They seem to have a good understanding of shared governance and they have had a great deal of experience if you look at all these searches that they have been involved with. The only reservation I have about ACCT is Mr. Martin may remember several years ago, I guess 20 years ago it was. We have them for a search and we have a bad experience. However, they did do the search over again free. And we had a very good experience and that that was--that search led to the appointment of Dr. Jack Scott. That would be my thinking on them. PPL is much the same reason. The consultants I know are outstanding. They have a very good process. They've done some excellent, excellent searches. And some conversations I had with the chancellor. He indicated that he have had worked with PPL and had found them to be outstanding and finally, Ralph Andersen & Associates. I was very impressed with the kind of things that they were doing that was a little different and kind of creative. They were the search firm that for the Cerritos search, and if you remember we have people testify about the fact that they brought a large, you know, not just the trustees to the on-site visit. >> They also recommended that we do some pre-advertising which I thought was a very good idea. They're an established firm. They have not been doing too many searchers and they look to me like they are a little bit more creative and--and flexible. I also know in each instance here the person who would be the principal consultant, I mean that'd be working with us. It would be Dr. [inaudible], Dr. Fischer and I can't remember the--the person from PPL and I know these people are all very experienced. And do you--do you know who it would be? Mr. Engeldinger, I just dropped the name. I--oh, Ehmann, Ehmann, E-H-M-A-N-N. I think these are very experienced and very professional consultants. And incidentally, although I don't think that this is a major concern, but their price is almost identical. So it's not--it's not an issue of price. The other--the other firms I looked at, I guess the reason I was not--I'm not recommending them is that a couple of three of them did not seem to have had much experience with community colleges and I do think it does help to have networks that you can--that you can access on community colleges. I think the person that we're looking for, and this is kind of a cliche, is someone who doesn't know that he or she wants to be president of PCC until the consultant calls them and tells them, you know this is--we think this to be a good--a good spot for you. And--and a couple of the other firms, there was a--they did not articulate any kind of understanding of working with the committee, particularly in the shared governance structure, and this is unique to California, the way that we put these committees together, and I think it is helpful to have someone who has had done it before. So those would be my top 3 and I like to hear from the other two officers since we said the officers will make a recommendation. Dr. Bradbury-Huang. >> Sure. >> Is someone keep--noting this down? >> Yes. >> Okay. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Okay, Dr.--okay, Dr. Bradbury-Huang has agreed. >> Yeah. So I would put Isaacson and Miller at the top of the list. A little bit more pricey, and let's be honest. What particularly appealed to me about Isaacson and Miller was the strategic approach they take from the get-go, so it seemed to me as consultants they take the Board very much into the conversation early on and figure out what really are the strategic parameters within which they need to do the search. That piece may be a part of the other folks but the fact that they underlined it and they make it such a bold part of their work for me, you know, put them out--put them out there. In addition, and this is kind of a tricky thing. In addition, what makes them different is they not only have experience with the community college but they also have experience with the type of colleges, private colleges that I think are most comparable to a community college which are the--the very, very good teaching liberal arts school. So for example you've got Colorado College on here, you've got Williams & Mary, you've got I think Dartmouth. In other words, very reputable teaching oriented colleges, so the same type of strategy, the same type of mission that PCC is known for. So it's precisely because they would cast a larger net, then only those who have focused primarily in California are primarily on community colleges that makes them of great interest to me. Number two on my list was PPL which, Dr. Mann, you've already talked about, so for the same reasons that--that you like them. I also like ACCT just because I like all the work that they do. I'm not particularly overwhelmed by this proposal. It wasn't the details. I appreciated that but I trust the work that they do generally, and so I presume that the work that they would do around presidential search would be--would also be very strong. Those would be my top three, so PPL, Isaacson and Miller, and ACCT. Oh, and I wanted to throw something into the mix, a little bit unusual. The idea of reserving McNaughton [phonetic] to do the references checks only. It seemed to me that that was a core competency of McNaughton and that somebody else in fact had already seen that. They--I think UC Berkeley maybe, one of the well known schools in California had asked them to do only their reference checks also. I was very impressed by just the appendices. The appendices alone on reference check I think would be useful to us and so the idea of--of you know if that was appealing to other colleagues on the board, the idea would be to choose from one of the firms and ask them if they would partner with McNaughton to do simply the reference piece. >> Dr. Rey Castro. >> Yes. My number one choice is PPL and this group comes highly recommended particularly here in California because of their--their knowledge of the California community system and their--their record of service providing consulting services to many colleges up and down the state who have--who I'm familiar with who've--who've written commendations with regard to the service they've had with PPL. In addition to the--obviously the recommendation that came from Jack Scott out of the Chancellor's Office, this is my number one choice. My second one was ACCT which I think provides for the--the larger context of breadth that we're looking for in terms of a national search. We're not just looking to recruit, you know, from the community college level here in California but we're looking to recruit from community colleges and other four-year institutions nationally and the ACCT organization has the resources and the context, the network that--that really is--is necessary for this kind of an extensive in-depth search, so they're my number two recommendation. And frankly, I didn't have really a third. >> Alright, anyone else? But we'd like--yes, Mrs. Wells-Miller. >> Yes, I have selected PPL and ACCT for the same reason. Everything has been said, so there's no need for me to repeat but I'm in concurrence with those two. >> Anyone else? Mr. Brown? >> Well, I'm actually persuaded a bit. I know Narcisa Polonio just through my interaction with ACCT and I found her to be very good and would be somebody I think we should talk to. The--I've really looked at Isaacs and Miller and I think that it is worth considering a firm that has done searches beyond the community college level too and so, I would welcome including them in the mix as well as of course PPL I think comes universally highly recommended. The one question I also had was there was somebody from Korn/Ferry that--and how do we anticipate employing that volunteer--that in this process that was made that we discussed at one point. Is there-- >> Well, they--they offer. We contacted and determined their interest and they said they were not any longer in--available to recruit, but the new--many of the participants and if we wanted to engage them on a no fee basis to review the fine list that we've selected for input that they would offer those services. >> Anything about reviewing the candidates or reviewing the firms? >> Firms. >> Okay. >> Okay. They--and they would do this pro bono. >> Pro bono. The person with whom I spoke thinks highly PCC is [inaudible]. >> Right. So, if we were to select 3 tonight you could say these were 3. Do you see any reason why we should not proceed with these 3? Is that what you would think? >> Yes, that's why he would look at them and give us his recommendation. >> Right. Rather than do all 10, I mean with--right, yeah. >> Right. >> Right. So, those are your 3? >> Yeah. I think that two that have strong expertise in community colleges and then one firm that has a little bit broader portfolio I think would be worth considering. >> Mr. Martin, Mr. Thomson. Do you think you have a recommendation? >> Well, I'm--I'm sitting here listening to this and--and becoming I think a bit concerned. As far as coming up with suggested firms, I would have gone with Isaac--Isaacson and Miller the same reason as Hilary has suggested and the Association of Committee College Trustees for the same reason mentioned there. I can't find the--the folder now in academic searching but that was recommended to me and I thought I reviewed it but very interesting as well. I guess my concern is that again what we're--what we're embarking on a process here and we don't know who's gonna be involved making decisions and I think we're opening ourselves up for possible significant criticism if we move forward this evening and even narrowing that the field of search firm if we're gonna come down to 3 and especially becoming out of 2--2o firms. I mean if I were gonna--thank you. If I were in a position of possibly coming on this board, I think I would be a bit annoyed if I don't have some input into who we're gonna retain to go do the search for the president/superintendent possibly the most important decision that is what we'll make and I would, you know, be a part of it. And that worries me, the more I think about it. So, I'm not quite sure what to do with that in terms of the overall discussion this evening but I think we ought to try to get some input. First of all we determine who really is gonna be on this board, get some input from whoever those people may be and then they get decisions of what we're doing. I'm very [inaudible] just moving forward this evening. >> Alright. Mr. Martin. >> I am at a bit of a loss for a methodology as to why to recommend one over another. So I came here listening intently to what the other people said. The only small point I'll make in the PPL proposal I think there, you had a conflict on what the fee was gonna be. I think it verbally said 35,000 and then next to it said 30,000 in dollars and cents. There is little--little typo in there one way or the other and then in another place of references, the 30's so I'm assuming that's the 30--but I was trying to grasp a methodology and part of my dilemma is what looks good on paper may not always be what demonstrates itself in practice and I would say that of all the many skills, there's facilitating the process which is very important in the advertisements and the connections but I would--I think in looking back, the one thing I'm most concerned about is making sure that the pool of candidates is deep and rich. Of all the things I was thinking about, I'm asking myself if there was one thing we would do differently or hope for differently I would say, so I'm asking myself which of these can really deliver deep and rich pool because it's a lot easier for any committee no matter who's on it to make a good choice when the pool is deeper and richer. So, of all the criteria and rather than looking across the top, and I was also trying to get a grip on what they were charging. I wasn't sure how to get that and, you know, having previous community college experience for connections seems to be helpful but yet a small boutique or a firm with a boutique approach that knows how to get to people might be able to filling ground there. So, I came with questions but I don't really have a strong recommendation other than just asking for clarity on the one proposal as to what it really cost. >> I--if I could respond then Dr. Rey Castro. Many of these, most of these listed presidencies where they had--I mean, you know, these positions that they have filled and in--one of the things I did was I looked at that very carefully and in many instances I knew who had been selected. And if they had come up with--look to me like really good people that we're appointed, that indicate to me they had a--they had access to a deep and rich and rich pool, and that was a major criteria not just--and not just California, you know, certainly either. >> Dr.--excuse me, Dr. Rey Castro wanna say something and then that--Dr. Rey Castro, you had your hand up. >> Yes. I did. I--if I believe if I'm not mistaken that if we count the number of search firms that have been recommended, we're really only looking at 4. You--Dr. Mann suggested professional PPL, Ralph Andersen, as well as ACCT, and I believe Dr. Bradbury-Huang recommended ACCT, PPL, as well as I believe Isaacson, Miller, correct? >> That's my number one. >> Right. And was there another that you recommended that's different from those? >> No. >> So, those were the 4 that whose names have been mentioned. Did you mention one different-- >> No. Mr. Thomson mentioned Academic Search. >> Yeah, I think there were 5. >> Academic Search. >> Which was just concluded the Occidental College search too. >> So then that's 5. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> So, I personally don't have any objections to--to narrowing this--to beginning to narrowing this search down to a workable group that can come back on the 18th to make presentations. If that number is 5 instead of 3, then so be it. But you know, I believe that whoever the--the-- whoever the trustees are going to be in December, we'll have an opportunity to listen to the audio and we'll have an opportunity to hear these presentations. We'll have an opportunity clearly to select their own representatives and we'll be very much a part of that process. I think those of us that are still on the Board and that are full--fully voting members have a responsibility to see that this process embarks and I would like to see it move forward as quickly as possible. >> Mr. Thomas--Thomson. >> And I appreciate that, and please don't interpret any of my comments as anything, any disrespect or any lack of recognition that the people who are here this evening indeed already elected people serving on the board and have the obligation, so I didn't mean to imply that. If you're gonna go with 5 firms and do that and then I would have less concern because I think we--no one to my knowledge has mentioned Community College Search Services or Myers McRae, excuse me Ray and Associates or the [inaudible] Group. So if we're gonna take the other 5 and invite them to come make presentations, I would have I think less qualms about moving forward as [inaudible] up to a broader--a broader group. >> Yeah, Dr. Brabury--oh sorry, Dr. Rey Castro. >> The only thing that would like to note is that PPL clearly seems to have 4, possibly even 5 votes here, as well as ACCT. Isaacson Miller from what I've heard has at least 2, possibly 3. The other 2 I think were only mentioned by one trustee and I would ask if those trustees are terribly wedded to those search firms then, you know, let's keep them. But if they're not, for purposes of expediency and--and effectiveness enough of more thorough examination of a smaller number, that maybe they consider dropping them. Well, I'll recognize my self first. I recommended Ralph, whatever it's called, I can't remember the name. >> Ralph Andersen. >> Andersen. >> Andersen. I would be willing to drop--drop that although I have had some--I have had some experience with Isaacson Miller if you look at the searches they have--they have conducted but, you know, one of the problems is there are no dates on any--on any of these, so I don't really wanna take my experience into account because it's been--it's been several years. So I bet I would be willing to drop the one that I recommended that had only Ralph Andersen & Associates that I was the only person. Mrs. Wells-Miller? >> I'd like to support Dr. Rey Castro's suggestion. I think it makes sense and very logical to me. >> So now we're down, we're down to 4, are you still comfortable with that, Mr. Thomson? >> I am indeed. I'd like to keep the academic search in, I mean as Mr. Baum points out, they listed--they are still in search and that's obviously close by and I think that'd be very--I'd like to be able to talk to them and evaluate them. >> They also did, I don't know if they listed here, but I know they just did the University of Pacific search and a good friend of mine chaired that search committee and thought they were excellent, so I would--I would--might want to put out that their fee is twice as much as the others but I don't--I think this is not a time that we wanna make cost as the main criteria. Having to do searches [inaudible] even more--is even more costly. Yes, Mr. Baum. >> So what--the way I look at it, if we narrow it down to 4, we have 2 firms that are largely focused on the community college mark searching and then 2 firms that have some community college experience that have a broader base, so it might be a good--good comparisons that we can make. >> Dr. Sugimoto? >> Just a reminder that your November 18th meeting is a day meeting and it is with the students, so figuring that and if you are thinking of having the presentations on the 18th. >> Right, and that would require at least an hour. >> Yes. I was going to ask Dr. Engeldinger how long we, we--he thinks that we should allocate to each firm in order to give them an adequate time or what would be customary? >> Well, 45 minutes, certainly. >> 45 minutes is? >> Per--per firm. >> Per person? >> Per firm. >> And that comes out to how long? 45 minutes times 4. [ Laughter ] >> That's 3 hours. >> 4 hours. >> 3 hours. >> Well, you need a little-- >> Break. >> Yeah. It comes out to an hour a firm [simultaneous talking] have some transition. >> Right. >> Maybe what we ought to do is have this on 2 both times on the 18th and the 9th. >> That's about 3 hours. >> Because if it's going to be 2--an hour per firm, I get very uncomfortable with having 4 hours back to back? >> Yeah. >> I think it's a disadvantage to the people to begin, the people who end and the people in the middle. So, yes, Dr. Bradbury-Huang? >> I wonder if other folks on the Board have thoughts about academic search that in part this is motivated by a strong desire to simply have 3 firms interview, but in fact I--based on the proposal, I don't want to say too much out loud, they would specifically not be an organization that I would like to have, you know, come be a part of a small group. >> So, you would like to drop Academic Search, is that correct? Then we would have, but then we would have 3. Mr. Engeldinger, do you think it would be possible for them to do their presentation in half an hour? >> If we set it half an hour, certainly. I think, the broader question is whether that's sufficient time. >> Yeah, the--yeah the perform-- >> And then--so but we could certainly set it half an hour but-- >> But I mean we--I don't think we wanna rush it? >> Right. That's what we would recommend. >> So the meeting on the 18th starts at noon. Dr. Rey Castro? >> Yes, if I'm not mistaken, that's our day meeting and is that also our meeting with the students? >> Yes. >> So we really don't wanna make--we don't really want this to intrude in our time with the students, so this has got to be scheduled either before the meeting with the students or after the meeting with the students. >> I agree. Does anyone--does any--our student trustee, would you comment on that? >> Yeah, I was actually, I was gonna address that because we're gonna be having basically, you know--the association of students is gonna have issues on the table as well as the board of trustees, so I don't know if it would be very prudent to--to have that in that meeting. >> Right. Okay. So we, so we--okay, so then we have I think one of two choices. We can either schedule this for the--is it the 9th, is it December the 9th? I've been saying the 8th but it's the 9th, right. We're gonna schedule this for December the 9th? Are--we could have a special meeting between now and then and have this as the only item on the agenda and plan on meeting for what, 2 and a half, 3 hours? Mr. Martin? >> Well, specifically to that, I have a problem on the 9th and there is a good chance I'm not gonna make the meeting on the 9th. I was waiting for future meetings to talk about this. I think I mentioned it last board meeting, so we seem to be lining up more and more things for the 9th. [ Laughter ] >> Kinda sends me in a special meeting. >> Special meeting mode? >> Special meeting mode. >> Overload. >> Special meeting, I think makes more sense. >> Yeah, I think a special meeting would--'cause then we could focus all of our attention on this specific issue at a special meeting. >> Okay, so then the question becomes, do we wanna have this special meeting before the 9th or do we wanna have it afterwards because we're running out of, you know. When is the last day of the semester, Dr. Sugimoto? >> Well, we're actually here until the 23rd, but the last-- >> Yeah, but when does the faculty leave? >> Try--I think the 26th-- >> In the finals, do you know, Dr. Bickley? >> I'll give you that just a [inaudible]. [ Laughter ] >> It's that Saturday actually before the 23rd and 18th? >> 17th or 18th? >> Saturday, on the 19th. >> Saturday, the 19th. >> Dr. Rey Castro? >> I don't think we can afford to wait until December to do this. I think we need to do this, this month here in November. The meeting on the 18th is a Wednesday, correct? >> Yes. >> So, can we consider a Friday meeting, maybe the 20th? Or could we consider meeting again that evening? Dr. Sugimoto? >> There is I believe the CCLC conference that week. I'm not sure who's going to the meeting. >> Oh, that's right. I have to go. Well, I wouldn't have to go, I guess I could not go. >> You know, you do have--trying to think. The next, the following week is the Wednesday prior to Thanksgiving, so you do need to keep that in mind and then you have the Wednesday the 2nd of December that, but that's bumping right into the next week, the 9th, so. >> Yeah. >> Well, that's just a week from the 9th though. >> That's actually. >> It's a possibility. >> Because the--because we have to meet on the 2nd, this 2nd was in December because it has to come after the first Monday. So what about December the 2nd then? Is that better for you? >> Yes. Would that be our organizational meeting? >> No, our organizational meeting is December the 9th. Mr. Thomson? >> What it's--that's a Wednesday? >> The first Wednesday. >> It's the first Wednesday in December. >> And you're not--we were talking about what a--late afternoon evening meeting? >> Right? Well, whatever. We could, whatever. >> That's fine. >> Yeah. I mean it's--are not--it would be normal--it would be our normal meeting time. >> That's fine. >> It's just we're meeting on the second when the--Wednesday. >> That's fine. >> Okay, so what--what I'm hearing is we would have the presentations on December 2nd and that would be like the total agenda and then on December 9th--that's right, I'm afraid that's when we're gonna vote. Is that everyone's understanding? Okay. Is that everyone's agreement? >> What time? >> We haven't decided that yet. >> So, the 9th you're gonna actually select the firm-- >> Right. Yes. >> The target. >> Yes, that's the target. >> So you're talking about the meeting on the 2nd and on the 9th? >> Well, we're gonna meet on the 9th. That's when we're required to meet our organizational meeting by California law. >> Right. >> The first Wednesday after the first Tuesday or whatever, right? >> I understand. >> Okay, is everyone--does agree to this? >> I'm not sure of the 2nd. >> For me it would just depend on what time it is. It would just depend on what time. >> Well, if we did the usual 6 o'clock. >> Okay. [ Simultaneous Talking ] >> Everyone should be able to make it, right? >> I'd say we can even start early--earlier and start at 5. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Yeah, but you and I are the ones that have a hard time getting here at 6, so? [ Laughter ] >> So, you know, we have to agree that whatever it is we do normally till 5 o'clock and then get here at 6 has then [inaudible], you know and-- >> True confession time. >> Okay, so--but first of all, before we talk about the time, I mean that is our normal meeting date, so no one should have any continuing ongoing meeting on that date. So shall we have a special meeting? Well, we can change that when we do the meetings, on that date we'll invite this--question is do we wanna invite academic search or not? Do we wanna invite 4 or 3? >> I would like to have--excuse me, have an academic search come in and participate. They have done Occidental and then California Lutheran University, University of Redlands, Foothill-De Anza college district. They have done a bunch of community colleges, and I think it would be well worth hearing and I would like to have them come make a presentation. If you don't select them, that's one thing. At least get them [simultaneous talking] others chance to hear what they have to say. >> Dr. Rey Castro. >> If we're gonna do 4, I think it would be a good idea if we started earlier. >> That's fine. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So we will agree to do 4 and that's just gonna be the only thing, item of business that we have, right? >> And that's the 2nd. >> That's the 2nd of December. And Mr. Engeldinger, although you've told the people two other dates, do you think it would be all flexible on December 2nd, particularly if you contact, and that's a month in advance. >> Yes, I think they will be. >> Okay. They will be happy. And then you will--we haven't voted on this but let me just clarify and then you will notify the other, the other firms that we will not be asking them to present our proposal. >> We shall do that, yes. >> Okay. Do I have a motion that-- >> Alright, if the--we invite these 4 firms, right? >> Second. >> Second. Any further discussion? >> All those in favor. >> Well, I-- >> What? >> This is going fast for me. Academic Search, I actually like their proposals. One of the best proposals I read, it had a boutique flavor to me and I always love a good badminton player. They are double anybody else that I saw on here and was wondering if Ralph Andersen isn't in some ways as boutiquey as Academic Search. I mean you brought up some pluses for Ralph Andersen. I just think it's worth 2 minutes of discussion between the two and I'm actually not favoring one over the other, other than the fact that one was 28K and one was 65K. But I realized I don't wanna be pennywise pound foolish. But I just think we gotta have that discussion amongst everybody. >> Alright, alright. >> If you're gonna go down to 4, I think there's a lot of consensus for the other 3 but let's just have 30 seconds of discussion. >> Well, I guess my take, John, is you can always negotiate the price. And if they don't wanna negotiate the price, we don't go with them. But I'm impressed by what they presented and I'd like to have them come and make a presentation and, you know, people put prices and proposals all the time but that doesn't mean that they aren't prepared to negotiate something in a more reasonable nature. >> Is there any--how does the rest of the board feel? Anyone else? >> Well, there is certainly no reason that we can't hear them. >> Well, I think his suggestion was do we wanna hear them as opposed, I mean hear Ralph. >> Either or. >> Ralph Andersen & Associates. >> If there isn't any other strong feeling towards the presentation by Ralph Andersen and there is towards Academic Search and, you know [inaudible]. >> Yeah, I don't--I-- >> I'm not act--I don't have a preference for one over the other. It's just I though it's just the selection to get it down to 4 and dropping Ralph Andersen for Academic Search was kind of done rather quickly and I just want us to pause and think about that. >> I was the one that recommended Ralph Andersen. As I said, they really have not done very many searches. But I've been impressed at some of the things that they've done with their searches. But if you--and I also--they very kindly sent us their advertisement stuff from Cerritos. I think we could almost take this job description and change one or two words and go out on the street. >> Yeah, I was very impressed. I was very impressed with that which is kind of why [simultaneous talking]. >> The way they have their qualifications, I felt this was very well done. But I'm assuming the others, you know, the others could do this. I think it was very clever for them to put this in and it's very attractive. And obviously, they also did Sierra 'cause it's here. But I don't feel--I don't feel strongly about as Mr. Thomson appears to for Academic Search. >> Do you want--none of the others wanna raise a point for Ralph Andersen than I'd be prepared to vote in the motion that was made. >> Okay, okay. I guess is there--I guess what we might wanna do--yes, yes, student trustee. >> Seeing that--seeing that there are 3 I guess and everyone agrees on and there are also 2 that other members like, Academic Search and Ralph Andersen, I was thinking what about presenting these 5, affording these 5 names to Korn/Ferry asking them for feedback and then I guess taking to account there but seeing that that's their area of specialty--and their area of specialty and that I guess we can take their feedback into account and narrowing it down to the 3. >> Do that the next meeting. Then we would have to--we would have to then--we'd have to vote on that. The next meeting would be doing I think-- >> Right. >> About doing that. Let me just ask, I know Mr. Thomson feels very strongly in favor of Academic Search, Dr. Bradbury-Huang said she did not support them. How did the other people feel about Academic Search? Mrs. Wells-Miller? >> I found them to be acceptable. >> Dr. Rey Castro? >> You know, they've got a great looking layout and some of the work they've done is very impressive, what isn't impressive is the price tag. >> Mr. Baum? >> What's the what? I'm sorry. >> It's the price tag. >> Oh, the price tag. Okay. >> Again, I think for the basis of comparison, it would be a good firm to bring in for a presentation. >> Yeah, okay, Mr. Martin, you said you didn't have any preferences. >> Yeah, between the two I don't and I think their present--I actually, of all of them, I like their presentation book the best because it showed a quick simple succinct way of logic that I appreciated. But again, you know, how do you design a book and how you pick a superintendent in their different characteristics and-- >> Uh-hmm. >> We all have different versions as well. >> Yeah. >> Mine is just a [inaudible]. >> And I didn't realize that either. >> Maybe that's the distinguishing feature. >> Yeah, and it could be. [ Laughter ] >> But it sent me on them because they--yeah, I've notice that when we got here, some--they passed around the originals to different people and copies to others. >> Yeah, that was nice. >> And I'm going--so why did this--why does this firm that everybody is so complimentary of and they put out this [inaudible]. [ Laughter ] >> Mr. Engeldinger. >> I just happened to get the photocopy, that's right. >> Yeah. >> One of the issues with cost will be exactly how the firms plan to use PCC's HR operation. Many of these firms plan on using our staff to do much of the legwork for them, so they're able to reduce their cost anticipating to use our staff. It's interesting with Academic Search, it's unclear as to how they plan to do that, but that's one of the things that we should sort through. >> And we can ask them, if we bring them, we can ask them. Alright, so are we--the motion is that we invite the 4 which is academic search is the fourth one. Are we ready to vote on that? I think we've discussed it. Okay. Yes. >> [Inaudible] question I guess, when would we utilize I guess the services of Korn/Ferry? >> Well. >> Will that be after? So would Korn/Ferry-- >> I think what we would do is we would just ask Mr. Engeldinger to just ask what they--know of any reason why we shouldn't use one of these, and he could do that relatively quickly. >> Right, I can do that. >> And then he would have to get back, thus we'd have to decide what to do. I think these are pretty established but we would have to see. Okay, are we now ready to vote, student trustee? >> Aye. >> Other trustees. All in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed. Motion carries. Alright, so I'm asking people to please pass--have their recommendations for the committee on the 18th although we probably will not--may not appoint the committee on the 18th, we still need the recommendations. >> And I just wanna say, I appreciate Mr. Engeldinger's point too because I wanna make sure the presentation, whichever from we go with, the contract matches what we will hear in the presentation and is consistent with what we hear in the presentation. >> Absolutely. And Dr. Sugimoto, I did see you. >> Two items. On your process, you do have the option of going ahead and having an ad hoc committee and I didn't know if you were thinking of waiting to do that. And then also on your screening committee, the last time you would discuss the idea of the committee selecting of chair. But that had not been-- >> You're right, that had not been resolved how--whether the committee selects the chair or the Board selects the chair. And that is an issue, you're right, that we need to address. And also, the issue of the ad hoc committee. It's my thinking that it would be better to let Dr. Bradbury-Huang appoint that committee since she's gonna be the president during the search and we're not selecting the firm or the committee until December 9th, if that's alright with Dr. Bradbury-Huang, rather than have me appoint the committee and I'm the outgoing president. Mr. Martin. >> And a new topic on this topic. >> Yes. >> If you're done with that. I would encourage the Board officers to have a discussion with the volunteer from Korn/Ferry in preparations for our hearing these presentations. >> That's an excellent suggestion. >> 'Cause I think they will give you good questions to ask and ways of--that process going to maybe better sort out what we're looking for and I'd be interested in [inaudible] what we--what are some of the characteristics we should be looking for in a good search firm other than the experiences that we've had in the past which I've already referred to of a deep, rich pool. You know, what are some ways that that can be demonstrated besides putting on a good dog and pony show before us, you know. >> I think that would be--if they would--if he would do that, that would be very, very helpful. >> Shall--we shall call him. >> Okay, that would be fine. And so now the other--the--well anyway, that my--as I said, my thinking was that we would ask, we would delay appointing the ad hoc committee to work with the screening committee and the consultants until we had the screening committee and consultants and then we then--and then the incoming president I assume will be Dr. Bradbury-Huang but, you know, who knows. >> You'll never know. >> There might be a palace revolt here. [ Laughter ] >> But whoever the new incoming president is that that person would appoint this, but secondly I think we do need to--this is--I hate for us to go back with these procedures again so we might want you to clarify how the chair of the screening committee is selected because the one thing that we did do last meeting was we did vote that the chair of the screening committee--no, we voted that down. It would not be the consultants, right? >> Right. >> So it could be anybody. >> It could be anybody. >> Yes, that would not be the facilitator. So, does anyone have any--or we can let the screening committee decide how they want to select their chair. Mr. Thomson. >> You know, having served on a wide variety of committees and types of committees and all that, it's always much better I think if you have going in somebody who is gonna be the leader of that committee. Because if you take 15 people or whatever the number is and suddenly they're together in a room talking and they got--making their first decision of selecting whose gonna be their leader, it's like being on a jury panel and suddenly you're trying to decide who of the 6 [inaudible] is gonna be the leader. I think the Board ought to refer to itself the decision as to who will be the chair, that way things get going and it's all streamlined and I think it will be much smoother. >> Good point. Alright, yes, Dr. Bradbury-Huang. >> I'm more in favor of keeping as much or as many degrees of freedom available to the committee as possible for a couple of reasons. One, we're about to hire folks who should actually earn their pay. A very important part of facilitating is figuring out how do I facilitate this group. You know, there are different forms of leadership that get expressed in different ways. I hate to see as defaults to so called, you know, common sense ways of thinking of what leadership is. So the more degrees of freedom, the better with a clear instruction to the facilitator who we're paying that, of course, they're gonna do this anyway, that they make sure that there's clarity about rules and procedures from the get-go. That in some ways I think we're confusing leadership with facilitation and that's what's confusing matters. I think it's, you know, very important to allow the facilitator to do their work and not call them the leader. >> That's exactly what I'm saying, that's why-- >> I mean I think you're saying this--he's saying that it should-- >> Same thing. >> --the facilitators should not be the leader. >> Right. >> Facilitators should not share the group. >> Yeah, I just don't want us to be the ones determining that. You know, let them do their work. >> I--well, again, I think that could be heading for way down the wrong road. That's in large part I think what happened--again, I had no part of the last process nor did you. But I understand that was one of the problems they had there was the facilitator was the chair of the committee. And so, anyway, how do I go down that road, but I just think it's better off since we are the elected group anyway and we're gonna be held responsible for it. Let's simply say we will decide who's gonna chair the group. >> Do you wanna make that a motion? >> I would make that as a motion, yes. >> Second. >> Is there any further discussion of this motion? Mr. Baum. >> The only question that what--we'll have to determine a basis for this selecting among the chair. It would--would we select somebody from a shared governance group or would we select somebody from the community members? So it--we'd have to then spend some time discussing who would be the chair. I have some faith that the committee can select a chair on its own. But if they're not able to, I think the Board would select one. >> Mr. Martin. >> Well, my fear is that one of the issues the committee had last time is just it's very, very time intensive process. And I don't really wanna get them caught up in having to spend a lot of time picking a chair and there's gonna be numerous people that are going into this who are really good people but they are maybe relatively new to the college, so I've kinda been next to having the facilitator do it which is gone. I think maybe the board just needs to do it. And rather than worrying about the criteria here tonight as to what would make a good chair, I think we get the names. >> Right. Yeah, I think. >> And just they'll come over and maybe somebody is gonna gravitate to the top. >> Okay, any further dis--yes, student trustee. >> Yeah, I would actually agree with what John said because I think we should give this committee a pretty clear direction. And if we don't give them--if we don't basically tell them, you know, who the chair is gonna be, we will sort of leave them in a state of confusion. They might have to--they might--would rather have to establish a criteria they would use in selecting the chair or they would have to at the same time establish that criteria--criterion. So I think the [inaudible] we'll first wait to see who is gonna assign this committee and for us to decide who the chair would be. >> Okay, are we ready to vote on this? The motion is that the Board select a chair. Are we all clear on that? >> Yes. >> So, student trustee? >> Aye. >> Other trustees. All in favor raise your hand. [Inaudible] 5, 6. Opposed? Motion carries, 6 to 1. Alright, the next item on the agenda is the bylaw 1320 and by--and bylaw 1600 has been withdrawn because Sherry Hassan is not here. And Mrs. Wells-Miller, you said you had something on bylaw 1320. >> Yes, I believe that we should keep paper copies of the minutes in the library permanently for research purposes, after all the minutes are really a history of the college. And I spoke with Maryann [inaudible] a couple of years ago when I suggested something similar to see if there was a problem of space and she said absolutely not. That she concurred that we should preserve them on a permanent basis for the reason stated. So I would like to suggest that for the bylaw. >> Okay, so you would like to add that afterwards. It says "Audiocast of meeting will be kept on publicly accessible space for no--less than 5 years and paper copies of the minutes shall be kept in the library-- >> Permanently. >> --permanently >> Yes. >> Alright. Any other suggestions? Mr. Baum. >> Again, this came up recently. I don't know if we addressed it but we had made arrangements so that audiocast would be on the website for at least 5 years. And I wanted to--and that the spirit of that was all the proceedings of the board be available online for at least 5 years and not up to 5 years but at least 5 years. And we set that and I would like to see as much as possible available online in perpetuity as well. But I would say a minimum of 5 years. So I would at the--just copies of the minutes. And I don't know where we would put it in here but the approved minutes and no--and the public records shall be available to the public and kept online for a minimum of 5 years. That includes the agendas and the minutes and any other supporting documentation like the Board packet. >> Well, why don't you just say the agenda, the minutes, the Board packet and audiocast of the meeting, just list them. >> Right. And any other supporting. >> And any other supporting documents will be kept in a publicly accessible space for 5 years. >> Right. But it's more than just a publicly accessible space. It's a-- >> Well, the audiocast has to be kept online. >> Right. >> So do you wanna say online? >> On the college's website. >> On the college's website. >> And then if the web becomes a different platform in the future, then we'll change it but we'll just say on the college's website. >> So what you have then is agenda, minutes, word packet and other appropriate documents as well as audiocast of meetings will be kept online for 5 years. >> Right. I loved even, you know, for 20 years from now be able to say that we can find what happened to this meeting today. >> So we're adding that to the-- >> Well, that's his proposal. That's his proposed amendment. Yes, Dr. Bradbury-Huang? >> I would like to support that and be more clear about holding things online in perpetuity. If they're online, you know, why 5 years. It's in fact more work to take them off than simply to leave them there. And 5 years strikes me as very short. I know currently we have problems with website but going forward when we fixed that, there should be no problem at all in keeping what is a relatively small amount of data on our website in perpetuity. >> Well, I would want to just saying then audiocast, agendas, minutes and other supporting documents are stored on the college's website and not put a timeframe on it. >> Are stored or [inaudible]? >> Or kept in a publicly accessible space on the college website. >> Okay. Alright, and then--and then there would be maybe another--number 4 would be the paper copies of the minutes will be kept in the library. >> Correct. >> I have a comment on the number 4 paper copy when you wanna address them independently. >> Okay, alright, is there--are there any other suggestions? Yes. >> I don't really--I think it's better actually to keep it completely digital because I think if we keep it in a--if we stored on paper copy, a more realistic of that--I don't think anyone's gonna look through it to look things up. I think that would be more of a hassle, so is that--and so I will be more for keeping all the--everything that happened strictly digital from here and out 'cause people are using, you know, actual paper less and less. >> It's my understanding that copies of the minutes and everything are kept in the president's office in the vault forever, right? Yeah, so there is a kind of a backup paper copy at least for now. >> Well, that isn't available though to people who might like to do research. >> Okay, yes, Mr. Martin. >> I guess we're on the topic, I was gonna support what Brian said. You know, I think news magazines, everything eventually works its way to some other electronic medium where you can easily find it and make printouts and copies of it if that's what you want. But to physically store paper in the library seems rather antiquated to me. I think it's more important as to what Brian said is to have a copy available in the library but maybe whatever method we're moving to 10 years from now, you know, electronically or used to be little machines that used to scan and whatever it's gonna be now or 10 years now, there's always be a copy available but it doesn't have to be on paper. >> Yes, Brian. >> That's what I would--you know, this is my--it's my opinion I guess that my generation, I guess we prefer to use digital 'cause it's much easier to actually locate what you're looking for. And on top of that, on paper it doesn't actually, you know, start to deteriorate and start to smell I guess. So I guess it's probably more prudent to make the step now and make it digital to make it easy, accessible and not to give space and just not waste--or not use a paper that no one's gonna look through it. >> Okay, so what I have is we have--I don't think we have motion out for it, do we? >> So I'll make it--I'll move that item 3 on bylaw 1320 is amended to say audiocast, agendas, minutes and other related documents from Board meetings will be kept on the college's website, will be stored in a publicly--public page of the college's website. >> Period. >> Period. >> Okay, that you have--we have a motion. So let's--shall we vote on that first? Is there a second for that motion? >> So second. >> I have a second. >> May I pose a process question? >> Yes. >> As the chair of the policy committee, why are these bylaws coming to us outside of that committee? >> Dr. Sugimoto? >> Because they're the Board's bylaws they are not needing to come through this in our policy and procedures specifically affecting--it would have to come to [inaudible] and we--and we were through the triple C, I apologize. >> I think they're-- >> It seems odd. >> It's about how we manage our own business. >> I--I-- >> I understand, I understand but I see [simultaneous talking]. >> Well, it doesn't--it doesn't have to go through the--they don't have to go through the coordinating council but you're right, they could have gone through the policy committee. But I think what happened was at least a couple of 3 board--a couple of board members were very frustrated by not--by finding out their own committees 2 years ago were not available on the website and when we checked it we realized--I mean I though that we--that this motion included the minutes and the agenda and I think Mr. Baum did too and then we looked it was just the audiocast. So we want to make it very clear as to what should be on that website. That's--that's the only thing. That's why we jumped through our committee. >> Okay, well going forward I hope that we'll use the committee that we created. >> We should use that committee. You're absolutely correct. >> So, the sort answer is the Board president took charge. >> Seems like. [ Laughter ] >> And now she's fessed up. >> I fess--I confess it was why. So shall we--can we--do we have a motion, do we have a second--we have a second. Let's vote on this. Okay, all in favor of Mr. Baum's motion of the word keeping these particular documents on the web in perpetuity so to speak. Student trustee? >> Aye. >> The other board members? >> Aye. >> Any opposition? Motion carries. Now Mrs. Wells [inaudible] make a motion? >> I wanna make it clear, clear--just a clarifying point, just so that the administrators that are here hear this because we haven't set a date. It does--I don't wanna find records of our meetings disappearing from the website anymore, I want them to be maintained for at least what we have now and everything going forward because that that was a point of concern that I had and the--and so--and I can imagine--I can't imagine there isn't any easily accessible way to store that material on our website. >> I think that's--I think that's a really--I think that's a really good point. I also want to check something and it said the minutes were there but there are no minutes there and in order to look something up, I had to listen to 40 minutes of the board even though if there is the--and I was very unhappy about that, so that's why we got on the agenda. Let's just make. >> I wanna make sure the public has access to the [inaudible]. >> And well--and the public, and I--I mean this is the--you know, the Board can't find it. Okay, Mrs. Wells-Miller, did you wish to now make a motion about the paper copies? >> Yes, I would like to make a motion that paper copies be kept in the library in perpetuity. >> Alright, is there second for that motion? >> I would second and except for the perpetuity part because I can see paper piling up over the years of--I mean if you wanted to put a 5-year time limit on it for folks who are not of digital age as is Brian like. >> Well, I spoke with the head librarian and she felt it was a good idea and she said people do research and that that was an easy way for them to access, and so. >> And so, Mr. Baum? >> I just have a--does the library keep copies of the Board agendas and minutes right now, so. >> I don't think we need this. The library can keep copies if they want to. >> So is there--is there--so if they're already kept there, do we need to make that into a policy? So that's my--that would be my question. Are they there now? >> I don't know. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> We do send those over to the library and [inaudible] I don't how--how long we've--yes. >> We send them a board packet every time there's a board packet. >> Right. And they've archived those. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay, so they should be there now. Alright, so would you be willing to withdraw this and we will check it out and if they aren't there now, we will go through Dr. Bradbury-Huang's committee and bring it back. Would you be will-- >> Sure. >> Okay, let's do that. And I would like to suggest that when we bring the item back on contracts that that should actually go through the policy committee before it comes back. I think that's--if this is another instance, I think that we found some--well, actually council recommended that we should change our policy but we can go through the regular review process. Okay, the next item is the strategy for the bookstore. Dr. Bradbury-Huang, are you ready, prepared for that tonight? >> Yeah, as I understand that I'm simply asking for us as a Board to agree to direct administration to put some time into us pursuing this, perhaps a presentation by the new director of the bookstore. My--the thoughts behind that as to why I think it's important is in some ways it picks up on the issue of digital media. What is a bookstore in an age of Kindle? You know, how does a bookstore strategize for 10 years out given that already so many students are buying books on the internet and we've moved to a leasing model, et cetera, et cetera. So I just--it's simply going to understand first of all. I'd also like to meet the director in a more official way because the last time I heard about the work, there was some competition I think, intense competition about who would actually get that job. There was a very well favored outsider and then there's obviously well favored insider and so I would simply like to meet, I believe it's a woman, and hear that strategy so I can--and well, good in an official way. And then the other piece is as a student of PCC myself, I have to purchase my books across the road in what I felt was a bookstore that--well, it's not that I felt that the bookstore supposedly doesn't belong to PCC and yet there's a very strong relationship with PCC. So, I want to understand what that relationship is and if there's any way that we can bring our PCC norms of service and customer service to what it would seem to is missing over there. >> Okay, now the--any comments from the other mem--any comments from the other members of the board on this? You see any reason why we should not--and this is in the future agenda item? Mrs. Wells-Miller, was there something? >> No, I was just curious. Do they go across the street because they think they're giving them cheaper or-- >> No, in some cases you--you're directed to purchase your books over there because you can't actually buy them in the one on campus, and so I was surprised to learn that the book mart doesn't belong to PCC but clearly there's a tight relationship. And it's not managed in a way that I think other, other parts of PCC are managed, so. >> Should we--yeah. >> Student trustee, do you have any--I mean I assume this is something you would like to see discussed. >> Sure, sure what the--for discussion, absolutely. But--and I guess to--for clarification, when you say strategy for the bookstore, do you mean--do you mean how they can I guess become more--more competitive with across the street or--? >> Oh no, I hope it's much bigger than just across the street. The larger issue is it--you know, in my thinking we're moving to a post text world at some point. What's the strategy for that? Should it even be called a bookstore? Remember originally when the plans came to us, remember Dr. van Pelt presenting them. I am reluctant to refer to this basis of bookstore, 'cause you know what's a book when we're all using Kindles down the road? >> Well, and with the internet now, it's much more than just a bookstore. >> Yeah, you'd need internet access. >> Absolutely. >> Okay, so is there any objection to having this depth, putting the necessary time to prepare presentation on this? And if not, we will then put this on our list. Yes, Mr. Martin. >> Well, I don't have any objection, I'm gonna throw in certain things that go with it. >> Good. >> There in our last audit, there were several audit findings that's centered on the bookstore and in my mind the simple answer to those audit findings was we needed to get a new bookstore director who had some thought of being around here for a while that would address on them. So--and the audit is scheduled to come back, so we're gonna wait to see what's happened in a year but no matter what has happened in a year, I don't know that the new bookstore director has been in the position long enough that we would hold them responsible for anything that's coming out the audit. And so then my thought goes to timing, it's obviously an important topic. I would just leave it to the superintendent to work with a new bookstore director because I think we've all experienced when we take over new positions, there's a certain period of time that we need to establish where the bodies are buried. I know it's a new bookstore, so maybe there's not as many bodies buried. But, you know there--you wanna get it to where they have had a little bit of a chance to figure out where the walls are. So maybe I would--I have no problem with the coming back but I would prefer to wait an extra month if the extra month makes some more productive discussion that raising that to the top of an agenda with a new director. >> We have a--quite a few items on the list, so we can hold it till spring or whenever Dr. Sugimoto thinks it's correct. >> I think it's up to the superintendent. >> Right, absolutely. >> Working with them to tell us when is a good time for that knowing that it's something we're interested in. >> Dr. Sugimoto? >> And I think it will be very good first get [inaudible] direction from the board exactly what it is you want because we could provide at least a--for--did written report and if that doesn't flesh out what you need, then we can bring further information as presentation. Would that be of help or do you want it as presentation? >> I would prefer presentation. >> Okay. >> And then presumably we'd have something in our packet beforehand which prompts questions that would be independent of the presentation. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I think the strategy is really almost has to be a dialogue. Actually I would say I have been a couple of conferences where they've had managers of bookstores on other community college campuses that present what they're doing and it's, you know, light years away I think from what our bookstore does. So, that would be what I would be interested in, you know, how--how are we in--you know in comparison to other--there must be a couple of 3 bookstores that everyone knows are the leading ones and where are we and are we doing this? Are we--have we skipped a step here? So I would like to see it also as presentation. Mrs. Wells-Miller. >> Yes, I wonder if we might even consider inviting the manager of the bookstore from a 4-year college CSC to give us an idea. We might broaden our view point by taking a look at a 4-year institution and some of the ideas that they use. >> My initial response to that would be that would be kind of putting the brand new manager really kind of on the spot. Maybe what we might wanna do is to encourage the manager to visit--I mean I personally know the manager of the bookstore at Occidental. Mr. Baum probably knows the person at SC, maybe to visit some of the 4-year college bookstores and then they can come back and talk about what they've learned. Mr. Baum? >> I like Dr. Bradbury-Huang's suggestion. Let's just have the bookstore manager come and give us a presentation, you know, to kinda have a vision and just tells us what they wanna do with bookstore and then we can see if the issues come out. >> Yeah. Okay. Alright. >> About that. Just an overview of the services we provide, the ways that we wanna improve our services to our students. >> Okay, next item is president's report. >> Well, I had 50 items but I think I'll eliminate the two. On October 28th, and I wanted to compliment Dr. Cynthia [inaudible], where 22 PUSD high school and middle school counselors on the campus participating in a professional development activity with our PCC counselors and thank you very much for doing that. It's a larger--I just turn out I think of PUSD counselors that we've had in a very long time. And the only other item I wanted to--that you know is Connie Chung our former student trustee who is traveling Spain right now sent me a postcard and wanted me to express to all of you her greetings and how very pleased she was to have been a student here and what it's done to help her be who she is right now. So, she's actually visiting organic farms in Spain and farming in Spain, so--and that's the end of my report. >> Thank you. >> Okay, reports by shared governance representative, Mrs. Ligons? >> I'm almost afraid to say this but our holiday reception is scheduled for December 9th in this room from 9 to 11 and I do need to talk to Rick van Pelt about setup and everything because of the meeting. I don't think Dr. Sugimoto would mind me saying that on Saturday, our college hosted the one community Green Summit and many of the trustees were there, were here, all the movers and shakers were here and we got some great information on what we could do to develop green curriculum and to work closer with the city. So you'll be hearing more about that in the future. >> Great. >> Dr. Bickley? >> Yes, I have 2 nanoseconds. The meeting last--Board meeting that we last have was off campus and I forgot to bring them at the nanoseconds from that meeting, and just send this one [inaudible]. [ Pause ] [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Okay, that's great. [ Pause ] >> In the interest of time, I think I'll pass on giving a full report and bring forward a report at the next meeting and hopefully we'll have more time. >> I hope so. Alright, thank you. Mr. Lindemann. >> Thank you, ma'am. I think also I will be brief. We had our annual Classified Senate Halloween event, took place on Friday, October 30th. We have the children in trick or treating and it was very good success. We made [inaudible] number here, we made 307 dollars, had it 50-50 raffle and the Wendy Lee from the D building won that and then she donated back her portion of the winnings to the Classified Senate scholarship fund. On the statewide senate, Classified Senate, 4 over 5 statewide senators will be attending the Community College League in October annual convention at no cost to PCC. They've gotten lodging. They are graciously provided by [inaudible] statewide reps in the San Francisco area. >> Great, that's wonderful. Mr. Tsay [phonetic]? >> Also try to keep it brief, let's say chronologically. We have October 30th trick or treats. Halloween trick or treat done by students services VP. It's a little bit sad to recently find out that they weren't giving candy but I guess school supplies are just as good. As you guys know, homecoming has been this week, we had a lot of events. About 250 people showed up during one of our events at the Quad for homecoming with the dance off. Today actually from 5 to 7 we also had a consensus projector screening where we screened the future food how, you know, we're starting the lean way from perhaps unhealthy food such as fast food and toward organic and natural foods and so forth. In terms of the future Veterans Day, it shall be taking place next Thursday. A lot of our--how do you say, volunteers from our student services committee spent lots of hours, time, cutting and pasting and creating about 2500 ribbons for the students and the veterans. So that's--we're excited about that. And Associate Students are also thinking about hosting its own educational master plan vision 20/20 meeting forum with the students where the students are able to come and discuss and talk about, you know, what the ideas that might be implemented in the future for PCC. So, that should be taking place in early December. If the trustee would like to come and join us, you are all cordially invited. I shall update each of you. >> Okay, student trustee. >> Yeah, I just--I think I have covered most everything from the students perspective. But just interesting I think I guess the board members like to know, I think it was yesterday. It yesterday and I guess the dean--the head of the Chinese consulate was here playing ping pong with our students, so it was--which was very--and I think Juan has--no actually he--Juan actually has pictures of it, so I think--I guess we'll see that and actually he--that the head of the consulate, he actually beat our best player, so. >> I'm not surprised. [ Laughter ] >> That figures. >> So it's interesting piece of information. >> Okay. >> [Inaudible] no reports. >> Mr. Thomson. >> I just have a question not for answering this evening but how do we--how does a college select vendors. And I'm gonna use the law firm that we're advised on the bond issue as example. I don't mean to--this to be critical at all but it caused me to begin to wonder, how do we go about selecting lawyers or whoever [inaudible] it maybe that we're working with that gives us advice like that and I welcome--I think a written report would be sufficient. >> So that's a future--that's not a future agenda [inaudible]. That's for a written report. Right. >> No, I think just to begin with just a written report. >> Okay, anything else? No. Mrs. Wells-Miller? Dr. Bradbury-Huang? [ Inaudible Remark ] >> We're doing reports. >> I don't think I have anything. Mr. Baum? >> Two things I already mentioned, the Quarterbacks Club, and I was--appreciate Dr.--Mrs. Ligons mentioning the one community event. We had a board of governors meeting this week in San Francisco. Dr. Mann came up as an observer. The 2 actual items that passed was that the board decided given the state budget crisis that there will be no increase in the full time faculty obligation in the--that will be imposed upon the co--the districts this year because there is no anticipated funds to support an increase in the fulltime faculty obligation. And also, we honored a woman named Mary Bitterman. Mary is the president of the Osher Foundation. And the Osher challenge is happening as we speak and it will expire in June 30th 2011 and there's a 25 million dollar matching grant that will go directly in the student financial aide if each of the member districts--each of the districts can raise a certain amount of funds. And so, I'm hoping that that is a--in addition to the arts campaign, I'm hoping that we have prioritized fundraising to meet our Osher matching fund. Right. So, I just want to make sure that that's on the agenda as well. And the Lancer, I went to the Lancer football game and was appreciated a sideline pass from Coach Cook. And I was pleased to see the Lancers win on Saturday and also got to--a chance to sit down with our women's volleyball coach and they are tearing it up as well and we are doing fabulous in women's volleyball, so. And women's basketball starts on Friday night and we'll be celebrating the first step in the defense of our state championship. So it's terrific. And I'm looking forward now that the elections have passed, working with all the parts of the campus community to try to again as I mentioned in the campus forum, elevate the dialogue that's on campus so that there's a spirit of mutual cooperation and respect among all the campus groups and I'm hoping we can find lots of partners in that effort. And so, I appreciate and looking forward to working with the Academic Senate, Classified Senate, the students to continue to--and the managers to work toward that the--because we have serious challenges ahead for the district and if we all work together, we'll be able to meet those challenges effectively. >> Mr. Martin? >> No comment. Thank you. >> No comment. Okay, the next item is future board meeting dates and our next board meeting is November 18th. [Inaudible] with the students and the meeting starts at noon and so the closed session will start 11 o'clock. Is that correct, Dr. Sugimoto? >> I think we went ahead and pulled the board for a start time at 10 o'clock for that closed session? >> Okay, whatever it is. >> Yeah, and I think I said in the poll, I don't know that I can make it in time. >> At all, or just at 10? >> Not at 10, I can make 11, I don't think I can make 10. >> But will you check with the--I mean check the poll and then let us know or--and make sure you put that big letters on the outright 'cause I didn't realize it was it. I can make it but I didn't realize it for what has been decided. >> Yeah I--Well, I think it would be a decision that the board would have to make to vote to start that meeting at closed session at 10, if you are going to do that. This was the time-- >> Well, that's right. We would have to--we would have to vote on that, you're right. >> So, Mary--or Dr. Sugimoto, do you have the results of the poll now? 'Cause we're gonna have to do it now. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> At 10, okay. >> I think we should just keep it 11. If we have to meet afterwards, we'll reconvene after. >> Well, how about meeting at 10:30? >> Sure, I'll move that we start the meeting at 10:30. >> Is there a second? You can meet at 10:30, right, John? That's right? >> I'm pretty sure [inaudible] pretty close to that. >> Okay, so there is a second and we're--the vote is to start the closed session meeting on Wednesday, November 18th at 10:30. All those in favor please say aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed? Okay, the--we have the Wednesday, December 9th is our regular Board meeting which will be our organizational meeting and I think that needs to be agendized as the organizational meeting. And we agreed that we're going to also meet on Wednesday, December 2nd, and our discussion was what time? So I think we need to resolve that now. >> I recommend that we tentatively schedule that for 5 PM. >> For 5 PM? That's--that's fine with me. >> I think and we can determine later if that's-- >> Well, we can schedule it now, we can always change it 'cause we have another meeting if that doesn't work. So you want--are you moving that, Mr. Baum? >> Move that we meet at 5 PM on the 2nd. >> Okay, so I have motion and second that we have a special meeting. We don't have to call it special meeting, we just have a meeting on Wednesday at December 2nd at--which would begin at 5 PM. Now, we will not have a closed session. Is that everyone's understanding with that meeting? We will not have a closed session but it will be a regular meeting. >> Right. >> Right, I don't wanna preclude the fact that we make--maybe able to use a closed session. >> Okay, so we won't, we won't address that but--and also since it's not a special meeting, if something comes up, an item of business that reads urgent, we could take care of it but main item of business will be the presentation by the search firms. Okay. So we have--okay. We're ready to vote. Everyone knows what it is? Student trustee? >> Aye. >> Other trustees all in favor please say aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Motion carries. Future agenda items, Mr. Martin. >> Well, we're supposed to have the audit presentation from the auditors on December 9th and as I've been mentioning, I'm having some difficulty with that. I'm trying to work out my conflict but if there's any hope at all, I'll be showing up here late. So I was wondering if--and I know it's probably inconvenient to the auditors that perhaps we could start by moving them towards the end of the agenda. I know they'd probably prefer to be at the beginning and get out of here but--and then I can kinda keep you posted. >> Okay, so that will be a future agenda item will be for the meeting on the 9th we'll have the rep--the audit--the report of the audit committee. >> And again, I'm trying to work my business conflict, but if there's any hope at all it's probably coming late. >> Any other future agenda items? Dr. Bradbury-Huang? >> Yeah, I noticed in the Senate nanoseconds that there's been talk about the Board of Trustees study sessions and I recall that this was also a conversation piece at the organizational meeting 4 years ago, my first meeting. So, I am wondering if we can possibly before the end of the year so that we're set up nicely for the New Year, resolve this, whether or not we will turn to having one business meeting and one study session a month rather than currently our 2 business meetings. >> I think we've discussed this recently and decided we will have study sessions but we would not have them on a regular schedule. Do you want--do you wanna put this as an agenda item and actually act on it in study sessions, is that what you're saying? >> Yeah, 'cause I guess I forgot that conversation and if there--you know, they're not going to be regular, we're gonna have this constant problem of scheduling. So if that's our choice, we would need to get on the scheduling ASAP. >> Okay, why don't we put it on as a future agenda item that are--or maybe what--would you trust the officers as since you're one of them to actually, maybe we could start off doing one quarterly, okay? And we will definitely schedule one. I think what we discussed was having a study session on the budget in January. We may have new members then and I think it'd be very important start our budget planning, yeah, was that not correct, Dr. Sugimoto? >> We had discussed having a budget study session in January for--particularly because we have new Board members. >> Mr. Baum? >> And the other thing that our--are we gonna have to look at a budget assessment if we have new board members because we've restricted our travel funding and I do want as we talked about with the faculty and others about investing in professional development, I wanna make sure there's funds in our--in our budget to help any new board members with the professional development opportunities. So I don't know if that's gonna be an agenda item that we need to. >> Why don't you let the officers try to tackle it? >> Okay, okay. >> There's a gas station down the street that we way just ask for donations. Oh, okay. Anything else? If not, the meeting is adjourned.