>> This is the call to order for the Pasadena Area Community College District, regular business meeting number three. Mrs. Thompson, would you call the roll? 

>> Present. 

>> Present. 

>> Here. 

>> Present. 

>> Here. 

>> Present. 

>> Here. 

>> We were about to move into closed section to discuss an item under government code 54957.6 labor negotiations with PCCFA, CSEA 777, ISSU, POA, Confidentials Management Association, Dean Engeldinger will join us. Are there any public comments to be heard on closed session items? Seeing none, I invite us into closed session. 

>> Only if Mary has one. 

>> Calling the open session to order. No action was taken in closed section. Vice President Trustee Thompson, would you please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. 

>> Yes. Please stand with me and face the flag. 

>> All: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. 

>> Thank you. President Sugimoto, any introductions this evening? 

>> I don't believe I've got any introductions this evening, Dr. [Inaudible]. 

>> Very good. I'm not seeing any yellow cards for public comment on non agenda items. Oh, there are? Okay. Wonderful. Just one. Very good. So now let's public comment on non agenda items. I would invite Bobby Moon to please come to the podium. 

[ Silence ] 

>> Good evening, this is actually an agenda item. It is the position profile for the president's search. And I'm coming to you tonight as the president of the PCC foundation. 

>> Bobby, I was not clear that it was on an agenda item. 

>> Yes. 

>> And, as it so happens, the agenda item that you wish to speak to is coming up very soon. 

>> Okay. 

>> So I'm going to ask you to delay your comments. 

>> All right. I will. Thank you. 

>> For literally a few moments. Thank you. Let's move then to item E, approval of the minutes. 

>> Motion to approve. 

>> Second. 

>> Any comments. 

>> Which? 

>> I'm guessing you're on this first set. There's two sets though, right? There's the organizational meeting, must be number one, seeing as it's the organizational meeting [inaudible]. 

>> Of December, yes, December the 9th. 

>> There's a correction on the page in the binder. Is that not correct, Mrs. Thompson? Yes. 

[ Silence ] 

>> So we have a motion and a second that would include the correction or the revision to be called to question? 

>> The correction is for the January 6th meeting, I believe, not for the December 9th. So I want to be clear that we're looking at December 9th at this point in time. 

>> We could also take them, well, okay. So December the 9th, let's call the question. All in favor? 

>> Aye. 

>> Aye. 

>> Aye. 

>> Any no's? 

>> I'm going to abstain with my sincere regrets that I miss the meeting that went to 11 26 PM. 

[ Laughter ] I'm sorry I couldn't make that meeting. But I am going to have to abstain because I wasn't there. 

>> Student trustee? 

>> Aye. 

>> All right. Motion passes. The retreat of January 6th, for which there is indeed a revision. 

>> I move approval. 

>> Second. 

>> All in favor? 

>> Aye. 

>> Aye. 

>> Aye. 

>> Any nays, abstentions, we were all there. Student trustee? 

>> Aye. 

>> Very good. Now consent items. 

[ Inaudible ] 

>> Let's do the consent. So consent items for this evening. Please signal if you have questions. 

>> 95B and 71P. 

>> And 71P. Trustee Fellow. 

>> None. Thank you. 

>> So Trustee [inaudible]. 

>> 96B and I'd like to pull that on a separate vote. 

>> Okay. 

>> 90, 102B, 103B and then 72P. 

>> 109B. 

>> Very good. Trustee Brown? Trustee Martin? 

>> None, thank you. 

>> Very good. So let's take them in order. 95B. 

>> Yes. On 95B there is an item to, on page 3, item P100611 to pay Robert McDaniel 15,861 dollars and 69 cents for public relations and I'd like to know what he's doing? We do have a public relations office. 

>> Dr. Sugimoto. 

>> Yes. Thank you, Dr. [Inaudible] and Ms. Elaine Chapman, if you wouldn't mind answering that. 

>> Those are for he new banners. Mr. Gutierrez is here from the PR department, but those go around the perimeter of the college. Those funds are actually paid for. That will be done out of beef up money coming from financial aid. And they will be reimbursed back to the district. Juan can explain further, if you like, in terms of those banners, but they are the ones that will replace the ones that were done about four years ago, three or four years ago. 

>> It says they're for professional services. He's designing the banners? It says service fees and professional services. 

>> I think that's the way that it's listed. Do you want to just explain to clarify that? 

>> Sure. Bob McDaniel actually prints the banners, the banners are actually designed in the public relations area in publications. And as Elaine had mentioned they are to replace the banners that are around the campus, the CDC and the CEC that have been up for four years. The useful life of those banners is about three years, so we're really doing that on borrowed time. 

>> So why is this not in for printing services or something, rather than professional services and fees? That's my only question. 

>> It may be a question that perhaps Ms. [Inaudible], Sherry [Inaudible]. I don't know if this is detailed in the purchasing a different way for a particular reason. 

>> It's drawn from the object that is used and it's probably 5150 or 5820 and that would come up as professional services. But it's driven, the title that you see listed there is driven by the object that is used to pay the vendor. 

>> So if I understand that correctly, up here further up there's something for custom craft flooring professional services, so that could be for materials for the floor. 

>> Yes. And for them installing. They're providing the professional services of installing the tiling or the carpet. 

>> Okay, so Four Seasons Roofing, that's probably for installing a roof? 

>> And repairing the roof, yes. Professional services. 

>> All right. 

>> Okay. 

>> Let's move to 96B. Mr. [Inaudible]. 

>> Yes. I want some explanation, I was just concerned where we're being asked to prove an additional 300,000 dollars in change orders to the buildings, so I wanted some clarification on that and then I wanted to make some comments about it. 

>> Thank you, Trustee [inaudible]. 

>> Dr. Van Pelt, this is one of yours. 

>> These change orders are wrapping up the construction work. During the process of closing this out, there's been an ongoing negotiation. Those negotiations are now wrapping up. The next board meeting should have two change orders and then there will be a final one, which will have either a zero cost or a credit back to the district. At this moment, what we're doing is we're waiting for some of the closeout documents, warranties and so forth that still have to be provided to us before the project is finally closed out and we send a notice of completion. 

>> It raises, I brought this up at several board meetings in the past. Each time I say okay, is the last round of it or are we going to have any more numbers coming at us? And then, so it's jarring as a trustee. I've received email correspondence with some additional explanation. I have, I don't know if folks got it. It was sent by email. But the project cost sheet for these two reflects that we had a contracted amount of 48 million dollars and there's been more than 4 million now of change orders to that. Can we still claim, now, that this project is on time and on budget? 

>> Well, the budget is set with a contingency. And in reality the final project will come in under budget. This portion is for the contractor and there's a 10 percent cap on change orders for the contractor that's been budgeted. So when you actually see the reconciliation at the end it will be under budget. 

>> Okay. Because I see there's only 186,000 of contingency. 

>> And I think that the last set of change orders will be 35,000, 31,000, that will be the worst case scenario, because like I said the final change order will be zero or a credit. 

>> And so I'm going to say something because I asked for this for a separate vote. I want to give you as much bargaining leverage as you need with our contractor, so I'm actually going to case a no vote on the change orders, so that you can, when you're at the negotiating table, you can tell them that there are trustees that are voting no on these change orders. 

>> Okay. 

>> I don't want to go through each one to say why do we need an extra set of cement here or cabling here or flooring here, because I don't know enough about the project. But I'm going to ask for a separate vote and cast a no vote on this change order. 

>> No, your is also 102B. 

>> It was just again, go ahead. 

>> Well, I wanted to comment on that. I'm, if I remember correctly this was the project and the building where we lost the initial architect in the beginning, is that correct? 

>> With the industrial tech building, yes. 

>> Yes. And so we had a new architect that bravely came forward and completed the job and did that, but in so doing under those conditions, I would surmise might be part of the problem of why there's a higher percent of change orders on the back end. 

>> Because we're going to pull it for a separate vote, it may make sense to pull all that in when we come to that separate vote. 

>> Yes. I'm just floating that comment for people's historical recollection. 

>> Right. I understand that. That's not what the administration has told us. Yes, but I understand and that possibility. 

>> Do you want to take us to 102B? 

>> I'm just, again it's a project that when it came to us it was initially brought in, suggested that we could do this for under 3 million dollars and the project now is approaching 4 million dollars, so I wanted some clarification on that cost. 

>> And Dr. Van Pelt, this is yours again. 

>> Okay. This is a joint venture between Pasadena Water and Power and PCC and in this case Pasadena Water and Power has, in fact, stepped up again, so this change order that is here has been fully funded by Pasadena Water and Power. Part of the challenge is that we have had an air conditioning system for many decades on this campus that's been added to bits and pieces over the years. And each time that we get involved in some of these redo's unexpected issues arise. So one of these that you'll notice is an equalizer between the two cooling towers and the drawing showed on thing by the time we took up the concrete to actually put pipes in there was something completely different and therefore we had to rework it. But in any event Pasadena Water and Power is now stepped up for about 800,000 dollars, so the PCC contribution will still be well under 3 million dollars. 

>> So what you're saying we're approving a 94,000, or 95,000 dollar change order that Pasadena Water and Power is going to increase their contribution to this by 95,000 dollars? 

>> That's right. 

>> That's very generous of them. 

>> Well, we have a good relationship with PWP and of course they're the ones who came to us asking if we could come up with projects to shed load. 

>> And just for the new trustees, this was one that we moved on fairly aggressively because there was apparently like a 6 or 12 week window of getting this project done in order to qualify for certain things, so we moved on it very aggressively. 

>> And the plant is now operational. 

>> Are we saving energy as a result? 

>> Absolutely. 

>> 103B. 

>> One quick question. How are we getting that money from the Pasadena Water? Is it just credits? 

>> It would be a credit. 

>> Or are we actually getting them to pay the vendor, so how are we recovering those? 

>> They offered to and we're taking it as a credit? 

>> Against our energy usage? 

>> Right. 

>> Okay. 

>> Next, 103B. 

>> I just had a question about the contracts to Oak Crest Institute of Science and [inaudible] about what is the CTE workforce innovation partnership grant? 

>> Well, fortunately, Dr. Van Pelt this one isn't yours. This is Dr. Jacobs', so if I may I'll give this one to her. 

>> This a grant that we have. It's in partnership with Glendale and we're working together in terms of the workforce and in terms of providing contact with jobs and training and Oak Crest will do the consulting for that and making the contacts. And we have a, the administrative person [inaudible] will be assisting them in that. Since we don't have a position there on campus, this is Ms. [Inaudible] area. 

>> Okay. 

>> And she isn't here tonight. She's ill. She's not able to be here. 

>> Who's the grant from? What's the source of the grant? Is it the state? 

>> Yes. 

>> May also shed some light on it, this is the passing of bio science collaborative, Wendy Johnston and the Oak Crest institute of sciences part of that BBC. 

>> They were here earlier. We explained the whole. 

>> Okay, that's part of [inaudible]. 

>> Yes. Exactly. 

>> Okay. I wasn't sure if it was part of our, out of our community ed center. 

>> Oh, no. it's not out of the community ed center. 

>> Okay Thank you. 

>> 109B, also yours. 

>> Okay. I'm trying to find my 109B. 

>> It says [inaudible] resident students. 

>> Oh, okay. Non resident student. 

>> I just wanted to also let the students have an opportunity to talk about that. I was worried that it seemed like a particularly aggressive increase for non resident students, so I wanted the background on that. Up to 218 dollars per semester unit, whereas last year it was 181 dollars. Am I reading that properly? 

[ Silence ] 

>> Actually probably Dr. Van Pelt should answer this, but he's given me some breakdown of years. For 09-10 the amount was 225 dollars. And coming in to 10-11 it's actually going down to 218. 

>> So you're saying currently its 225 dollars? 

>> That's correct. 

>> So we're actually reducing? 

>> That's correct. 

>> Okay, because I didn't see that in our, it says, oh, that's for international students. 190 for out of state plus 35 for international students. 

>> The non residents pay the capital outlay fee as well, so it's 225. 

>> And so what you're saying is there's a 35 dollar capital outlay fee, so that means they're contributing to our funding, and then there's 190 dollars for out of state students for tuition. 

>> Right. 

>> This year, what will that breakdown be? 

>> For the coming year? 

>> [Inaudible] 

>> You're talking about 10-11? 

>> Yes. Are you suggesting that 35 dollars continuing as a capital outlay fee? 

>> Yes. 

>> And 183 dollars for the actual enrollment fee. So you've got 183 plus the 35. 

>> So it's going to apply not only to international students, but out of state students? 

>> All non residents. 

>> Okay. That's interesting. Okay. 

>> In the future it would be helpful to me to pull the usual suspects and see what kind of fee they're charging. I think we want to stay in the game with the usual suspects. 

>> We do that. And I thin perhaps what might be useful to the board is if we list that information, maybe as backup material for you so you know we do comparisons with quote the usual suspects. We tend to be in the middle range. 

>> One other quick point is that we did have an opportunity to do the capital outlay at 60 dollars because that's the way that the math worked. We reduced it back to the current year level. 

>> How are we able to reduce our fees to seven dollars a unit? 

>> Well the majority of that comes from the state average. Overwhelmingly the districts use the state average. 

>> The state average came down? 

>> The state average came down 7 dollars. We kept our capital outlay fee the same so the net affect is that the student fee dropped by 7 dollars. 

>> That's interesting. I have no idea how the cost of education when down 5 percent. 

>> All formula driven. 

>> All right. 71P [inaudible]. 

>> Yes. I, two thing on here, first of all I would like to know how much this is going to cost and if we don't have that information we might want to have it at a later date. And the other thing is I would like to refer to the contract. It says subject to the availability of funds the number of full time sabbatical leave equivalence available for each year should be up to 4 percent of the full time regular contract positions. And I would like for the board to consider if we do have availability of funds I'd like to know how much money this is going to cost. And I know people wait a long time for their sabbaticals. I know we don't have to act on it tonight. These are faculty making arrangements. And I know we've always kind of held sabbaticals as [inaudible] but if it comes to giving people sabbaticals or not offering classes and hiring ad jumps, I think that's a discussion we need to have. So I would like to ask that this be pulled and come back as an agenda item. 

>> President Sugimoto. 

>> If that's the direction the board wishes, we can pull this and bring it back with more information. 

>> I'm willing to pull it for a separate vote. 

>> Not tonight, we don't have the information. I want to know how much this is going to cost. 

>> I think it's up to the board. If you wish to vote, if we wanted it pulled, we can pull it. 

>> We can pull it, okay. If there's no problem we can do that. You've got discussion. 

>> Madam President, when I hear you say it's okay to pull it that means there's nothing time sensitive about this that can't wait until the next meeting for you to answer that question. 

>> I think by the next meeting we certainly do need to have an answer because a lot of these individuals are making plans, so we don't want them to continue to move down that path without some direction from the board and their approval of this. But I'm looking at Dean Engledinger right now and he is shaking his head up and down. I assume that means we can take it to the February 3rd meeting without a difficulty. 

>> Yes. I think we can. 

>> And certainly I think if you need cost information, that's something that would be appropriate for you to make a decision on. 

>> 72P, Trustee Bowen. 

>> The questions I had about the awarding of large group instruction, just using these as an example, what is the cost of three hours of instruction and then is there an option to, is it more affective to pay three hours of instruction or is this an opportunity to also hire adjuncts to offer more sections? 

>> We could add because we're looking at 99 or more students can be in those large group sections, whereas we might have had three, 30 students in three sections and still we would have only 90. So we can go up and serve many more students in the large sections. So we do get away with, it's economical to do it that way. 

>> So it, but it wouldn't, it's more cost effective to do it this way you're saying? 

>> Yes, than to have three separate. 

>> And what does that mean to an individual instructor to get three additional hour of instruction a week? How is that, what does that mean? 

>> In terms of they get paid additional amount beyond what they would have gotten for a regular class. 

>> Right, but do they get an extra 10 dollars an hour or is it a percentage of? 

>> Oh, I don't know the exact slice that they get. 

>> How is that calculated? 

>> Based on their salary as to a percentage that they get. 

>> So their salary determines an hourly rate of pay? 

[ Inaudible ] 

>> So they get the equivalent of three extra hours per week. 

>> Exactly. 

>> Based on their hourly rate of pay. So if I make 10 dollars an hour, I'd get an extra 30 dollars that week. But we pay our faculty much more generously because we value them so much. 

>> [Inaudible] 

>> Right. 

>> [Inaudible] 

>> Okay, so I'll entertain a motion to approve all of the consent items with two exceptions we'll pull for a separate vote, 96B and we will pull 71P to come back no later than February 3rd so that faculty can go ahead with planning their lives. Who would like to make the motion? 

>> I move approval. 

>> Second. 

>> All those in favor. 

>> Aye. 

>> Aye. 

>> Aye. 

>> Anybody against? Abstentions? Separate? 

>> 96B. 

[ Inaudible ] 

>> Oh, aye. 

>> Thank you. 

>> So 96B. 

>> Right. Somebody has to move it and second it. 

>> I'll move on approval of 96B. 

>> Second. 

>> Do you wish to make any comments? 

>> No [inaudible]. 

>> I think [inaudible] discussion. 

>> The motion is to approve the change order as described in 96B. So do you wish to offer and advisory vote? 

>> We will go into discussion after the actual discussion, correct? 

>> Yes. You can [inaudible]. 

>> I just think we should probably pose the question to Dr. Van Pelt, if we do vote not for it, I guess what kind of flexibility do you have in terms of negotiating with the contractors. Does it leave you in a tight spot? I guess sort of give us your feedback or your. 

>> Before it goes, I'm not advocating the district vote it down, but I want that not to be a unanimous vote for, so I'd be happy with a 4-3, 5-2, 6-1. 

>> Oh, okay. 

>> That's what I meant. 

>> And the answer is that we'll certainly bring that to the contractor. Because it does point out the fact that we do negotiate tough. So pointing out the trustees are not, their patience is wearing thin is good for us. 

>> Would you like to offer advisory [inaudible] first? Or you want me to come back? 

>> [Inaudible] 

>> No more than three. 

[ Laughter ] 

>> Okay. I vote nay then. 

>> Calling the question, advisory vote is no, all those in favor say aye. 

>> Aye. 

>> Aye. 

>> Aye. All those against. 

>> No. 

>> Okay. And abstentions, no abstentions? Mrs. Thompson, okay? Very good. Thank you. 

>> Tell them they had two no votes. [Inaudible] 

[ Laughter ] 

>> What I would suggest here is that we bring up item L, in fact we swap it with item G, which means Mrs. Moon if you're ready, please come back to the podium. So this item now is presidential search update discussion with possible action, position profile, timeline, contract with academic search. We'll hear from Mrs. Moon and then ask Dr. Stanley Hales to take the podium. 

>> Good evening. 

>> Good evening. And I wanted to thank you all for appointing me to the presidential search committee. And as such I've had the chance to review the position profile for the job of president. And coming fro my position as foundation president we were somewhat dismayed to find out that there's no mention of fundraising or fund development in the position profile, whether be it experience in that area or actually the only mentioned is the foundation is described briefly in the profile of the college. Many of the attributes that you're asking for are attributes are part in personal to someone who is adept at fundraising, so that's to the benefit. But we, you know, I really feel that you folks have made a commitment to seeking private funding for PCC. And one of the things we've learned in our efforts to do that in the foundation is that president of the college has to be actually the foremost person in that effort. To that end, Dr. Sugimoto has been very helpful in our efforts in the capital funds drive for the arts building to finish that out. And we're very grateful for that. And we'd just like to keep that going and make sure that area is something that is addressed when we go out and search for the new president. So that's basically all I had to say. Thank you. 

[ Silence ] 

>> Dr. Hales. 

>> We will not respond directly to Mrs. Moon. 

>> I have a question for Mrs. Moon. I know you couldn't see me because I'm on the other side. Mrs. Moon, do you or the foundation have any suggested language? 

>> Not at this point, since I just saw the [inaudible] thing thoroughly yesterday. 

>> Okay. Thank you. 

>> I'm sorry. No. 

>> [Inaudible] 

>> So everybody should have a copy in front of them. It's a recent addendum since yesterday's meeting, Pasadena City College presidential search to board of trustees from Stanly Hales. You might wish to address that. 

>> Yes. And thank you, Bobby, for that request. In response to the comments made that yesterday afternoon's meeting, the screening committee, we actually drafted some language to respond to that in a paper which was distributed to the board of trustees earlier today or I guess earlier today. We suggest language such as the following, to be added as a bullet under that section in professional characteristics, demonstrated skill in proactive fundraising for educational and or non profit purposes. We think that adds together with the other items you mentioned and addresses the concern you have. So that's on of the proposed additions to the profile. 

[ Inaudible ] 

>> Very good. 

>> There are other additions. Would you like me to cover those now or are there other issues you'd like to have me start with first? 

>> These belong inside the conversation around position profiles. So if you wanted to just. 

>> All right. There were three other comments made at yesterday's meeting of the screening committee. One suggesting that perhaps as a minimum qualification only asking for three years of senior administrative experience might be too little. And so in response to that suggestion, and in fact picking up on the precise suggestion made, a possible revision then would be 5 to 7 years of senior administrative experience. So that's language picking up precisely upon the suggestion made by several of the screening committee members yesterday. Also there was concern that in fact the minimum qualification related to diversity spoke only to diversity among the community college students and not specifically to diversity among the communities served by the district. And so we would propose to add to that particular minimum qualification the phrase and residents of the community served by the district, to address that particular concern. And then finally there was concern expressed that the document made not sufficient reference to accreditation as an item of experience for the new superintendent president, and so in response to that we suggested an addition to one of the existing bullets under professional characteristics the phrase, including those related to accreditation. Those are the additions that we would propose to add to the profile as otherwise distributed to the board. 

>> As Dr. Hales has said, these were discussed extensively by the screening committee yesterday in what was actually a very fine meeting and a very good discussion. I think the group seemed to get along quite well and be pleased with the responses they have and we're grateful they accepted it. But these were all things that came out of that discussion and I would move that we amend the presidential profile by making these additions. 

>> I'd like to say these are outstanding points and second that recommendation. 

>> Very good. Any further discussion? Trustee Martin? 

>> Well, I find a minimum of 5 to 7 years doesn't, so if you have 8 it's not 5, it's not 7, it seems like a minimum of 5. 

>> Exactly right. We essentially picked up exactly on, you lost nothing by erasing the two words and 7 from this. 

>> The and 7 doesn't make any sense to me. 

>> [Inaudible] 

>> Or else it implies 8 means you've had too much. Sorry. We don't want you. 

[ Laughter ] 

>> What we were doing there, I think what Dr. Hales was doing is simply responding to the language actually suggested by the screening committee. And yes, you're correct. The meaning is going to be identical whether it's 5 to 7 or just 5, but I'm not sure we suffer much by going on to say 5 to 7. 

>> As a mathematician I'm certainly happy to erase the words and 7 because the meaning is identical and if it turns out to be a simpler statement, that's fine. 

>> Simpler statements, in general, are better and it's within the spirit of agreeing with the committee's recommendation. So I'd, you can either make that a friendly amendment for your people to accept or if not then handle it differently. 

>> Depends on how nice you are the rest of the meeting. 

[ Laughter ] 

>> One thing about processing and then I have some other small edits that I hoped would be adopted on a friendly basis. Once we approve this, how long will it be before this is posted online for the world to see? 

>> Tomorrow. 

>> Okay. And will it be on the academic search site? 

>> Yes. The advertisement, the shorter advertisement for the position, which is a very short abstract taken out of this has been online now for a week. And it's there now. This will simply be added [inaudible]. 

>> Will this be on the PCC website tomorrow? 

>> As long as PCC could do it, yes. 

>> We could either upload it or we can link it to whatever your site is. We already have the advertisement. That's been up for a week. 

>> Right. 

>> So then as we just go through the document, a couple of things that caught. 

>> Point of order. We have a motion on the floor. 

>> Yes. 

>> Yes. 

>> And your addressing the motion? 

>> Yes. 

>> Okay. 

>> I'm addressing. 

>> We're on tab L, by the way. 

>> The motion because I have some questions about the document we're about to adopt. 

>> I thought the motion was about to approve these amendments to the documents? 

>> Okay, it's just the amendments? 

>> That's what I understand. 

>> Okay. Well I'm happy to vote on the amendments. 

>> But I've been holding my hand up. I'd like to speak to that motion before we go any further. 

>> Okay, that's fine. 

>> Okay. Trustee [Inaudible]. 

>> I'd like to speak against changing the three to five and the reason why is it does say senior administrative leadership experience. The more years, my experience has been the more years that you put on a senior administrative experience, the more you narrow your pool, the less likely you are to get a non traditional candidate, the less likely you are to get a woman or a person of color. So I would certainly support five rather than five to seven, but I would also support going down to 3 because I think that, I shouldn't say I think, the language that you use in a position announcement sends very clear signals of what you're looking for. And if you have a high number of years with administrator experience, I think it is not welcoming to people who are maybe creative, innovative, not that you can't be creative and innovative and have 7 years administrative experience, but I think it sends a signal that you're open and you're willing to consider people with different kinds of background experience. So for that reason I am speaking against just this part of the 5 to 7 years because I think the other three are fine. 

>> So are you offering an amendment? 

>> I'm suggesting we just not, we just remove it. 

>> I think it's not no longer 5 to 7, I think that. 

>> No, I'm just suggesting that we leave it at 3 years, so I'm speaking against this motion. There's four proposed changes. I'm speaking against change number one in favor of two, three and four. 

>> So Trustee Thompson? How does that affect? 

>> Well, I, the intent of this, as I said before was to simply capture the sentiment of the screening committee, which itself is a very diverse group I think from any perspective. And the feeling there, I think, quite strongly was that a minimum of three years was really too modest, and as I said the language suggested was 5 to 7. Certainly we can just make 5, a minimum of five years. I don't, I would rather lean toward accommodating the committee and their thoughts than I would going against it, unless there is [inaudible] reason for not doing so. So I guess what I'm saying, I would. 

>> So are you satisfied with 5? 

>> No, I'm not. Because this is a minimum qualification. This means you have to have it. If it were like 3 years required, 5 preferred, I would be happy with that. But my understanding is this means that if you don't have 5 years of senior administrative experience, if you've got 4 and a half then you can't be considered and you're eliminated on the first screen. I'm opposed to that. I would, you know, as I said, if you want to say three years required, like was done with some of these other characteristics, because it's under the minimum qualifications. So that means that is the basic screen in or out. 

>> Well, if there is, if the board feels that they would rather have three years, I'm not going to make a stand in the way of the [inaudible] on this. But there's a question where you want to go with it? It's, the reality is if you only have three years of administrative or senior administrative leadership experience, you're probably not going to be qualified for this job anyway. If you only have 5 years, it's probably dubious whether you're going to be qualified or not. But I think that was the whole point of the committee's discussion of this was that 3 years is really a very small amount of experience in and of that particular type and so that's why they were recommending the 5 to 7 or the 5 as we pointed out. But it's, if the majority of the board would rather stick to 3, that's something I think we need to [inaudible] do or die about. 

>> Okay, well alternatively you're going to have to amend the motion. Student Trustee [inaudible]? 

>> One thing I was thinking of [inaudible] the screening committee meeting, it would have been good to probably have taken these things to a vote because, I mean, just to see who actually supported the 5 years versus who supported the 3 years. Because I don't understand there were vocal individuals on the screening committee who did feel 5 years would be good. I don't know if it was necessary to [inaudible] the entire committee. I do see, I see Trustee [inaudible] point, but I also see your point. I think it would have been good if it would have been more clear in the committee as to like who specifically asked for 5 years. 

>> I don't believe there was any comment against the change to 5 years. I think it was pretty much, certainly consensus that 3 years was non sufficient. I mean, Lyle, you were there. 

>> I was there and everyone had an opportunity to comment. Indeed the discussion centered around, there was some discussion about the three years and why it was there to begin with. The indication was that they agreed to it. There was no objection to it. 

>> I'm sorry, you heard no object to the 3 or to the 5? 

>> To the proposed 5. 

>> Okay. 

>> Trustee Fellow then Trustee Bowen. 

>> Yes. Thank you. I've been looking at dean's positions, for obvious reasons lately, and all of them are 5 years as chair or associate dean. And you consider deans a senior administrative or not? No? Because I would imagine that dean, I'm just wondering if we should strike senior. I would imagine that a dean could apply for a presidency and do a good job at it. 

>> Thank you. 

>> Trustee Bowen? 

>> I would just recommend that we pull that one for a separate vote. I think there's, I personally have no problem with raising it to 5 years, and we should just deal with these amendments and then see if it's, if it's a divided vote, so be it, and if there's not 4 votes, I'm fine with it as it is. But I think we should just [inaudible]. And I believe that raising it to 5 years will not impair the search. I think it, and I want to defer to some of the feedback that we received from the committee as an initial signal of the committee's ability to advise the board. I appreciate Bobby Moon's coming here and sharing some of those concerns as well. 

>> Trustee Martin. 

>> Well I concur that we take the vote on it that says the amendment stands and see where it goes and if there's enough votes to move on, we move on. Personally I actually, I'm at Dr. Mann's position that I have enough confidence in this committee that three years is better, but if the committee wants 5 and we can move on, then. I had some concerns in the ambiguity of what senior meant and then when somebody who's obviously in senior education, like my colleague, is asking that question, it says to me that there's enough ambiguity there that if you've got 5 years of something, you're going to be able to qualify and get into the first screening, so the fact that there isn't there there's an ambiguity in the word senior, so you can get in. And so I don't know that we need to highlight accreditation of all the things a superintendent has to do. We've got really competent people that can pick up the accreditation thing here. But again, it's the kind of thing where the way it's worded, if they never read an accreditation report before they could probably still qualify one way and go read one and make it in. So, you know, I'm ready to vote on it and move on. 

>> So let's call the question, separating out item I. All those in favor? 

>> So which one are we doing? Are we doing I or the rest of it? 

>> The rest of it, separating out I? 

>> So we're voting on 2, 3, and 4, is that what you're doing? 

>> All those in favor, say aye. 

>> Aye. 

>> Aye. 

>> Aye. 

>> Anybody against? Student Trustee? 

>> Aye. 

>> Good. And then I need a motion then for the item I. 

>> [Inaudible] and then we can vote it down. 

>> Okay, so the motion is to approve and then people will choose. Okay. I'm going to call that question. All those in favor. 

>> Aye. 

>> Aye. 

>> Aye. 

>> Student trustee? 

>> You said just 5 minimum? 

>> Yes. 

>> Okay. Aye. 

>> To approve it as it currently stands. Okay. So all those in favor again, sorry. 

>> Aye. 

>> Aye. 

>> Aye. 

>> All those against. 

>> Opposed. 

>> Okay. Very good. Mrs. Thompson. 

>> I have some other items before we, because we had a particular motion to adopt the whole job profile. 

>> Under tab L. 

>> Yes. 

>> So if, do you have it in front of you, Mr. Hales? 

>> I have the profile in front of me, yes. I'm ready to respond to [inaudible]. 

>> I just want to make sure that we have accurate information. 

>> Yes. 

>> So as I go into page one it says Pasadena City College overview, this is just a minor thing, but we list our communities and we don't have our whole community of Rosemead, we have portions of Rosemead. So that should be moved to where [inaudible]. 

>> So just as it says a portion of [inaudible], it should actually include portions of Rosemead and [inaudible]. Okay, Great. Thank you. 

>> And there's a tilde over the N in [inaudible] if that's something that's important. 

>> Thank you. I will make sure that that tilde gets in. 

>> On the next page, there's the, our annual operating budget from general funds unrestricted, I believe we just got out of the auditing committee, is more like 120 million, not 135 million dollars. Is that correct, Dr. Sugimoto? 

>> Yes. It is. In fact when we talked about [inaudible]. 

>> Right. So I don't want a candidate to think we bait and switched him and took 15 million dollars out of the budget. 

>> By the time they actually apply [inaudible]. 

>> So I'm going to recommend, so these I'm recommending as a blanket amendment to the profile, and if anybody objects, but I don't have it in paper unfortunately. We're going to, as you go in the bullets, the fourth bullet point down talks about community colleges and transfer and as I read the documentation from the report we'll be receiving, we're actually in the top 5 community colleges in California for transfers, not the top 3. Is that correct? 

>> It is correct. But every time we look at things they're going to change, so it's a snapshot in time. It depends on what [inaudible]. 

>> Would you recommend that it continue to say top 3? 

>> We could put top 5, that's fine. 

>> Top 5? 

>> I just want to make sure that we're accurate. 

>> Hot off the press information, Dr. Hales. 

>> Yes. Perfect. 

>> Is it true, Dr. Sugimoto, on the last bullet that through the foundation's effort that more than 9 million is available annually from such aid? I don't believe we make 9 million dollars in annual grants for student financial aid. 

>> No, it is not. 

>> So I would strike that entire sentence about through the foundation's efforts more than 9 million is available annually for such aid. Is it true that we have assets that are over 12 million dollars? 

>> Yes. 

>> That's in the audit. 

>> Yes. So that's good. The only other thing on that was bullet points was we pull out in particular the project about Hispanic students, but we don't talk about [inaudible] or other programs for African American students or something simple like title 3 and title 5. I don't have suggested language, but that's something that struck me. 

>> Trustee Bowen can you point out the specific bullet point. 

>> It is the bullet point on page 2, it is the 5th bullet point down. And so, but I just don't have any information. On page 3, the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 it says addressing the need to update all science laboratories, and I think we changed that, we modified that language, so I would just take out all science and say addressing the need to update laboratories as part of a more systematic program of renovations. So I'm proposing that. And then that's all I had on the factual issues with the profile. 

>> Thank you. 

>> And I so move those amendments. 

>> Very good. Thank you. Trustee Mann. 

>> Yes, if I could make an amendment I would like to add one more thing. 

>> Sure. 

>> On page 6 it says as needed support with locating an in district housing will also be addressed. I would suggest that we remove the in district housing because when we began to explore how we could address this in district housing a couple of 3 years ago, that's a very complicated and difficult situation. And I would hate for us to give a false signal to someone. I think if someone that is qualified to be president of PCC should be able to negotiate that in their negotiations for appointment, but I don't want to send that signal out. 

>> Are you suggesting striking that? 

>> I'm suggesting striking it. And does that mean if someone lives in Eagle Rock, as Dr. Kosler did, which is not in the district, for years, that that person be expected to move? So I think we should just take it out. 

>> Are you suggesting dropping that entire sentence or [inaudible] in district housing. 

>> No, it is important. Relocating, I think, is fine, but I think in district housing should be removed. 

>> Okay. 

>> The reality, though, I mean, the reality though is that if you get anybody moving here from out of the area, they're very, unless they're from the San Francisco Bay area, we realize their need to help with housing. I don't see why we should not just address that in this. All it says is it will be addressed it will be considered or something like that. Addressed is the word that's used, but I don't, that's just a piece of reality. If we get somebody from outside the district they're not going to come here unless there's help with housing. So why not just meet the issue head on? 

>> Student Trustee [inaudible]. 

>> It's not just that, but also it starts with saying as needed. So I think if someone doesn't need it they won't utilize that service. Personally, I think it's fine the way it is because of the as needed part and also the addressed part. It doesn't necessarily tie us, it doesn't necessarily for us to do anything. The addressed part is vague language, it's sort of, I guess, it's more in good spirit. 

>> I'm going to do this. I have a motion on the floor, it needs a second. The motion was made by Trustee Bowen for those amendments. Is there a second for that motion? 

>> It's just for the ones I mentioned, and I feel that we'll deal with Dr. Mann's amendment separately. 

>> You don't take this as friendly? 

>> Not yet. Because I want to, there's some additional discussion. Mine were more like clarification. 

>> I'll second Mr. Bowen's motion. 

>> Okay. Are we ready to call the question? The amendments made by Mr. Bowen, all those in favor. 

>> Aye. 

>> Aye. 

>> Aye. 

>> Student Trustee? 

>> Aye. 

>> Anybody against? Abstentions? 

>> I expect Dr. Hales is clear on the changes I suggested. 

>> Motion carries. Okay, should I entertain a motion on this issue of relocating and housing? 

>> Yes, I'd like to move we strike and district housing and if there's a second, I will again address the reason why. 

>> I'll second. 

>> Very good. 

>> When we were, this issue was raised a couple of years ago, as I said. We found that there was a great many difficulties here, for example we could not negotiate a loan, which we thought we could do. There was some kind of restriction through the education code or something. So we were, it became much more complicated than we thought it was going to be and there was not a lot of support on campus for spending what it would cost us to buy a house, to buy a president's house. In that instance, if you remember, we were able to address the need by negotiating a riddle with one of our neighboring institutions. But I think it's still a very sensitive issue. And I also think it's one that we don't have the kind of flexibility of a private university or the Cal States. Dr. Fellow and I have worked with the Cal States and I know most of their president's have houses that have been bought with funds from the foundation. But I, that is very unusual, I think for community colleges and I think we just need to be realistic. I think it would be very, very difficult. I know it's a problem. I think it would be very difficult for us to do anything in this area. 

>> Very good. Thank you for clarifying the context. This is a very important issue. Before I call the question, any further? 

>> This is a concerning issue, because if, particularly if anybody listens to this discussion, because if, again, if I'm living in Eureka and I'm qualified for this job and you really want me to be down there and you make me a salary offer that's acceptable and all of that, but I'm not going to live on the rental home, not a rental home, but the RV or something like that because I can't afford housing. I think we've got to get that we live in the real world here and realize that if we're going to get someone to come in, in particularly coming back from a place in Nebraska or New York, rural New York or someplace like that, Ohio, you're not going to be able to sell your existing house if you own one, which you probably will for sufficient funds to be able to buy a house out here, or even rent on a long term basis. So I don't see the negatives to putting an as needed support with relocating and district housing will also be addressed. I guess we could delete in district housing. But the problem with that is someone's going to live in a zoo or someplace or wherever it might be. Where do we ant the person to live? I guess ideally we want the individual to live somewhere close to campus here. Certainly within the district. And it's the same thing we've had in the city with police chiefs and city managers and people of that caliber, you want your top officials to live in your community. And the same thing here. I don't see the reason not to face the issue head on now. Make it clear to anybody that might want to apply that yes, we're open to talking with you and trying to be helpful on relocation and on housing. And I think that's the way to go. 

>> Mr. [Inaudible] 

>> My sense is that by taking this out of the position profile doe not eliminate the possibility for us to eliminate a housing arrangement with the next president. So Dr. Hales, how common is reference to housing support in presidential position descriptions? 

>> I think it's accurate to say that it is more present, more often present, certainly in independent institution advertisements because there is greater flexibility and often financial capability to address the issue. I have not scoured the literature with respect to all public institutions. I think those with greater resources often will do this, especially if it's seen to be a problem in attracting high quality candidates. But I think it's, it's a mixed situation, I would expect, in community colleges and probably not, perhaps not even the majority will find themselves in the financial situation to be able to afford it. It certainly is the case though that the more you are able to address it and indicate the, at least, willingness to consider it, the more likely you are to attract larger and stronger pool. 

>> So my sense is that I think the idea of providing housing support for the CEO is an issue that we have not decided as a board because I personally do favor finding a way to purchase a presidential residence somewhere in the district. But that said, I think that's an issue that we're going to have to address later. I'd like to approve this today so that we, and it would say as needed relocation assistance would be provided would be something that would give us the opportunity not only to provide relocation and moving assistance, but even perhaps a housing allowance [inaudible]. 

>> Student Trustee [inaudible]. 

>> My only fear, I guess, in doing this part is that right now there are a lot of openings, so we're competing with a lot of other schools for openings. I think Dr. Hales addressed, I think it's 35, you said, in California? 

>> 25, I think. 

>> 25 in California, presidential openings. And since we decided this is going to be a nationwide search, I just think that this is a big draw for potential candidates. I just think it would be a shame, let's say, if we find someone who is extremely qualified, let's say in Massachusetts, but the fact that we won't help them relocate, and housing, I just don't think that that should be a reason, I just think that we should sort of give that little extra bit to sort of help persuade people to come to our school. Because we are looking for the most qualified candidate. 

>> So we've heard the pros and cons, I'm going to call the question. Is this? 

>> Well, I haven't had my two cents yet. 

>> Go ahead. 

>> Okay. Thank you. First off, point of clarity is what Jeff just proposed, that last sentence, is that consistent with this motion of what you were saying where he, if I understood it correctly, withdrew the in district housing part of the sentence, but left in as needed support with relocation. I'm trying to capture if the two of you are in the same motion. 

>> That's the same motion. 

>> And then now for my two cents, I think all the pros and cons have been articulated very clearly, but I do think there is a history of sensitivity on campus to this topic and the issue of a car even when it made financial sense what we were doing, there was a tremendous amount of sensitivity to it. And based on the fact that this is something we haven't resolved, I would err on the side of being cautious on the announcement to set an expectation that doesn't imply it but allows it to be discussed, rather than one that does imply it and creates some ill will. So I'm personally siding with the motion to remove the statement so as not to lead to a false expectation, which may force us into dealing with this issue sooner than we're ready. 

>> So in calling the question, I'll remind us that a vote of yes is to delete, a vote of not would be status quo. So let's call the question. Those in favor of deleting please say aye. 

>> Aye. 

>> Aye. 

>> Those in favor of keeping it the way it is, please say no. 

>> No. 

>> No. 

>> No. 

>> That's three to four, I believe. Student? 

>> No. 

>> I'm unclear. I'm sure it's three to four, but I'm not sure because I can't hear everybody. 

>> Let's. 

>> So did it pass or fail. 

>> Let's raise hands. Those who voted to delete with a yes, please raise your hand. Those are the votes. 

>> Oh, okay. 

>> Everybody else was a no. 

>> So the motion passed, is that right? 

>> Yes. 

>> [Inaudible] advisor, the motion failed. 

>> No. 

>> I think. 

>> She said those in favor of deleting raise your hand. 

>> Four yes's to delete. 

>> So we got four yes's? 

>> Yes. 

>> Who were the yes's? 

>> One more time. 

>> Mrs. [inaudible], maybe it's important at the end of the vote for clarity and for the audio audience you just kind of announce that the motion in this case passed four to three so that will help us all and those who are listening. 

>> Thus deleting. 

>> I'm going to move approval of position announcement as amended with all the amendments [inaudible]. 

>> Second. 

>> Dr. Mann had another amendment, don't you? 

>> No, I'm fine. 

>> Okay. 

>> I was just seconding that. 

>> Are you good? 

>> Let's call that question. Those in favor of adopting the profile as is with these amendments taking care of, please signal with a yes. 

>> Yes. 

>> Yes. 

>> Yes. 

>> Yes. 

>> Any nos? The motion carries. The timeline, Dr. Hales. 

>> You all have in front of you, I believe, the timeline is amended through several iterations of discussion. I'm happy to entertain any questions. 

>> Did you make a motion to? No. 

>> [Inaudible] 

>> Okay. I'll entertain a motion to approve the timeline as its been delivered. 

>> Which timeline are we working from? 

>> Right here. 

>> Because there's a couple of them floating around, I think. Is it the one in our binder? 

[ Inaudible ] 

>> It's the most recent one which I sent to the search committee with a copy to the president of the board a week or so ago and I assume was distributed to the board. 

>> It has been distributed and there were no changes since yesterday, so. 

>> No changes yesterday at all, so as distributed within the last week. 

>> Okay. 

>> President Sugimoto. 

>> The one that is in your binder is the one we received as the many attachments that were sent to us, along with the profile and everything, is that the one? 

>> Yes. I sent that in the update when it was sent to you. Yes. 

>> The last one we received would be it. 

>> Within the last week. 

>> I'm not sure. 

>> Yes. Yes. 

>> So I'm entertaining a motion. Are you making the motion? 

>> No, I'm not. 

>> Motion to approve. 

>> Second. 

>> Second. 

>> Okay. 

>> Trustee [inaudible]. 

>> I have a question now. On page two, April, where it says March 26th, screening committee selects smaller group of candidates for reference checking and [inaudible] sub committee members may attend. And the committee reviews, reference check procedures and assigns members specific tasks. It was my understanding, and it does say in the contract with academic search, the consultant that does the reference checking, I think that is a very important distinction. I think it's very important to get this clarified. One of the reasons is my understanding why this particular consultant and this particular firm was selected was because they were doing much of the administrative work. This is part of that. But more so than that, having people that who are not well trained doing the reference checking and having different people doing the calling, unless they're going to have everyone do all the reference checking, could lead to very uneven results. And you know, thirdly, and again, I worked for 25 years monitoring searches. I've monitored hundreds of searches. The person who does the reference check, if you divide it up, everyone does a candidate, then they become that candidates advocate and they have a relationship with those candidates that they don't have with the others. I think we have a consultant and we have a firm who are well qualified, experienced, we're paying them a nice salary, I think the consultant should do the reference checking, and it does say that they will in the contract. So the timeline at this instance is in conflict with the contract that we looked at. 

>> Very good. So for clarification, on page two, Dr. Hales would you speak to this issue of assigns members to specific tasks with regard to reference checks? 

>> I'm happy to speak to this, and I'd also be happy to remind myself of the precise language in the contract and we need to certainly get that straight. There are several stages of reference checking. The first stage of reference checking is to the name, the references that the candidates send in with their applications. The second stage is what we think of as off list reference checking. As soon as the three or four, what you might think of as finalists are identified, they essentially have to give up confidentiality and allow reference calls be made to absolutely anybody on list or off list that might be of ability to help the screening committee and the board to decide people. It is certainly the case that I, as a consultant, will almost always do almost all of that checking. In my experience search committees often insist on doing a little bit of that off list checking themselves, because they want to hear from the horse's mouth, as it might be, honest comments from people off list. But normally I certainly do all of those. I am also happy if this board chooses to do all of the other reference checking as well, but I should say, and if the contract is that way, it's not been finalized yet so that still is under discussion, as I understand, but I should say from our firm's experience it is virtually 99 percent of the case that search committees themselves simply will not accept the having one person, the consultant do all the searches. They want to hear themselves from the references. And they often will insist on doing those calls. And so that their discussion of the search or the screening committee can be informed by the individual comments by the people who will be doing the voting themselves on what's said. They simply will not accept the word of the consultant in this regard. They want to hear those comments by the references themselves. And so our normal practice, in fact, is to allow, and often the committees insist, to make those on list reference calls initially themselves, if the board, and it certainly as long as the screening committee itself agrees, I'm happy to make those calls. But it would be with a caution that it could come with a problem that the committee will feel less confident in the outcomes of those calls, because they're one step filtered through the consultant rather than direct to the ears of the consultants themselves. That's simply my experience in all the searches that I have done. 

>> Thank you. Trustee Bowen. 

>> What I think would happen is we're not going to prevent the committee from making reference calls because they will do it on their own whether they're assigned it or not, because if they know somebody at an institution they're going to say what do you know of this individual? But I think, I don't want the contract or the timeline to stipulate the committee members will be making the calls. I think the committee can decide if it wanted to make calls. But I think we need to stipulate that Academic Search will be conducting the reference checks. That doesn't prevent the committee member from checking with a source about a possible candidate. But I believe it's more appropriate that Academic Search take responsibility for the reference checks. 

>> Perfectly fine with me. 

>> Okay, are we ready to call the question on this? 

>> I have some additional questions if that's [inaudible]. 

>> Go ahead. 

>> So we're going to strike that note that says committee members begin reference calls and committee reviews reference checking procedures and assignments members to specific tasks. I think you should provide guidelines to the committee members if they do end up calling contacts to give them some general guidelines about how to go about doing it so they don't harm the search. 

>> What I would suggest in this regard is that you leave the phrase committee reviews reference checking procedures, because I think the committee should be absolutely aware of all the reference checking procedures and then perhaps strike the remainder of that sentence, assigning members to tasks. And then modify that paragraph to read next consultant calls identified candidates for permission to call references and begins reference calls. 

>> That would be fine. 

>> If that's fine. But I just want to make it clear that I don't want to be violating this timeline or our contract if I end up allowing members of the search committee who want to call to make those calls, because that might be seen in conflict with this if it doesn't not say here that it's possible for the committee to make reference calls. 

>> Right. I just don't want the committee to be assigned to make calls. But if somebody does make calls. 

>> That possibility, I think, should exist. I don't want to violate that. 

>> You're going to have to manage that for us. 

>> My question is because I want to be clear on your availability for this timeline, how many searches do you have underway and how will that impact your ability to execute these milestones within the timeline? 

>> I should say that I am now bringing to a conclusion in the next two or three weeks, three other searches, which will be completely done by the middle of February. Early in the recruiting process for this one. PCC is the only search that I have now. It is a possibility that I will add a second search for the Spring semester. My normal load is between three and four searches simultaneously. 

>> Because my belief, and maybe I was hearing something, is that there, you didn't have a lot of other searches going on so you'd be able to devote a lot of energy and attention to this search. And so juggling four searches, it could be a pretty demanding load. 

>> These searches are effectively done. All three search for committees have identified their three finalists. I don't take any role in those final interviews. I'll have one more meeting on each campus and it's done. So those searches are effectively done for my point of view. 

>> So you're saying those other three searches have identified their three finalist candidates? 

>> They're all, and those visits are scheduled at those three campuses and I have one day meeting at each of those three places remaining. 

>> So you're saying you can fulfill these dates that are. 

>> I can fulfill all these dates and even those with another. Our normal load is at least three, if not four searches, simultaneously. 

>> How much of your time is used for pursuing other business opportunities that you have to go, you know, to another location, you have three other searches going on plus our search, plus you'll be traveling because somebody else will ask for a proposal that you'll have to go present. 

>> That's right. 

>> And prepare for as well, so that's almost the equivalent of another search in some ways. 

>> Those are very small parts of our work. I should simply say in that regard, having been a college president, this is very small in relation to the responsibilities of a full time college president, all of the things that we're doing. 

>> And then just in, what are the resources within the firm are available to us to complete this timeline? Are there other consultants if for some reason you were to call ill or and is there an administrative staffing support to handle the processes of communicating with candidates and dealing with those aspects of the search? 

>> Those are issues that I did mention before. Let me review them again for you. We have a staff of 10 researchers who are people who end up doing a great deal of communication with those perspective nominators and perspective candidates and other prospects. And I have a researcher assigned to me who drafts all of those letters and makes sure that the thousands of emails are sent and responded to when they come in. and so this person assists me on the search in which I'm working. 

>> You have one researcher at your disposal? 

>> I'm sorry? 

>> You have one researcher at your disposal? 

>> I have one, but there's a [inaudible] of 10 and they're all able to collaborate with each other and the team of 32 retired college presidents and other senior executives who are consultants with me in the firm all collaborate on all of our searches. We talk with each other about perspective candidates, any one of them whom could step in if I became ill at any given time. And with a team of 32, we have a lot of resources in that regard. 

>> Because one of the assets of your firm I recall is the fact that the Los Rios district had employed your firm to search for Martha Canter and her replacement as well. 

>> [Inaudible] you mean? 

>> [Inaudible] I mean. Sorry. 

>> Yes. We did three searches there apparently. 

>> Who is that individual and are they helping consult? 

>> John Hicks, I talked to him in fact at some length about community college searches and his experience in them. And several other colleagues have done these in other states, New York and Texas and Illinois especially. 

>> Where were you going here, Jeff? 

>> I'm trying to make sure. 

>> [Inaudible] these questions a month ago or something, but. 

>> There's a, because they have to do with the fulfillment of all these milestones on the timeline. 

>> [Inaudible] 

>> What's that? 

>> [Inaudible] timeline. 

>> Oh, okay. Because the execution of the communication with a dozen candidates, do you have the ability, I can bring it up in the contract. I'm happy to do that. 

>> Well, let's call the question. So before us is the motion to adopt the timeline with the one modification that we have made. Are we ready to do so? 

>> And I had one question, and I think I know the answer. But it seems like this is very, you know, a very functional timeline. I did hear from my committee ref that now that they've seen the timeline she might be unavailable for one of these meetings and I think the same meeting that she's unavailable for, even foundation board president Bobby Moon is unavailable for, which is an important meeting, April 23rd and 24th, is there any way to scoot that up a few days such that you might be able to capture a couple of the committee members who, you know, these are people and in a part of their life they already made some other plans. 

>> I never like to think of these timelines as being absolutely cast in stone should some emergency arise and need to be changed. But with a committee of 15, you're almost always going to find that sliding one way or the other may solve one person's problem and create a problem for somebody else. And so we certainly are able to discuss some moving, but we don't want to keep moving and keep having the same problem over and over. 

>> So I'm going to vote for the motion, but just ask if you can have that conversation with the committee and this would obviously be the standard default, but if you do have two people on the committee that have a problem, and that's a pretty important meeting, I'd appreciate it if there was a way to, and there may not be. But I trust everybody involved will do the best they can with it. So. 

>> This issue did come up yesterday, and I think it's been clear that the committee is going to try to work together and find alternative dates if possible. 

>> [Inaudible] clarification on the timelines. 

>> Okay. 

>> When is like the proactive phase of the search when, not just that we've advertised it but we're actually reaching out and touching people to know that they might not even be interested in the search? Where is that on the timeline? 

>> The recruiting period began a week ago when the advertisement opened up and it certainly starts with some greater energy, say tomorrow, when the profile opens. Because then it's an absolutely public national operation with instructions as to where to submit nominations and so forth. So the recruiting period essentially begins now and runs through, as the profile suggests, March 24th, at least as a soft deadline, because the committee meets March 26th to consider the pool and then make it's first narrowing down on people whom to make reference calls. Normally we don't like to say absolutely it's a cutoff because if someone comes in a few days later that's clearly attractive to the committee the committee should have the right to consider such a person. That's certainly the practice that we normally follow. If it turns out that the culture of the institution here needs a firmer deadline, there is that deadline that says full consideration is given to those who are candidates with full applications by March 24th. So there is effectively an active recruiting period from now, mid late January, through March 24th. And at that point we consider the pool effectively constructed and the narrowing down then takes places from March 24th into April to the visits to campus in May. 

>> All right, so I'll go over in that contract what that means, the actual aggressive reaching out and finding the right candidates. 

>> That's a two month period, the full recruiting period. Now through March 24th. 

>> Right, so somebody is not just posting things on websites, but actually making proactive. 

>> That's my responsibility. 

>> So the motion is to adopt the timeline with that modification. Those in favor please say aye. 

>> Aye. 

>> Aye. 

>> Aye. 

>> Aye. 

>> Aye. 

>> Those against? Student Trustee, advisory vote? 

>> Aye. 

>> The motion carries. We've adopted the timeline. The final item I'm going to turn to the chair of our contract's committee, Vice President Thompson, on the issue of the contract. 

>> Yes, we had the draft contract from Academic Search and I've reviewed that and also discussed it with Mary Dowell, our legal counsel and we had some questions that we have raised and we needed to take these up with Dr. Hales or whoever is the appropriate person at Academic Search. We have a copy of the current draft with questions marked up, etcetera, that we can hand out to each of the board members. But we're not in a position really to take action on that this evening. I know Trustee Bowen had raised a lot of questions, but my suggestion to you would be to take a look at the revised version of this, the questions we're raising and we can deal with that in between and we'll have it on the agenda for the February 3rd meeting to take action on. I've discussed this briefly with Dr. Hales. 

>> Good. Now with that I'm going to close out this item and hand out these more as homework reading, or at home reading. Thank you, very much. 

>> I just have a question for procedure for our board members going forward. Now that we're in the active recruitment phase, how shall our board handle suggestions, ideas, how should those [inaudible]? For example I've encouraged a consultation with the chancellor who said he'd be delighted to make himself available to discuss ideas for the search. 

>> This is an issue the sub committee raised with Dr. Hales. Would you like to [inaudible]? 

>> Absolutely, Jack Scott is certainly someone that I want to talk to. I've been on the road to come to see you and other clients, of course. I'm going to Sacramento for other purposes in the next week or so and I'm hoping to make an appointment to talk with him there. It's only about a two hour drive for me, so it's easy to do. 

>> And I'm not trying to specifically, I am very interested in making sure that happens and sooner rather than later, but I want for the board to understand how should we proceed with ideas, suggestions, concerns should they be channeled through the board sub committee on presidential search is what I want to just make clear. 

>> Okay. Let me turn to Vice President Thompson to speak to that. 

>> This is a very important issue as one that came up in conversations after the screening committee meeting yesterday because you have people on there who have basically been nominated by each of the seven of us, you have people on there representing the faculty association and other groups on campus, and so what's the communication line and it gets very difficult. And you also have to put in that nix the confidential information, because there is some information that's going to be gained about the candidates that just simply cannot be shared publicly or with anybody else. So I think where we are on this is that essentially your adhoc board liaison committee is going to be the one that tries to communicate with the screening committee in that people who are on that committee representing, for example, faculty organizations, well they can certainly talk with the organization and get input, they certainly cannot share confidential information. And they really ought not to be talking to them and sharing information about the searches, etc, etc. The obligation that they have is that the board of trustees, which is the one entity that is directing the searches, and so we are the ones that need to be in control of this and directing it with the assistance of Dr. Hales at Academic Search and the screening committee. So it's not an easy issue, but in order to control the flow of events and particularly confidential information we have to be very careful as to who communicates with whom and what can be shared, etc. And so that's perhaps a long winded way of trying to answer you question. 

>> What I'm saying is rather than 7 of us each giving Dr. Hales individual direction or having our each 15 members of the screening committee giving Dr. Hales direction it would be the board sub committee that would be charged with communicating regularly with Dr. Hales about the search. And then the board subcommittee will be keeping us informed as to what's going on. 

>> Thank you so much, Dr. Hales. We will be in touch. 

>> Remind me who's on the board subcommittee? I think Mr. Thompson is, obviously, he's doing a lot here. 

>> I'm the president of that subcommittee, Vice President Thompson is with me, Rusty Mann, the alternate is Trustee Brown. 

>> Okay. Thank you. 

>> Excuse me. We're going to turn to item H. President Sugimoto and or subcommittee chair Trustee Martin, this relates to the financial audit. 

>> Thank you very much, Dr. Bradbury Wong. Heidi White, our auditor is in the audience, I'd like her to come forward. And certainly the members of the audit subcommittee are available and will be asking some questions. But Dr. Van Pelt is to my right and so Heidi let me turn it over to you for your comments. 

>> Thank you very much. It's a real pleasure to be here this evening to present your audit report to you. As you know the district is required to undergo both a financial statement and compliance audit every year. So over the past several years I've been here in either December or January to give this information to you. And I'm really happy to give you, I think, a very positive report once again this year. We've gone over the full report with management, with the audit committee and had several areas addressed as far as questions. I'll go over those in a little bit of detail, provide some highlights to the report and then if you have specific questions, I'll open it up at that point as well. First I'd like to very pleasantly provide you with information on the independent audit report. That's our opinion on the financial statements. And the report itself, that's on page two. And if you go down to the third paragraph of that page, in our opinion the financial statements referred to above present fairly in all material respects the financial position of Pasadena Area Community College District. This is the highest level of assurance that we can give to you that the financial statements that are presented here are in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, are in accordance with federal and state guidelines and requirements of the chancellor's office audit guide and budget and accounting manuals as well. The statements themselves are paired in accordance with governmental audit standards. Statement number 34 and 35, so while you may be looking at individual funds during the year to look at the general fund, capital project fund, child development fund, these funds are essentially consolidated and combined to show you what the district as a whole has done during the year. Those statements start on page 10. and a couple of significant areas within here is during the year the district did have approximately 35 million dollars of new construction that took place all throughout campus. As you know that's been a variety of projects that have been ongoing and so your assets actually increased about 35 million for that specific purpose. During the year the district also paid down about 10 million dollars of long term obligations associated with general obligation bonds. No new bonds were issued during the year. I know that some have been issued subsequent to year end, but all of that is included here within your financial statements as of June 30th. The statements are presented on a comparative basis, so if you have some information that you've rolled over from prior year's questions or information within the report you can compare it to the same information in the current year. Page 11 is the statement of revenues, expenses and changes in net assets, which is essentially your income statement. And one of the primary areas here that I'd like to call your attention to is two specific line items. Number one is your scholarship discounts and allowances of approximately 5.7 million dollars this past year. And under operating expenses you'll see student financial aid of approximately 22.3 million dollars. During the 08-09 year the district provided over 28 million dollars directly to students in the form of either grants, loans. 

>> Can you hold on a second, I think there are people trying to catch up to you. 

>> Oh. 

>> Where do you find this on page 11? 

>> Page 11, right at the top is your student tuition and fees and down the second line it's actually showing as a negative is 5.7 million dollars. That's the scholarship discounts bog fee waivers where the students are not paying directly for their tuition. And then down under operating expenses, four lines down, is student financial aid as a separate line item there. During this year that was 22.3 million dollars. And that's the grants, the loans, federal work study is included there also. Both of those numbers represent approximately a 7 million dollar increase over what was provided to students in the 07-08 fiscal year. So quite a bit of money goes out to your students to attend the college and take advantage of the programs and services here. Included also within the financial statements are consolidated statements of the foundation. As you know the foundation does receive its own separate audit report, but because of the inter relationship between the foundation and the district, their reports are included here for you to review as well. Primarily I'll say that there's about 12.7 million dollars of assets that flow through the foundation. During the year they gave approximately 1.3 million dollars to either program support, scholarships or other dollars that flowed through over to the district as well, and that's included on pages 14 and 15 of your report. I'm going to jump a little bit more toward the back of the report to highlight some additional information. All the pages in between 12 and 15, and I'm going to have you jump to page 49, have a lot of information about the district and I certainly encourage you to review those and if you have questions I'd be happy to answer them. But on page 49 is where we normally provide you with any adjustments that were required in our audit of the financial statements of the district to bring them in line with what is presented here. As you can tell, this page is blank. We had no adjustments to the fund financial statements that were presented to you in the form of the 311 and the 311Q's during the year. So what you see presented by management is what is included here in the financial report as well. The next page that I'd like to refer you to is page 60. This is a summary of information on each of the opinions that we give. There is an addendum to that, yes. 

>> Revised 60. 

>> If you look in your packet there's probably a pullout of this as well. This is a summary of information so that you can kind of flow down and see all of the various opinions that are included here within the financial statements. Starting at the top of the financial statements, again, it was an unqualified opinion on the financial statements. And I might just let you know that an unqualified opinion does not mean that you did not qualify. That is actually, as I said, the highest level of assurance that we can provide you that the statement is in line with either federal compliance standards, state compliance standards, or accounting principles. We do have some comments that are noted in the back. None of the comments are material weaknesses, which could possibly cause a qualification to the opinion. They are considered internal control weaknesses that we've reported for correction. Under federal awards, as you saw the district had about 24 million dollars in that one line item for student financial aid. The majority of that is provided by the federal government. We had no comments of non compliance. We had no issues that had to be reported to the federal agencies as being non compliant. And that opinion is also unqualified. The correction that you have there is the question did the auditee qualify as a low risk auditee? Anytime that we have a federal compliance comment that is in the report, and two years ago there was a comment on the schedule of expenditures of federal awards, that then required us to report to the federal agencies and changed you from a low risk auditee to a non low risk auditee. What that means is that we have to audit the programs more diligently. We have to expand our testing from only 25 percent of your programs to fully 50 percent. We do that through the student financial aid grants. It does not impair your ability to receive federal grants or contracts and it does not put you on any type of a watch list from the federal agencies. It's more of an audit perspective. That is required for three years after a federal compliance requirement. The last one was two years ago, so we're hoping this next year we'll be able to put you back on the list as being a low risk auditee. We also have a variety of compliance areas that we look at for state compliance. There's about 12 areas that the state chancellor's office has specifically asked us to address from a compliance standpoint. We did have a comment in one area related to students actively enrolled, which I'll go over in just a minute. Other than that the opinion is unqualified. So that will go directly to the state chancellor's office in that format. The next section does go over some various comments that we have for you. These are internal control weaknesses and cover a variety of areas. And I don't want to go over each one individually. I would direct you to read the comment, look at management's response. We felt they were very proactive in addressing the comments that were being made. But there are two that I would like to call your attention to. One of them is 2009-2, which relates to your current contracts related to remote banking. There is a specific IRS requirement that states that if an employee has the ability to direct when their pay is actually reported, they've constructively received that pay at the time it is earned and you have to do federal withholdings and backup and withholdings. Currently your contract for remote banking does give your employees the discretion to say after a period of time, I'd like to have that paid to me, which is in direct conflict with what the IRS code section is. And I know that that is being addressed, but there is a deviation between your contract and IRS code at this point in time so we did want to point that out so that you did have the chance to make the correction. The other comment, as I said, was a state compliance requirement. This is students actively enrolled. It requires instructors to go through their rolls on census day and report those students who remain in class. And there is an internal control weakness in that information does not always come up to the registrar's office, admissions and records in a timely manner so that you can clear the rolls. And we've made some suggestions in that area to increase the internal controls, make sure that that information is reported appropriately, the 320 attendance report then has a higher level of assurance of being accurate. So we've reviewed the comments. That is a comment that I'm pointing out because it has been in place for two years. So there is a little bit more of an impeded, or not impeded, what do you call it? Get it corrected. So to get that part of it done. The last part of the report is the comments that we made last year. And as you go through and look at them I think one thing that you should be very happy about is the number of them that are completely implemented, are not carryovers. In fact the only one that is a carry over is that state compliance area related to students actively enrolled. So the one thing we look at when we're looking at comments is how quickly does management take corrective action? Is the corrective action appropriate and does it resolve the issue? And from this standpoint you can say yes, it does. I know that's a real brief overview. And I know some of you this may be the first time that you're looking at this audit report in this manner, so if there are questions, if there are things I can clarify in another way, I'd be happy to do that. 

>> Very good. I would also turn to Trustee Martin. 

>> A few quick comments from the committee. First, actually, just listening to what you said about the load banking, if I heard you correctly, there's a, there's almost more of a burden on the employee to make sure that that's rectified then on the institution because they're the ones who immediately are going to be paying tax whether they use it or not, if I understood what you just said. 

>> Correct, it is then subject to all federal and state. 

>> See we need the district to work with the teams and get all that straightened out. But it's really a burden for the employee who's going to get slammed. 

>> Correct. 

>> From the committee, one of the questions the committee asked is we do have a board goal to attempt to end the year, you know, in the black, pursuant to budget. And so, we asked specifically, did we end the year in the black. The answer to that question is available on page 79. There's parts to page 79. But, I'm looking more specifically now to the general unrestricted fund. And, if you look down to the bottom of the general unrestricted fund, you will see that, thanks to the hard work of this entire institution as we were going through a very difficult year, we really did end the year in the black and not just, coincidentally, that amount is about 2.6, 2.7 million dollars, which is the amount that we said we were going to move into this year's budget. Remember, when we prepared this year's budget, we offered up about 2.7 million dollars beyond our income to balance this year's budget. And so, you can see here where the hard work of the institution afforded us the opportunity to do that. And, in essence, the board met its goals. So, this is kind of like the exclamation point on the end of what was a difficult year but yet really a job well done by many, many people. The committee met privately with the auditor separate without any staff present. The auditor was, is very complimentary of the staff. And, in particular, we've had the same auditor now, well, for several years. And, in the last three or four years, the VP that they've been working with has been different just about every year, the VP of finance. And so, in those kinds of circumstances, many times, an institution, you know, one person has one style and another person has another style. And, sometimes, the main goals get missed. But, the auditors were very impressed with the consistency of the team throughout all of the changes in the top position of financial management in the institution and quick to point out that, as we've always said every year, we have a couple of pillars in the finance department named Odessa and Sherry who we have a lot to be grateful there for helping that consistency and that stability. So, kudos to, for sure, Odessa and Sherry and, I'm sure, many others for their hard work and their consistency even though the VP seems to have been changing recently. So, I think, we actually had two audit subcommittee meetings. So, we talked for about a total of three hours about the report trying to bring it to a summary, the things that you just heard here. I'm very appreciative of Heidi and the whole team for their work. And, I'm hoping Juan is noting that 28 million dollars in scholarships. It's a, to me, it's a tremendous story that people just don't understand that, you know, we have 30,000 students here, we have 28 million dollars in scholarships. This institution is really doing a lot for a lot of people in this community. And, this is just a financial way of saying it. So, I think, it was a great year with some tremendous successes. We always ask the question because we're always concerned about our postretirement benefits. This is the first report that had to reflect those postretirement benefits in the financials. It's a little bit hard to see because they are a subset f the column on page, where, internal service fund, I think that's page. 

>> Page 81. 

>> Eighty, and eighty one. And they're a subset of that. And, for this next year, we actually have a different department name where those are broken out where we can track them better. But, the district is on track with its plan to fully fund some postretirement benefits according to our plan. And, for that matter, there's some actuaries that have been done and are being done and there's a possibility we may even be ahead in our funding a little bit on that. We're going to wait to get all that data as it comes through. So, I think, Mr. Thompson and Mr. Bum were a part of that grilling that we went through. And, if there's something I missed, I'd sure encourage them to help out here. 

>> I'll just add, again, we were very pleased with the audit. And it shows the financial strength of this institution, also the physical management of this institution is redounded to the benefit of the employees and the students of this institution that we have, we have security in being able to fund the retirement, the postretirement benefits, we have the funding that will put us in a much stronger state as we weather the next year or two of uncertainty on the state level. The findings were of concern to me, especially one that was carried over for two years that rest with the, with our institutional credibility with the state are the enrollment numbers that we're reporting accurate. And so, I will ask for the administration to get back to us with a report as to how that is being addressed so that it doesn't show up as a finding next year, and so, in working with the campus constituents. And, my only other request is, I feel so strongly about this, I'd like to make sure it's as assessable to the public as possible and what is as transparent as possible so that, to what extent is possible, I'd like it to be posted online and shared with the, have it so that somebody doesn't have to come to campus to actually see our audit. But it's available to everybody. 

>> Just one comment. I think, both John and Jeff have basically covered it. But, I want to emphasize one point John made, that, we did meet privately with Heidi and grilled her on the performance of Dr. Van Pelt and Odessa and others. And, no matter what we'd say they'd keep coming back saying they're doing an excellent job. So, I mean, and I'm joking when I'm saying that too. No, they, she was very, very complimentary with respect to our entire staff including Lisa Sugimoto. And so, I think, we're in good hands and we should be very grateful to that and the community needs to know that. We're provided, or, being provided with very good leadership and, I think, all three of you and the entire staff are doing exactly that. 

>> And, I thank the committee and your leadership, Trustee Martin and Bowen and Thompson on this, obviously, very important item. It's a discussion item. We won't be taking any action. If folks have questions, please signal to me. Otherwise, I believe, we now dispend the audit committee, at least for now. And so, I thank you for your perseverance, for your conscientiousness, for your diligence and look to my colleagues to see if there's a question. Seeing none, let's move on to the next item. Excuse me. This is a status report on budget. We'll take a brief presentation because it also piggybacks on the retreat and just gives us a brief. 

>> I'm sorry, we've got a point of order. 

>> I'm sorry, go ahead. 

>> Point of order. 

>> We really should receive the audit. So, there should be a vote to receive the audit. 

>> We did receive the audit. 

>> No that was a, that was a draft. This is the final audit. 

>> I move that we receive the audit. 

>> Point of order, it's not on here as an action item. It's only on as discussion. We'll have to receive it the next meeting. 

>> And, we could put that, possibly, as a consent item for the next meeting. 

>> Is there a deadline by which we have to do this? 

>> No, it's been submitted to the chancellor's office by December the 31st. 

>> Yes it was submitted. 

>> So, it's been submitted. 

>> That's my understanding. It's been submitted. EBCO does show that it does need to go and be received by the board. In general, we see that that is a general receiving of a, of a report. Obviously, your minutes will reflect the discussion and will reflect that, yes you do have it. But, it may be a good thing and might be more of a legal part of it, but, I think, having it as something that you do, actually, receive is probably appropriate. 

>> And we would be, we could put it on the February third agenda to receive, the final report. 

>> Okay, as a consent, as a consent item. 

>> Right. 

>> As a draft. 

>> That's fine. 

>> May I also ask Dr. Bradbury Wong that since, in fact, we've got the status report and the budget next, but, after that, could we have, I'm a little concerned, we do have a presentation by one of the members of our management team that would, maybe, we could put after that which would be G, our transfer report, so, not to keep her sitting. 

>> Very good, so, we'll go with budget, accreditation, and then transfer. Or, you would prefer transfer and then accreditation? 

>> Yes that would be fine. 

>> Sure, no problem. 

>> Very good. So, as I was saying about budget, President Sugimoto, we'll turn that over to you. This is also piggybacking on our expensive retreat discussion. 

>> Thank you Dr. Bradbury Wong. And I have Dr. Van Pelt now, at the left turn ready to fire his computer up. Thank you. 

[ Silence ] 

>> Okay. What I want to talk tonight about is the economic budget background briefly. We'll talk about the governor's budget, the budget implications for PCC, and then the next steps. This is a quotation from Paul Steenhausen from the Legislative Analyst Office last Friday. The budget problem is massive, staggering, and truly awful. 

[ Laughter ] One of the challenges is that the fundamentals of the economy are backward. And, they're not necessarily getting any stronger. So, to say that the fundamentals are lamentable is, probably, a pretty accurate statement. The reason for that is, California gets its revenues from, primarily, three sources, sales taxes, income taxes, and property tax revenues. And, when you see that the graph of what's been occurring economically, you start to understand what the problem is. So, this is the taxable sales, and you can see the plummeting that's occurred. There's been a little bounce back. But there's a question about whether that's a permanent bounce or whether that's just a blip. In terms of the U.S. unemployment, again, you can see how it shot up recently. And, California, of course, is significantly north of that. This is an interesting one. California employment, by industry, what you can see here is that construction is off by about 16 or 17%. All the major sectors are down with the exception of one which is education and health services. You can even see that, last year, it dropped by about half of what it was the previous year. Meeting home prices, here's another shocker. We started out about 200,000 dollars median. We went about 500,000 dollars. And, we've dropped, almost, all the way back to about 200,000. That has direct implications, obviously, for the funding of property tax revenues. 

>> Forgive me. Forgive me Dr. Van Pelt. If we could focus in on the PCC relevant items. 

>> Okay, and it'll only be just one second. I just want to say that, in terms of where we are for PCC, in terms of the future, it is truly flat. And, it's flat for a series of reasons. Part of the question is will there be a bounce next year or the year after? And, what I'm suggesting is that, for PCC that cannot occur because the budget itself is not recovering fast enough. So, in terms of looking forward, and, we're not just looking forward to the next year but the year after that as well, we cannot expect that there's going to be an economic recovery to bounce us back again. One of the things that we were told last Friday, Odessa and I went to Sacramento. And, Eric Skinner said be cautious in your local planning. We're used to the ebbs and flows of the budget to where we always just rise back up again the following year or shortly thereafter. That will not occur this time. This is going to be a far longer occasion. So, in terms of how we operate, we've got the great recession that occurred and we view that as a roadblock. And reality is that that's a lock. And what's happening is that the water level has now dropped. And, in order for us to move forward, we have to understand that there's a new reality on the campus and budgetarily [assumed spelling] of where we have to move. Here's another thing that Eric Skinner said, is that the governor's budget that was presented just a couple of weeks ago on January the eighth, normally, there are two issues. You have upside potential and downside risk. And, what Eric Skinner, again, said is that this is the best case scenario. There is no upside potential only downside risk. That means that, what the governor proposed for us just a couple of weeks ago is, undoubtedly, not going to occur. So, in balancing the budget, we always have this challenge of the expenses and the revenues. And what we have to do is, we've got to go through and sort out the credit versus the noncredit. This was one of the specific things that was told to us is that ping pong was one of the things that was brought up that we have actually addressed whether we do the credit or the noncredit. I'm just going to skip through. In terms of what the governor's proposing, there is not chance that what the governor proposed will actually carry forward. In terms of what it means for us, specifically, there's not going to be a student fee increase according to what the governor proposed. He's also recommending a negative COLA. CAL grants suspending those categorical flexibility 2.2% enrollment growth. And again, we've been told that will not occur for us. That will be scrubbed. Fulltime faculty application, they're recommending a suspension, mandate suspension which is a challenge. More funding deferrals, again, I'm not addressing the cash flow for this year. However, it's a real concern because we've already been warned that there's going to be a funding deferral. Here's another one from Eric Skinner's that we're ahead at the end of the first quarter. But, that's just about it. We still have three more quarters to go. Scott Lay said that this will be the largest influx from high school ever passed and in the foreseeable future. And, he's actually proposing some interesting things in terms of raising the tuition. And, I'll skip through that one. Here's what our next steps are is that we're about to reconvene the ADHOC budget committee which is made up of the resource advisory committee, the executive committee, and the board of trustees budget subcommittee. What we have to do there is to go through the specific recommendations and too we're going to do an analysis. We will do options. We're going to come up with contingencies. And then, finally, we'll come back to the board of trustees for the budget adoption. Here's where we currently sit is at the fiscal midpoint. We have had a very conservative expenditure pattern. Almost all sectors of our budget are under budget. And, we continue to track and monitor the expenses to make sure that that continues throughout the balance of the year. Another thing that has happened which is very noteworthy that's just starting is the enrollment management advisory group so that we can actually start to identify and right size course offerings and so forth in order to insure that the coming years have the correct mix of programs. And any questions? 

>> Thank you Dr. Van Pelt. 

>> Comments. 

>> [Inaudible]. 

>> I'm going to pose a very difficult question for you. In addition to the cuts to the sections and the courses offered, are we going to have to, additionally, cut more sections for our students? 

>> Well, and, certainly that's one of the options. I don't, I don't have any prejudgment. We have to get the ADHOC committee together. And, we're going to go through an analysis and come up with the best possible recommendations. In the end, we're all in this together. So, it's not necessarily my view of how it will occur. In terms of how we balance the FTS numbers and so forth, those are, those are discussions that require broad participation. 

>> May I ask you to leave up that slide? I thought it was very handy reminding us all that is. Did I see Trustee Mann? 

>> Yes. I do have a question. You probably can't answer it off the top of your head. I'm sure you can't. But, when the, when the governor's budget came out, there were specific cuts like 3% negative COLA, 2% aroma growth, etcetera. And, we've got numbers tied to that. I requested that we have those numbers for PCC. I mean, even though those numbers may be fantasy land, I would like to see what that would have meant specifically for us. I don't think that many people are interested seeing posted on our website what's going to happen for the whole system unless it's interpreted for us. So, that is what I was hoping we would, we would see. Now, I heard very clearly you say that Eric Skinner said that this isn't going to, this isn't going to happen. These numbers are the best it's going to get. There's isn't any upside. But, at least, it would've given us some idea of where someone thinks we're going. So, I would hope that, in the future when these, because I know that throughout the budget process, there's a series of points where we get updates from the governor and the legislature and so on. I'd really like to see those, as far as possible, interpreted as to exactly what it means for PCC. And, as a member of the board of trustees budget subcommittee, that's a different kind of information that I hope that we, that we get. 

>> Well, and understand that we got this information Friday afternoon from the chancellor's office in the act of conference so that there's widespread discussion about what all this means. And there's a digestion from the chancellor's office of what the numbers meant from the governor. And, we have a book on that. So, it will be interpreted for PCC. But, this is very current information that just we received just literally Friday. So, by the next time, we will have more direct information. But, of course, this is going to be a continual flow now so that the board will be kept up to date continually. 

>> Very good. I think that is a good recommendation to the budget committee. So, I'm not seeing any other signals. Thank you very much Dr. Van Pelt. We will see you often. Moving then to the next item which is the transfer, transfer report presentation Dr. Sugimoto. 

>> Yes thank you Dr. Bradbury Wong. It's my pleasure to have Stewart Wilcox introduce our next presenter. 

>> Thank you Dr. Sugimoto. I, in turn, would like to introduce Dena Chase the director of the college's outreach degree and transfer services to give you an annual update on student transfer. 

>> Good evening. I know that the board received a report and also a handout. And, if you will indulge me, I'll provide the audience a brief presentation just highlighting the report. Transfers to CAL State and UC's in 2008 and 09 totaled 1,787. We were expecting a small dip in the number of transfers due to the budget reductions at the public universities. We can see that we actually saw them come through. UC transfers numbered 565. We actually took a slight inch upward. But, the CAL State's again where we saw the drops. Overall, the college ranked fourth in transfers to CAL State and UC's, one rank higher than the previous year. It also ranked fourth in transfers to the University of California and fourth in transfers to the California State University. When we look at colleges that are demographically close to ours, we see that PCC ranked second in transfers to CAL State and to the UC's. The Asian Pacific Islanders and the Latino Chicanos were the largest ethnic populations that transferred. And, those are reflective of the largest ethnic groups we have here enrolled at the college. The number one UCLA UC campus was UCLA again. And, the number one CAL State campus was CAL State LA. When we look at enrollment for California independent universities, from 2000 to 2003, most of our data was actually from the universities themselves, a little bit provided by CPK. It wasn't until 2004 that we started to receive some information from the National Clearinghouse. And, from that point, we see that the number of transfers from the independent California institutions has actually increased. What was interesting is that, between the years 2000 and 2003, we had a range of between six and seventeen universities responding to us telling us how many of our students were enrolled there. From 2004 to 2007, the number of institutions reporting back to us ranged from 24 to 54. But, the number of students attending those institutions increased which means that, the number of universities reporting to us stayed relatively the same. But, the number of students that were transferring there actually increased. Out of state enrollment, we first started getting numbers from them in 2004, and despite a dip between 06 and 07, we've really increased by 34% the number of transfers to out of state public and independent institutions. If we were to take a look at our CAL State, UC, and independent California institutions as well as transfers out of state, we see that there's been an upward trend. And, the transfer trends, for community colleges, will be increased enrollment. The UC's were over enrolled by just under 12,000 students in 2008, 2009. And, they're waiting on their recommendations for enrollment for 2010, 2011 reductions. Some of the CAL State's are going to be reducing their enrolment by 10.8%. And the three that are going to affect PCC the most are Northridge, Fullerton, and Long Beach. So, what are some of our action plans? Well, to keep focused on what our mission is and that is to prepare our students in the best capable way we can, to try to fuse together some of the elements of instructions, student services, and technologies so we can provide them services and the courses that they need in order to meet their goals. We want to work with our public and private universities and increase some of the cooperative initiatives that have already begun. If we can, link some financial aid components to the transfer admission guarantee programs that we have and continue to explore some of the redirecting of transfer applications that we currently have with some of our four year universities as well as some of the data sharing project that we started last year with UC. We want to accelerate our proactive prescreening project where we can notify students of their transfer status and their degree status and begin a think college campaign at our K through 12 institutions. That concludes my presentation. I'm happy to entertain any questions. 

>> Thank you. Trustee Bowmen. 

>> This is always one of my favorite reports of the year. And, I really want to take my hat off to you and the rest of the team because it just shows the effectiveness of our institution and meeting a core goal of transfer and to continue to have a record year in transfers to the UC's. The councils really seems to be working it. And, you see the UC's that we transferred to, our top five are among the most competitive UC's in the entire system, Berkeley, UCLA, San Diego, these are, these are hard to get into institutions. And, with respect to the numbers, one number that I'm missing, which I always like to see too is, you've provided a report in the past, a lot of the independents and out of states, like, over the past five years we've transferred ten students to Harvard or fifteen students to Princeton or something like that. And, I always liked seeing that so I can go out to the community and say PCC not only provides a pathway to the publics but also some of the most competitive institutions in the country, so. 

>> Last year's report, I believe, gave some of the numbers from 2005 to 2007. And, I can send those to you. Those are the most recent we have was 2007 from the National Clearinghouse. And I'll be happy to send that to you. 

>> Sure. I just like being able to find it. My question for the board too is, we're always talking about technology, given what we are keeping told about our antiquated technology system here on campus, how are we able to use technology effectively in helping students? 

>> Well, considering our rubber band and chewing gum, I think we're doing as best as we can. I know that you received, in your packet, also some information on a report from the chancellor's office on what we really need to do system wide to improve transfer. And, a couple of recommendations in that report is to look at efficiency and providing information in a way that's easy to understand. And, you know, I've been in meetings and we've discussed this about how difficult, sometimes, we make the pathways for students to understand what they have to take to get to where they want to go to do whatever it is that they're going to do. And, I think that, some of our electronic tools like the transfer requirement tool is a first step. And, considering the technology that's available right now at the campus, it is a good first step because it does shed some of the confusion about what courses do I need if I'm going to transfer to UCLA and I want to major in art. We have another in house system that we put together several years ago about 2004, 2005 to help with the transcript prescreening where it basically enters the student's data, the courses that they've taken here at the college and allows us to identify how close they are in meeting their, I guess, their CSU requirements. 

>> So what you said, you've been able to develop some tools even given the current resources we have available. Two other quick points, this enrollment trend, it says, which I really am glad to see it, 3,400 students transferred to any institution that we're aware of. That number is pretty good when you think of we have an FTE of about 21,000 at PCC. At least, it seems strong to me because sometimes we're concerned about we only have a couple hundred or a thousand students transferring. And, this shows we almost have over 3,400. the last only other issue of concern would be, as you look at the ethnicity, the African American transfer numbers seem much lower than other groups. I mean, we have a lower population. But, it's, I just hope that we're continuing to find ways to transfer African American students, when you see only seven last year transferred to UC's that seems low. 

>> Most definitely. There are several programs on campus that service our students, especially underrepresented populations. And, if you were to take a look at, system wide, number of African American students transferring to UC's or CAL States, you're not going to see big numbers even on those campuses that have high African American population. I think that there are issues and concerns for all of our students and particularly for those that are underrepresented first generation college going students. And, programs like the one the college has like EUGEMA and several others, you know, try to nurture what that student's interest is and where they're going to go. And then, we have to also take into account some of the external factors that we, as a college, don't really have any control over. 

>> Thank you for a mostly uplifting, a few little leavening points to your presentation. Thank you so much. Trustee Minn. 

>> I know it's hard to see them on both sides. I just had a question. You said we had something in our packet from the chancellor's office. I didn't see anything from the chancellor's office. There's something here from Nancy Schulock. 

>> That's correct. It is not from the chancellor's office. 

>> Oh okay. 

>> The article that is in your packets is from Nancy Schulock which is more policy statement. 

>> Yeah, okay, all right, fine. 

>> Excuse me. 

>> That's all right. The only comment I wanted to make is, you know, this is very, very controversial. And, Nancy Schulock's work is not very well accepted in the community college system. So, I would just assume not, I have read all of these reports, every word of them. I just assume never see them again. 

[ Laughter ] 

>> I have said. 

>> That's how I really feel about it. 

[ Laughter ] 

>> And I have said, and I've said this before, I happen to appreciate Nancy Schulock's reports because sometimes she comes up with some honesties. So, I may beg to differ on some of that. I know that she is controversial in the community colleges and has been for a while. But, I think, sometimes, she does come up with key statements that we need to address. Also, in your packets, though, you received research findings from the IPR, from IPRO on PCC students making faster progress towards transfer. I believe you received this, probably, in November. But, because it was timely given Dena's report, I thought it would be good to include that one more time for your information. 

>> It was very helpful. It's a very nice summary. Very good thank you. 

>> Thank you. Let's move on to the next item, accreditation update also for discussion only. 

>> Thank you Dr. Bradbury Wong. I've got two of our people, if Crystal Koross [assumed spelling] and Bob Miller would take the lead on this, I'd appreciate it. 

>> Go ahead. 

>> Thank you Dr. Sugimoto. First of all, we just, the steering committee would like to welcome Dr. Bradbury Wong to the steering committee. We welcome [inaudible] to our dialogue. So, and I'd just like to say that task force one has been making some really great progress. If you'll see, we added more detail today with the direction that they're taking us with regards to the program review and planning. And, I think that, even since we wrote this, which was last Thursday or Friday, we've made even more progress in our meeting yesterday. So, we look forward to presenting you with more details over the next month. And, one more item is Dr. Wright has provided us with the first draft of the follow up report. Unfortunately it's a paper draft. So, we're working on paper right now. But, it is out there and the task force is looking at it. And, we hope to have that to you within a month also. 

>> So all is well. Is that the? 

>> All is well. 

>> That's what it boils, that's what it boils down to which is always good news. Thank you so much. Dr. Bradbury Wong. 

>> I think the key question, and I want to present this and ask Miss Koross if she would answer it. Are we on target for making sure that we send to the accreditation commission our information to be taken off warning and when will that be sent? 

>> So, let's turn now to item K, educational master plan update and timeline for discussion only, also piggybacks on the extensive discussion that we had of the retreat. 

>> Thank you Dr. Bradbury Wong. Bob Miller up to the plate. 

[ Silence ] 

[ Background talking ] 

>> Good evening. I would like to direct your attention to the updated project schedule that is in, that you've been handed and that is on the screen here. And really, what I want to do is, I want you to really look, primarily, at the bottom of that, of that timeline. And, note that it starts January and takes us through June which is the second half of the process that we are engaged in right now. The first thing that you see is the emerging issues. And, you might recall, at the retreat a couple of weeks back, we talked about these documents. And, in fact, they were, we talked about the 58 issues that are organized in these critical questions, if you will, under programs, staff, facilities and infrastructure, internal processes, communication, and resources. So, that work continues as we, as we move forward here. The next thing I want to draw your attention to is the community survey. And, basically, what we're doing, this survey, we use the 58 emerging issues that we have identified as a base, if you will, of the surveys to help validate and prioritize the issues that were identified. This survey was based upon six inquiry questions. How do we meet our core mission for student success? How do we deliver efficient education? How do we insure we're a 21st century learning institution? And, how do we build and maintain a sense of community? What are our real facility needs? And, how do we diversify funding sources? So, the point being that, this survey is going to reach out to the community. We will be reaching out to elected officials. We will be reaching out to former students. We will be reaching out to chambers of commerce. We will be reaching out to those that are on our town hall mailing list, etcetera, literally thousands of people we will be sending this survey document to which will reference back to that six critical issues tied to these inquiry questions that I just, that I just spoke to. Moving on to the program questionnaire, this is a questionnaire that's currently being completed by our deans and our student learning services managers. And, it's a tool that we will use to gather information about the trends and the success and needs for each of our programs here at PCC. The deans and managers are using the existing information that we have in our current program reviews, which we uploaded and provided them to develop, well, and to add information to and then to develop a more comprehensive program evaluation model this is all going to be based upon. So, this work continues now, takes us into February, then by the end or the middle, the latter part of February, we're going to be having the results of our community survey. And then, if you begin to go up to the top of the chart real quick, you'll see that we have a series of meetings and discussions. Starting in March, we hope to have, and hopefully we'll have scheduled at the March third meeting, a working session with the board where our consultants from MIG and staff will present to you the information that's been gleaned from the community survey, from some of the program questionnaire materials etcetera and begin to provide you an opportunity for specific feedback as it relates to the information we share with you. Then, as you move along, we now get into what we call the preliminary educational program evaluation. And, this is really where the rubber begins to meet the road, so to speak, where we're going to provide recommendations based upon the existing program reviews that we've done, identified new programs through the process that the deans, the managers, and all the work that we've done has taken us through. Via the information that's in the environmental scan, we'll be providing growth projections for existing and new programs. Really, we will be using all the data that was gathered in phase one which is basically the data gathering phase as it relates to the town halls, the environmental scans, and all the internal focus groups and forums that we did. Then, we'll refine the educational program recommendations we will bring a preliminary draft of the educational master plan to you for your attention on, in May. There'll be discussions, ongoing discussions with the board. There's a Spring retreat scheduled for April 21st. And we hope to have time during that retreat to share these findings and information with you and seek input from you. We will be working with our educational master plan and steering committee which has members of this board on it. And, there should be ample opportunity for input and discussion not only from our, with our board but also with the campus community in general. I would also like to draw your attention to a town hall meeting port out that we are, that we are scheduling right now for early May. And, in our planning, we are think that, by that time, we will have a great deal of information. And, that information will be at the point of making firm recommendations. And that would be the most opportune time to share the information that we have with the community and then get feedback from them as a result of that. That would be a public outreach effort that, where we would reach out, invite specifically twist arms as necessary in the appropriate way. We would ask you for your assistance to get certain influence people, change agents, what have you, to come to these meetings and to actively participate. And, we feel that, by May, we will be in the position to communicate that group clearly and seek their input. Then, we get to the tail end of this which is the final draft to the educational master plan and in the final plan itself that we hope to bring to this body by the end of June for adoption. At your February third meeting, and in your board packets, we will provide you some very specific information. There will be a memo that expands on the information that was requested at the retreat answering some of the questions that some of the board members posted regarding the methodology used to develop the emerging issues, etcetera. We'll also bring or provide in those packets a reminder of a document that we, that is basically dated November ninth, it's the town hall overall summary memorandum which in four or five pages summarize the key points from all the town halls. We'll have the environmental scan executive summary ready for your review and consideration. And then, we will have the final, what I call the emerging issues memorandum, which was that which was given to you in draft form dated December 12th, it was given to the educational master plan subcommittee and I shared pieces of it then. So, the we will continue this process providing you susceptive information that you can then respond to in various forms. I did want to bring to your attention and bring these up to your attention one more time. These are the ten emerging themes that were identified. And, I want to be very clear on this that these things are not intended to be adopted. They are just used as an organizing tool to discuss the focus and direction for the college as the EMP planning process continues. They were identified at a point and time. Our goal is basically to begin through the community survey process, through our internal activities, through the focus groups and forms that we're doing, through the planning activities that the deans and the managers are engaged in right now, to begin to refine and focus those down to some other number and likely a lower number and be able to come back with data and supporting information that shows why these are the priorities that the educational master plan should begin to consider going forward. So, what I tried to do tonight is just give you a little bit of an update as to where we are right now, provide you a timeline that shows where we are going and how we're going to get there through the end of June, and give you a sense and a little small preview, if you will, of the materials you will have going forward. 

>> Thank you so much Dr. Miller. So, before moving on, does anybody have any questions on the update? Trustee Bowen. 

>> I have a couple of things. First off, just to put this into perspective for what it means for PCC as far as resources, I did have inserted, in everybody's packet, a four page, a four item single page PowerPoint slides that were presented at the board of governors last week. And, if you have a moment to pull those out, it looks like this. And, what I, the importance of this can't be underestimated. We are going to need resources to expand our facilities and our campus. And, you'll see that the state has already had more than several billion dollars in the pipeline to give to campuses for capital projects. And, just two quick points, the second slide on the top is the academic plan is what defines, is the first step that the state is going to look at before it awards any capital funding to us. And, you'll see the basic components of the five year capital outlay plan. The, one of the top five items is the districting campus educational plan. So, the state is going to look at this plan and use it as a guideline whether it's to award Pasadena area community college district funding for capital improvements to our districts. And you'll see just that the categories on the bottom right, those are the priorities that the state will be using to award the projects that the state will be funding given what funding is available. So, I just, I just wanted everybody to have that information so that what we adopt here is going to be what we're going to use to not only the voters of our community but the state in getting additional resources to improve the campus. Two things because I just, I'm seeing this for the first time. The community survey, what's the, what's the methodology that you'll be using to get it out there? And, is it going to be a scientifically generated survey? Or, is it going to be, if I can get 25 friends to say we should start yoga and fill out an online form that will, I can [inaudible]? 

>> That's an interesting suggestion, maybe we'll consider that. 

>> Right. 

>> As I was mentioning, we're going to develop this survey around those six inquiry questions. And, each one of those questions, you might recall from a previous presentation that, the way that we organize things A through F in terms of programs, faculty, staff, what have you, that under those enquiry questions, for example how do we meet our core mission for student success, we're going to, basically and scientifically, if you will, develop a matrix or a likert scale of six range likert scale asking questions about how people feel about these A through F items that are really reflections of those 58 issues. 

>> So, the instrument will have scientific measures that will be accurate. But, the sample itself is self selected. Who wants to? 

>> For example, the sample itself, I was talking to Crystal this afternoon, we have email addresses for 10,000 students for example. We have email addresses for people that were tied to our ribbon cutting. We're going to, basically, go to every email list that the college has both internally and externally to move this out. 

>> And then, you'll be able to then say well students give these responses. There'll be some demographic data within the survey instrument that we can actually see. 

>> Yes, one of the things. 

>> Calling for. 

>> We're going to try and find a way, and in the meeting Crystal and I, probably, I think it's Friday, to begin to think of ways to code to determine, first of all to develop categories elected officials like, you know, chamber of, you know, whatever, however we might be able to organize these things and try to code it so we can have some sense of where the responses are coming from so that the data is, as you're indicating, is not skewed. 

>> Right. 

>> One way or the other. 

>> Well, it's just because I see some great students here who are very active in seeds of change and other groups. And they're very organized and I want to be able to understand their responses and interpret that within the information that we're getting. 

>> Absolutely. 

>> Too, so the last part of it is how, when will we have an opportunity to induce priorities within the master plan? So, we can decide, the surveys and the, RML scan could say yoga is what we need to really add to our curriculum. But, I personally feel that the message we're getting from Sacramento I might want to formalize into our master plan saying we need to focus on basic skills, career tech, and transfer. And so, how do, how can I, as a trustee, kind of put those priorities. 

>> There are, at least, two ways, one of which is, at the March third meeting, assuming that Dr. Bradbury Wong and Dr. Sugimoto, you know, agendadize [assumed spelling]. MIG will come down and will in fact be here so you'll have a chance to talk to them, to talk to staff about your interests your priorities, what have you, that'd be one way. A second way is through the education master plan steering committee process. And, of course, a third way is to just contact me or contact anyone who feels appropriate. And, we'll be happy to make sure we address those issues. 

>> But, we as a board will be adopting that master plan. 

>> That's correct. 

>> On behalf of the district. 

>> In June. 

>> In June. 

>> In June. 

>> Or, it's. 

>> Not in March. 

>> The target is in June. 

>> Yes. 

>> So that, we can then say we've taken in all the information, you've done a good job. MIG's provided its data. And, we still think that Allied Health Professions is an area that we need to expand. 

>> Absolutely. 

>> And, then, expand our facilities, and that's going to be an important, an instructional capability, capacity for that. 

>> Absolutely correct. 

>> Or, serving underrepresented students within the Pasadena unified school district or something like that. 

>> Yes, yes. 

>> Very good. In a perfect world, we will be adopting with a new president. So, that will also be a beautiful [inaudible]. Very good, very good thank you very much. 

>> Thank you. 

>> Dr. Miller. 

>> If I may, I can't sit anymore. As much as I would like to say I finished my dissertation, I just finished my coursework last May and I'm working on my dissertation. So, I'm not quite a doctor yet but I'm working on it. 

>> You're an ABD. 

>> I'm ABD at the moment. 

>> All right. 

>> So, thank you. 

>> All but dissertation. But, it's the best. 

>> Okay. 

>> Item M, board process and objectives also brings us back to work we did at the retreat. May I turn to Vice President Thompson? 

>> You have, in your packet, just a listing of the things of the two groups that we broke into listed as important and guiding principles for our work values that will give rise to our work. And we've listed them here, work ethic, teamwork, service, integrity, impact, honesty, compassion, slash, social justice. And, these apply to the board. But, we hope, also, that they will be values and we know they are values that are throughout the college and the different entities that are within the college itself. So, we invite discussion on this or questions, but, this is what we heard and what was taken down at the retreat. And, we would propose these be the guiding values that we look to as we move forward particularly as we now are launching into the process of looking for new superintendent president, and I would say, in general, guiding us as we work together collaboratively for the betterment of PCC and this marvelous institution. 

>> Would you care to make a motion to that effect? 

>> I would be happy to make a motion that these would be the values that we would adopt and that would guide us as we move forward throughout this academic year. 

>> Good, may I have a second? 

>> I second. 

>> Thank you Trustee Brown. Trustee Mann. 

>> Yes, I still am concerned that the college, after the last accreditation, not the most recent one, but the one before that, spent a lot of time developing institutional core values which appear on our business card. And, it was my understanding that we were going to try to take these values, which came out of one exercise by, you know, seven people for two hours whereas this was the work of, you know, hundreds of people over almost a year and try to, at least, integrate them. The, my concern is, if you look at the institutional core values, number one is a passion for learning. It seems to me like that's a core value that we should just not drop. Commitment to integrity, obviously we have integrity. Appreciation for diversity, you could make that social justice. Respect for collegiality, team work. And recognition of our heritage of excellence, I see nothing here about excellence. I would rather move that the board adopt the college values than adopt values which came out of an hour and a half exercise at the last retreat. 

>> Very good. Any other comments? Trustee Martin. 

>> I think the question that we were asked at the retreat that facilitated these answers is slightly different than the question that's being proposed on the page. The way I remember the question is it was what was the, what were, not necessarily what values that I foresee for the institution but the question was more what is the value I as an individual is getting out of participating on the board at PCC which is a little bit different than, I think, the values on the back of the card that say these are the things that we value in our decision values that we're trying to promote. So, you know, both lists are good things. So, I support anything good like this, just happy to support values. But, I side more with Dr. Mann in terms of incorporating something on the back of our board norms that, I think, the values that the institution has derived are a more appropriate answer to a more appropriate question than the one I think I was discussing when I was asked what do you get out of being on the board of trustees. And, I sat there dumbfounded trying to figure it out. So, I think I, if I had to vote for values, I'd side with the institutional ones that she proposed though I think they're both good lists, you know. So, I'm happy to promote anything that's value. 

>> All right, so. 

>> Well, let me add. I guess, maybe, I'm not clear here as to what the differences are. I think what we did at the retreat was not, at least as I recall, not say what is it I get out of my work at PCC. But rather I think it was more what are, what are the values that I bring to my role at PCC on the board of trustees and what is that I feel we ought to be guided by, as we work together? And, I think, these were the issues we, as I recall, each group got up and gave us a short presentation, these were the issues that were identified by the two groups. All we've done is combined these two. We're not trying to say this is to the exclusion of any principles that the institution has put together. But, we're trying to, I think, lay a groundwork for collegiality, lay a groundwork for the conduct of our meetings, the collaboration, the goodwill, if you want to describe it that way that we evidence as we move forward working together collectively to reach consensus for the betterment of PCC. That's the way I understood what we were doing at the retreat. And that's, I think, where these values came from. And so, I will still feel very comfortable adopting these as the guiding values and principles by which we do our work as we move forward throughout this year on the board of trustees. 

>> [Inaudible], I agree with Dr. Mann's point in that we should include the, we should reference institutional core values. And, what I would recommend is, and I don't object, I approve of the, the values that give rise to our work as trustees. I think we should need to add the rise to our work and add the clause as trustees, add that to our norms. And, I'd also like to see the institutional core values added to our norms. And so, that way, we reaffirm the core values of the institution because I think that is actually more important than the values of our work as trustees. So, so. 

>> Would you accept that as friendly amendment? 

>> Sure. 

>> Yeah. 

>> So, that's been accepted as a friendly amendment. 

>> The only problem I have with it is it's redundant. What I had suggested at the retreat was that we should integrate these two because three of them are repetitive. It would seem to me like, if we integrated them, then, we would have one set of values. But, you know, you can have integrity twice. I don't guess that hurts. You could have it three or four times. 

>> The outcome of this is just something that we'll be adding to the back of our norms. That's how, and then, by that action, it will be reinforced within us. There's no other action beyond that. 

>> Very good. 

>> And I'm concerned about the redundancy as much. 

>> Maybe for those who haven't weighted in? No? Trustee Martin. 

>> I'd support putting them both there. I think where it functionally comes out is we're going to be reading these, at least, you know, perhaps twice a month as we go into closed session and check in we're reading both of these. I have really old business cards. I don't know if they're quite 30 years old. I don't have the institutional values on the back of mine. So, I got one of Dr. Mann's cards that I keep by my bedpost now and have actually read it several times since she gave it to me reminding myself what those are. So, to have both, to have a list of both and maybe just, as someone suggested, add as trustees and then to have the institutional ones, you know, I do try to faithfully read our norms every time before we go into closed session as we're supposed to do. And, I'm, you know, good for reminders. So, I like that idea of doing them both. And, I'm happy to read the word integrity twice, maybe I'll get it. 

>> Very good. Let's bring it to a vote. So, the idea is this document would be updated based on the conversation added to the back of the norms so that they're present with us at our meetings. All in favor please signal by saying aye. 

>> Aye. 

>> Student advisory vote. 

>> Aye. 

>> Any Nays? Any abstentions? The motion carries as we will affirm the values that give rise to our work as trustees. That brings us. 

>> I'm sorry, you know, I didn't hear that, I didn't vote on that because I didn't hear the motion. Was it to both of them? 

>> To both of them that was accepted as a friendly motion. 

>> Okay, all right. 

>> Are we. 

>> [Inaudible]. 

>> So, item N receive and set public hearing regarding initial bargaining proposal from the Pasadena area community college district to the Pasadena City College instructional support services, ISSU or ISSU discussion with possible action. 

>> I move we set the date for the hearing at the meeting of February third for the hearing. 

>> Second. 

>> Any discussion required? Dr. Sugimoto, anything to add? Good, all those in favor. 

>> Aye. 

>> Aye. 

>> Aye. 

>> And we got the student trustee vote in there too. Any nays? Any abstentions? The motion carries. This brings us to president's report. 

>> Thank you Dr. Bradbury Wong. I actually have two quick announcements to make, reports. I don't know if the board members or the audience are familiar with the early assessment program that Pasadena City College has chosen to participate and applied to be part of the early assessment programming. What our purpose is to encourage the community college to use results from the CST which is the California Standards Test which is taken by 11th grade high school students to place those students who score as being college ready into college courses at the community college. So, we're hoping to, how do I say, advance students while they're in high school and make sure that they're in line and taking what they need to. We have partnered with the high schools and PUSD, the Pasadena Unified School District to receive their scores. And we'll use both he English and math scores for placement in English 1A and Math 3 and Math 15. And, the benefits to us, if we can use the CST is that we won't have to reassess those students. The benefit to the students is they are tested so much that we're hoping that we can eliminate having them tested over and over and over again and at least use a test that they already are using to assess them and place them appropriately. Also, we are doing some outreach to support high school students who are applying to PCC in our attempt to encourage more in district public high school students to apply to the colleges. That seems to be one of our big concerns that we have so many out of district students at the college. We have, on the first day that applications are accepted for the summer in the fall, 2010 which is that April first, the staff of the office of community and school relations, which Dena oversees, will provide application facilitators at each of the in district high schools to assist them in completing the online admission application. 

>> Terrific. 

>> That is, that ends my report. 

>> Thank you President Sugimoto. We'll now go around and take reports from all members of the board and from members of the shared governance representatives. Let me throw this out. I would want us to consider having reports earlier in the meeting. It strikes me that a number of our reports may be of great relevance to those folks who come to our meetings. So, if this is something you wish to weigh in on, you might include it as you offer your report. Let's start with Ms. Koross. Oh, let's not start there. Mr. Pitman in place of Dean Liggens [assumed spelling]. 

>> Yeah I can agree with having them a little bit earlier in the day [inaudible] for the announcements on that. Ellen hasn't given me anything to bring forward at this time other than that. 

>> Perfect, thank you for being here in her place. Dr. Bickley [assumed spelling]. 

>> Yes, I'd like to comment briefly on our experiences in the classroom. We have be inundated with students trying to take classes in the winter intersession. And, certainly, we have discussed this in various meetings on campus as to whether, if we're going to have a smaller intercession, we would prefer, perhaps, it would be the summer session because a lot of the students are trying to make up classes in the winter that they may have been stunned being their first semester in college and had to drop out of a class and had to pick it up. And, this will be the time that they do that. I had a class that has a class limit of 41. We have a fire limit of 49. We had every bit of a 41 plus 3 waiting list and 45 other students trying to get in. It took quite a bit of time to figure out what we were going to do. I made the students come back two and three times to sign in and to move up, you know, their seriousness of getting in the course. And, out of 45 students, only about five or six got in and we're up to the fire limit. So, it's been tough for some of the instructors, for the deans, for the students certainly. We are not meeting as a board. I do not have announcements to give you. But, I don't want you to think the faculty aren't busy. Of course, teaching, but also the executive committee of the senate, we are really working hard with the staff and with the leadership team and the college executive committee members and the accreditation response, and some of the task force is there. We're also very interested in the progress on the educational master plan. And, we have a lot to do this winter session. But, I'll, that'll conclude my report. 

>> Thank you. [Inaudible]. 

>> Yes ma'am I have no reports at this time. 

>> [Inaudible]. 

>> Just one report, PCC's sustainability committee is at work again. They're about to approach the theme market board of directors to solicit a grant to start up their farmer's market. So, they're moving forward with that. And, we hope to have that underway and sat up by this Spring. 

>> Thank you. 

>> No reports. 

>> Nothing to report. 

>> Nothing. 

>> I do want to take a moment to report on the board of governor's meeting. I wanted to acknowledge Professor McCabe who's in the audience too and just announce that, thanks to a request that we received from Pasadena Unified School District, one of the lowest performing schools in the district [Inaudible] Elementary School, will now have the benefit of PCC student instructors helping those students at that school. And, I really appreciate his diligence in answering the call from the principal for additional support at that elementary school. And, we as a board officers met, we're going to be asking for feedback because now that we've had this setup for about six months, we want to get feedback about any modifications that can be made to enhance its effectiveness as a, for deliberation and communication within the board. So, I've submitted a note to Dr. Sugimoto and shared with the board officers. And, hopefully, we will we'll move on that. Just, a couple of quick highlights from the board of governor's meeting last week, the, one announcement which will be important to PCC is Southern California Edison which is headquartered in Rosemead adjacent to our district, announced a million dollar grant for scholarships for students in the Green Jobs area. And those grants are being made to local community colleges with Green Jobs programs. And so, there are a number of neighboring colleges. And, I hope, the next round of grants application that they might do, that PCC might be one of the recipients of the hundred thousand dollars that is being made available to Green Jobs. But, local schools like Rio Hondo and Long Beach City and Tre Tech [assumed spelling] and El Camino were part of that. And so, I'm hoping that will provide an incentive for schools like ours. One thing where PCC really got celebrated is the California NSA Diploma Project. I don't know if the other board members recall, but, we restored, we awarded a high school diploma to a student of PCC who was interned during his high school years as a Japanese American. And, it was a very meaningful ceremony that we provided. Well, that has taken off statewide. And PCC is the leader in the California NSA College Diploma project. And, we've actually set up, on our website, a way for former internees to get in touch and contact and have, and I believe, there's plans in the works for us to actually award diplomas this year to those because, given that this goes back 60 years, we want to get to as many of them as possible to help redress some of the injustice that had happened in the past. And, I was very proud of PCC's leadership in that we were discussed at the board of governor's. And an assembly member for [Inaudible] came to our meeting to talk about the legislation that made this happened and a couple of the folks that are impacted. Specifically, we discussed the 50% law and how the state will handle it. The 50% law for the new trustees requires that 50% of our budget be spent on instruction. And, if you're not in compliance with that, then you pay a severe penalty. We're not, there's no retrenchment or withdraw from that commitment. But, there's an understanding that in the wake of categorical funding cuts which were wiped out terribly by the last round of budget cuts. If a district were, and this is for consideration, we have it, the action we took is that if a district restored categorical funding that had been previously cut to a level where it was that brought it below the 50% threshold, there could be grounds for a consideration of a waiver of the penalty. They would still be found in noncompliance. But, there's some wiggle room with respect to the penalty that would be assessed against the district. And, that's the flexibility that's being considered. And, the foundation of the community colleges reported on the OSR Fund [assumed spelling], I just want to remind everybody that a year from this summer, the challenge grant disappears and there's 50 million dollars at stake. PCC is already on tap to receive about 500,000 dollars in scholarship funding and we'll be bringing it back. But, it's a statewide initiative to raise scholarship funds for students. And, that concludes the report and I'm happy to fill everybody in on other board of governor's actions. 

>> Thank you for that excellent report. It underscores, actually, the importance of taking reports earlier in the evening when we can process that information. This is also the time when chairs of various subcommittees would bring their information, and, in the absence of Dr. Hales, when we would have information about the presidential search. Final item, future board meeting dates, we've, we are setting them as. 

>> Those of us to the right of Mr. Bowmen. 

>> I have not. 

[ All talking ] 

>> Well, I was only going to say that when it comes to where to put reports, I would leave it to the wisdom of the board president to bear it out all the items that are on the agenda, many of which that are also important to make that decision where you think should appropriately placed. 

>> Very good, sorry for overlooking you. So, future board meeting dates is set for Wednesday February the third regular time, Wednesday February the 17th. Future agenda items, very important part of our meetings, Trustee Mann. 

>> Yes, I have a future agenda item. But, neither Dr. Fuller nor I can pronounce the word. But, there is a group of community members are wanting to place a monument on this side of the original [Inaudible] School. And we have been asked if we would sponsor that. So, I have the name of what I want the school location. I'll pass it down. And, if possible, I would like for this to be on the, this should only take a few seconds, on the agenda for the next meeting. They will give us a written report and a picture. And, they just want our support. I think the president has already approved it. But, they're asking for the trustee's report. It will be on the CEC Campus. It will be very nice. And, it will. 

>> Is it particularly time sensitive? 

>> It's time sensitive in that they're getting ready to put it up. 

>> Okay. 

>> And they would like for us to approve it before. 

>> That's a good reason. 

>> Good idea. 

>> Very good. 

>> And, it's also being paid for by the community. 

>> Yeah. 

>> We have no money, the college has put no money. 

>> That sounds wonderful and it's time sensitive. Trustee Fuller. 

>> [Inaudible]. 

>> Thompson. 

>> I just appreciated the report on [inaudible] scheduling and wanted to put on for the agenda request, a policy on Pasadena City College facilities usage by non college entities. 

>> Very good. 

>> I would join Trustee [Inaudible]. 

>> No, that will get digested in the usual process. Trustee Brown. 

>> Nothing. 

>> Very good. Thus ends my first official meeting of the year, thank you. 

>> We're adjourned. 

>> We are adjourned. 

[ Background talking ]