[ Background Noise ] >> And so it's not just post. >> We're gonna have--go in to closed session to discuss Government Code Section 54957.6 for labor negotiations with--in the PCCFA, CSEA 777, ISSU, POA. Negotiator, Mr. Engeldinger and also unrepresented employees, confidential, management, also Mr. Engeldinger. Is there anyone who wishes to address the board on any closed session item? [ Pause ] >> If not, we will adjourn the closed session. >> Did you call--did you call the roll? >> The rule is on the next-- >> No, it comes next. >> Okay, alright, great. [ Cut Audio ] >> Okay. Okay the board of trustees of Pasadena City College is back in session. There was no reportable action from the closed sessions so begin with the roll call. Mr. Thomson. >> Mr. Thomson? >> I am here. >> Mr. Baum? >> Here. >> Mr. Martin? >> Here. >> Ms. Brown. >> Yes. >> Dr. Fellow? >> Present. >> Dr. Mann? >> Present. >> Mr. Pack? >> Here. >> Okay. Before we worry about public comment and on [inaudible] to the pledge of the allegiance. Dr. Fellow, would you lead us to the pledge. >> Dr. Phillip, would you lead us the pledge? >> We stand and place your hand over your heart, repeat after me. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [ Noise ] >> Okay, is there any public comment on nonagenda items? None appearing, we shall move on then to approval of minutes. We have the meeting of August 25th, August 28th and September 1st, 2010. Are there any additions or corrections or questions? >> Motion to approve. >> I second the motion. >> Is that to approve all 3? >> Yes. >> Anybody have any corrections or additions or anything to add to that? Advisory vote please. >> Aye. >> All in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> All opposed, and motion carries. Next slide is the introduction announcements, Dr. Rocha, anybody to introduce? >> I did not have anyone to introduce but I did want to just briefly announce my thanks again to the board and everyone for the lovely reception and especially to thank Linda and all of the great people and staff who made that possible. So, I thank you very much. [Applause] >> A lot of hard work went into that and we're very appreciative of that. Just--further evidence of what a great organization this is and what confident people we have so thank you very, very much. Anybody else who have any introductions or announcements to make? Mr. Pack? Dr. Fellow? >> Nothing, thank you. >> Mr. Baum? >> None. >> Mr. Martin? >> Nothing. >> Dr. Mann? >> Nothing. >> Ms. Brown? >> No. >> Wow, we're moving along here. This is great. Okay, I had probably commented on agenda items already. Now let's--are there reports? Anybody from the board of trustees, Mr. Baum? >> I do have a report. I spent the first 2 days of this week in Sacramento for Board of Governors meeting, made a very productive session. A couple of quick highlights. One is we got a final enrollment report for the past year and the budget crisis is actually having a severe impact on access to education in this state and just a couple of highlights that returning students are actually able to enroll but we're losing the first time students because of the reduction in the number of course offerings and the way it's evaluated is the system lost 140,000 students between '08 and '09 and '09 and '10 and out of those 140,000, there are 133,000 fewer first time students. So those are the people that could be lost forever because they didn't have an opportunity to get into the classes. As we all know, enrollment priority goes to continuing students as it should but the reduction in sections and spaces because of the state budget situation had meant that there's over 100,000. Now some of them are being shuttled off into the for-profit education sector because there's plenty of seats there but then they're also getting into loads if debt and that's kind of necessary recipe for success. The student population has a more traditional characteristic of age. We're really now serving a greater proportion of 18 to 24 year olds and actually the number of male to female students--the number of male students is rising as well in proportion to female students. Still majority are female. We cut the whole systemwide and there were 9 percent fewer course sections and the--and then course size and we probably know that here as well, all time high. For the first time in history, it's over 30 students per section statewide. It use to--it's traditionally under 20 students and the--but it--as--so that's some of the challenges. I'll be happy to share the enrollment report, a lot of fascinating data. We got a presentation on athletics--the intercollegiate athletics of the community college system. I'm gonna turn over to our CEO, the--what does every CEO need to know about athletics? A lot of good information and then the--the big item is that we agreed to put forward the budget request for next year. We're not asking for a lot but then it turns out to be a lot. We're just asking for restoration of what has been lost over the past 2 years so there's been no COLA even though the state has calculated the COLA, it hasn't been funded. We're just saying, let's bring this back whole to where we would have been if the COLA had been funded. We're investing in student success and access and then--so we're going to try to also restore the funding to the categorical programs and that's what we're putting forward to the state of California for our budget proposal. It's--still even with these things that are--there are no new initiatives, no new programs, it's just restoration of where we would have been if we had not lost funding and it's--that it still--it's up to about 900 million a year in additional funds for the system and we're hoping that we can have some success in achieving that. And that's my report from the Board of Governors maybe. >> Okay, Mr. Martin? Dr. Mann? >> Yes, the item that the meeting at the California Community College Trustees Association on Sunday--we met on Sunday and then had--went to a dinner with the Board of Governors which Geoff was at that evening and a couple of things I wanted to mention. First of all the annual conference of the California Community College League of California is being held in Pasadena, November--I had it written down here--19th through the 21st and I think it would be really good if the college could have a presence there since we won't have to pay any housing or, you know, meals and so on. We normally have and I recall one--at one conference when we were--we received an award for having the most people there, classified faculty, there's-- >> Yeah, there's people in the back nodding their heads and even our or distinguished alumni. So I would hope that we would do that. I don't know if the league staff is working at all with the college where we undoubtedly are the host college because it's at convention center. A couple of things that I would like to say that I think is interesting, the session on Thursday the 19th, Jack Scott is the speaker and then on the major speaker which is on Saturday, Jill Biden has been invited but she has not accepted so--but apparently Martha Kanter is trying to get her. But if Jill Biden does not accept the--and a backup speaker who has accepted is Dr. Tim White who's the chancellor at UC Riverside and you may remember UC Riverside was recognized as 1 university that has eliminated the achievement gap in the students and that's what he's going to talk about, how they did that. So I think that would be very, you know, very interesting and as Dr. Rocha has pointed out, one of our alumni will be receiving the distinguished alumni award. So I would hope that we could have a strong presence at this convention. >> Thank you. >> And the other--the other--I'm sorry I said I wouldn't outrun, but I do wanna make also a comment on accreditation because the league is involved in this. The--Chancellor Scott appointed a committee to look at issues of [inaudible] accreditation which filed a complaint with the Department of Education and the complaint was also filed by the Academic Senate. The Department of Education sent back a letter where they found that the accreditation--the--of the ACCJC was not in compliance with 5 regulations. Interestingly enough, almost all of those involved trustee is being involved in the selection process. The CCCT has had a role in appointing people to serve on the selection of committee for--for commissioners and the Department of Education pointed that that violates Department of Education's regulations. So the accreditation associates will be responding to this but it--in a sense, it removes trustees even more from the accreditation process. So this is something that the CCCT and the league are looking at and one of the things that we're going to do was to try to encourage more local trustees to be on site teams and to have special training for people on site teams because we feel that's very important that trustees be involved appropriately accreditation particularly on the sections on governance. >> Okay. >> That concludes my-- >> Well, thank you. >> Ms. Baum? >> I have no report. >> Dr. Fellow? Mr. Pack? >> I'll make this brief. I did go to the Educational Master Plan meeting that happened on Friday and I'm sure that Deans Miller and Kollross have lots of information on that though I will say that it was a very enlightening experience and I'm thrilled that there are such enthusiastic participation from the college of community in that process. It looks wonderful. Also really briefly, I spoke to one of the students in passing who informed me that we have sold well over 1500 I-PASSes. Dr. van Pelt I'm sure has more finite numbers on that and I think once we really got this down in terms of advertising and integrating it with other station, 2000 will be a piece of cake. [ Laughter ] >> Okay, Dr. Douglass? >> No report tonight, thanks. >> Ms. Martinez. >> Just a brief report, the Academic Senate conducted its annual retreat at the Huntington Library Conference Center this past Saturday. We formulated our goals for the year and we'll be sending those forward to the senate board very soon. The first Academic Senate Board Meeting of the year was held this past Monday, the 13th, and you have copies of the nanoseconds at your tables. I won't review all of those since they're provided for you. We were actively involved in the first Educational Master Plan meeting of this semester recently and we will continue to be actively involved in the forthcoming meetings for the plan. And we are actively involved in planning along with, given the resources office, the flex day activities coming up very soon. Thank you. >> Ms. Smith? >> Classified Senate met earlier today and Dr. Mann, you'd be interested to know that the classified leadership instituted contact our classified senate and asked us to host or sponsor a workshop here on campus during those days, so that's something we'll be looking into. >> Great. >> We also reviewed the institutional effectiveness policy regarding classified employee representation including discussion about the level of commitment and the charge of the committee so we can start thinking about appointees to that committee. The Classified Senate retreat will be held on September 29th. Invitations will be extended to the appropriate constituency groups who also attend. We also addressed our meeting new methodologies to raise more funds for classified scholarships. And just a preview, our Halloween event will be held on October 29th in the campus center--in Creveling Lounge, excuse me, which is a new venue for us and we will send invitation to the Board of Trustees and to all other constituency groups on campus. >> Good, thank you. >> Ms. Hammond? >> Yes. The Associated Students hosted their Club Week last week and due to some changes in the layout and some of the offerings, we've been told by many individuals that we have the best turn out in the recent years and so we're expecting a very robust like this, this year. Many of our clubs were able to recruit many more members than they have recently so we're really excited about that and also I wanted to thank Dr. Rocha for coming to our meeting last Wednesday. He was able to see how the board communicates and we were also--we have an opportunity to get some clarity on some questions that we have had as follows up. That's about it. Thank you. >> My only report is that I attended the meeting of the Executive Committee of the Pasadena City College Foundation yesterday morning as did Dr. Rocha and a very discussion. They formally agreed to welcome Dr. Sugimoto and to look forward to her leadership. We acknowledge the tremendous contribution of Elaine Chapman, the person who has done far more than any human can be expected by carrying on 3 full time jobs including that so very appreciative of her fine work but the foundation gets excited about looking forward, excited about transitioning into raising significant amounts of money and helping PCC so it's--it was a very exciting meeting. Dr. Rocha, any reports? >> Just brief notes. We were--I wanted to thank Trustee Pack for referring to the Educational Master Plan and now leave it at that, you know, it was a wonderful meeting, the largest participation on this plan process that we've had so I think it's well underway and we look forward to bringing you a complete interim report. And thank you for reporting in the foundation. Lisa and the foundation board are, you know, often running so that's great and we look forward to Lisa doing an extended report of say roll out a strategy--strategic plan for the year for the foundation. And just a--the final note, I did--I see Dean Olivo here and I just wanted to recognize her and thank her for her part in putting together the memorial service for Chuck Ward which was I think a couple of days ago which is--Chuck Ward was a counselor in our department who passed away in August and we had a wonderful celebration of his life which I think it's very expressive of the kind of community that we have here so I thank you for that. >> Okay, Geoff? >> I did want the--even in pass, I did make one--wanna make 1 announcement and wanted to acknowledge that also Dr. Sugimoto was honored last Thursday night as a honoree by the Pasadena NAACP and we are very proud of that recognition for the district and for Dr. Sugimoto's recognition at that dinner. >> Any other reports? As we move to the consent items, I'm going to say that I'm going to adjust the agendas just slightly and take up the items that come up after the item G, appointment of the trustee to give us more time, perhaps a more thoughtful way to discuss that so we're gonna do item F approval, consent items and we're gonna do the other items on the agenda H, I, J, and K and then we'll comeback and pick item G, so approval of consent items, they need to be withheld and dealt with separately. Geoff? >> I'd like to just make a comment about 41-B but--and I'd like to pull 39-P for a separate vote. >> Okay, anything else? Okay, what's your comment on 40--? >> I just wanna express my--41-B I wanted to express my appreciation to the administration for the new design of the report on purchasing transaction, so it was a group by project and then a little note under some of the other items and so I appreciate that added care taken with that report. It helped me digest it much more effectively, so I now understand. [ Inaudible Remarks ] [ Laughter ] >> Yeah, that--well done. >> Motion to approve the consent items. >> Second. >> Okay. Now you wanted to take 39P for a separate vote? >> Correct. Okay let's do items 41 through 44-B and 35 through 38-P and 40-P and we'll comeback to 39-P. Advisory vote? >> Aye. >> And all in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> All opposed, the motion carries. Now 41--or 39-P, do you have--do you wanna address that with any comments or just--? >> Yeah I do. I just have some concerns about the number of large group instruction unit. Of course it's that we're sitting add--especially in a time where we have so many adjuncts, faculty members that have been affected by the budget cuts and they have lost position and I'm convinced having reviewed compensation loads of the district and that it would be more effective and more cost effective to bring on more adjunct faculty than to continue to have so many overload ratios done especially given the budget situation that run so I can't--I won't be able to support this consent item. >> Dr. Rocha, any comments? >> Well first of all I appreciate Trustee Baum's comments and we've discussed this. Let me just say that I think it is something that we're taking a look at right now for the future. I do--I would agree that this is probably not the very best way to handle this kind of situation but as I reported to you earlier in the run-up to the fall semester, we were scrambling to make sure that anyhow, anyway, we could expand the number of seats. And actually as we looked at the cost at least and it's very, very short term kind of situation, it was essentially a wash. Having said that though, I completely take the trustee's point and we have a--underway, a very, very serious examination of LGI and we're discussing that with the Academic Senate and President Martinez and some--I'm confident that we will be able to address the issues that you've raised. >> Any other comments or questions? Are you ready for the vote? Advisory vote? >> Aye. >> All in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> All opposed? >> No. >> Motion carries 5 to 1. Okay moving back then to the agenda. Let us skip item G for the moment, comeback to that. We have item H, the policy review, policy numbers 2300, 2400, 2500 and 2520. Dr. Mann? >> Yes. Policy number 2300 and 2400 have been reviewed by the College Coordinating Council and they're based on models from the Community College League. I did receive a question from one of the trustees about--and policy 2400 is combining 2 policies and we used to have a list of about 20 records that were not accessible for legal reasons and why the list wasn't there and the reason is there's now more than a hundred records and knowing the federal and state government, probably next year there'll be a 150 records. So we thought it was--people might say, well it's not on there. So we thought it'd be better not to have the list and just say that records are restricted, et cetera. Policy 2500 and 2520 were developed their professional ethics for management and for classified staff. These were reviewed by the appropriate groups, the--a management association and the Classified Staff Senate and as my understanding that the College Coordinating Council agreed that there were no other groups that need to be involved in that because it was a standard of ethics for this particular group. And so with that, I would move approval and after we have a motion, I would be happy to try to answer any questions. >> And I'll second that. >> Okay. >> One just quick thing to point out on the procedure although we don't technically vote on is, we have a substitute sheet in our packets that changes only item number 1, now reads a request by a member of the public may be delivered by mail or in person to the office of the superintendent president as opposed to having to deliver it personally to that individual. >> Yes and I should have--I should have commented that the board only approves the policy which was on the yellow sheets--I mean the white sheets and the procedures which are on the yellow sheets, we do not approve but we could make suggestions to the administration if there's something we see which we feel is not in accordance with the policy. >> And that's what happened here and so you have a substitute sheet. >> Right. Yes, I should have mentioned that. >> Any questions about any of this? Yes? >> Are we approved--are we moving on as a group? >> Yes, right. >> As a group unless you want to separate. >> No, no. I just wanted to make a couple observations. >> Okay, go ahead. >> One observation I was delighted to see the academic calendar and the procedures that--and draw everybody's attention to all the observed holidays, the paid holidays that we offer as a district and as I count them including days like Lincoln Day and a Friday of Spring week and President's Day and the California Admission Day, we have 13 holidays that we are able to offer to our employees and faculty obviously are on their--have their own contracted days but that's 3 weeks of holidays in addition to pay the time off for vacation pay for administrators. So I wanted to draw attention to the fact that we are investing in our employees in trying to make this is as terrific a workplace as possible and I didn't want that to go unnoticed that there are 3 weeks of paid holidays at PCC. And the other thing is we have the code of ethics for managers in Classified. I didn't know--did the Academic Senate also develop a code of ethics for faculty? >> There's a long standing code of ethics for faculty and it's--we decided that it was fine as it is. >> I agree. >> And there's also code of ethics for students-- >> And the board too. >> And for the board. It was these 2 groups and this was pointed out in the accreditation review that they were the 2 groups that did not have a code of ethics. >> And do we need to affirm--we're gonna affirm these groups and the others we've already affirmed? >> The other ones we've already reviewed and affirmed. This is to me the accreditation requirements [inaudible]. >> Thank you. >> Anything else? Advisory vote. >> Aye. >> All in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed? Motion carries. Moving onto item I contract education raised by Trustee Brown. Discussion for approval of staff time with possible action, Berlinda. >> Well first of all, I wanna thank Dr. Rocha for bringing that--bringing this item on the agenda. Since I've become a trustee, I have learned that many community colleges are earning great profits to contract education and I do understand that our intent is to have contract education as part of our master plan but one of the things that really kind of disturbed me somewhat is because I know that anything we do takes a process. Our master education probably would be ready by December and by the time we get it rolled in, opportunities for moneys--for generating money for the district is then taken up by other colleges that already having their--getting contract--contracts from people. So what I'm trying to see if we could kinda speed up the process somewhat so that we could position ourselves, so that PCC can begin to get, you know, what's available in our community. So basically, what I would like to do is move that the board direct administration to prepare a proposal to reinstate contract education here at PCC, the program so that we could begin to position our self where we can compete with other colleges which I think are taking some of what we could have had for our students, so that would be my motion. >> Okay, before we actually put into a motion, let me ask Dr. Rocha to respond to it. >> Well first of all, I'm very grateful to Trustee Brown for not only the question but her interest in this absolutely essential issue and, you know, as you know and as you've said quite rightly, contract education needs to be an important part of the strategic initiatives of the ed master plan and we are indeed taking that up in the final ed master plan that has to come to you by December. You'll see a very, very specific piece. Just a couple of more points and then I'll be happy to do as you see fit. One is that Vice President Jacobs has been very helpful in providing information on kind of the back story and the history and it is in accord with your, you know, kind of summary of where we are with contract education. There is no question that there are contracts on our district--you know, in our district that of we have the unit operating properly, we could operate those contracts and that we can do better and yes, it is a source of revenue, you know, as I've said from the beginning. We have some initial proposals that are coming out of the CEC and other places. What I would say and we're--we are pedaling fast and I appreciate you kinda keeping the accelerator pedal down on this. What I'd say is my suggestion is that by our study session in October, I think we'd be in pretty good shape to give you the kind of extended written analysis and if not a final plan, at least a kind of a signal of where we're going in the next couple of months and that would be in the second--our second meeting in October and we discussed this at executive committee this morning. >> Okay. Well I would be more than satisfied with that and I look forward to seeing that report in October. Thank you. >> Alright. Okay, great, thank you so much. Dr. Mann, item J I believe is yours. >> Yes. We used to have a joint meeting with associated students. So I think once each semester or at least once a year and for some reason, these meetings did not happen and I would like for us to--if the rest of the board agrees, I would like first to reinstate these joint meetings. I found them very helpful and unless the students do not see any purpose in the meeting with us and then that would be--that would be fine because what we--within the past we have both board. So we have AS board and we had the--we have the Board of Trustees and we heard what the students goals were. We heard what issues they have identified and I thought it was also a good chance for us to get to know the students, so maybe twice a year was too much but I would like for us to consider reinstating these meetings. >> Let me ask Dr. Rocha to respond to that as well, please. >> Well again first of all, I thank Trustee Mann for raising this to our attention and reminding me since I've--you know, new on this year of what our practice had been. I completely thoroughly 100 percent support this and our working relationship with Associated Students is good and healthy. I think the only question for the members is when and the only thing I would ask is since staff is pretty busy with the October 15th accreditation report, the ed master plan, but still if the parties think it should be soon, we'll work to that but we'll--I think the only thing to set out is to win. >> What I would suggest you do is you--maybe you could just consult with the AS president and our student trustee and-- >> Okay. >> And see what time because one year I thought was very--very good report. They showed us what their goals were and then the progress they had met was--it was in the spring. >> Okay. >> It's like April or something like that. The other time to have met would have been early in the fall semester and they could tell us what they were looking for but I think we've passed that. So I would be perfectly contented but some time this spring it works but I think the thing to do would just be you would talk with them and see what works best for them. That would be my suggestion. >> I will follow that suggestion and consult and bring you back a proposed date. >> That would be fine. >> So no one had signed that-- >> I just wanted to say thank you to Dr. Mann for bringing this back up on the agenda and making sure that's spoken about. We appreciate an interaction with the board and our continued interactions with Dr. Rocha. We meet with them pretty regularly so we're very grateful for the opportunity to be part of the political dialogue here. >> Good, thank you. Okay, item K, Dr. Mann, disclosure compensation for board and executive team. >> Yes, I asked that this be put on the agenda when there was a lot of discussion around the state and also editorials and articles in the paper about the whole issue of compensation for board and executives in public bodies. What I would like to do if it's okay is hold this and hold this because there are 2 or 3 I think at least 3 bills on the governor's desk that addresses this issue and it's not exactly disclosure but it's limits and--the whole retirement system is a sense being restructured and no one knows what the governor is gonna sign. You know, the senate has a bill. The assembly has a bill. Someone else has a joint bill. I'd like to just wait and see what happens and bring this back maybe inn November or sometime once it has been clarified and it may not be even be necessary to do this. >> I don't think anyone will object to doing that, Mr. Baum? >> I just wanna thank Dr. Mann for pushing this forward though too because I don't think there's anything more important that we have than the confidence of the public that supports this institution and then more transparently can be with the decisions we make about expenditures and the better so I agree that there are a number of bills. We'll see what that sorts out and I look forward to recommendations of the administration on what to disclose and how to disclose it so that were in compliance with all laws. But as a trustee, I wanna express the spirit that I wanna get as much out there that is responsible and--but also serves the public's right to know. >> Mr. Thomson-- >> Yes? >> If I just make a comment just for a briefly. This was a-- these bills were discussed very thoroughly at the CCCT league--CCT board. The staff and the managers had taken a position of opposing these bills, the trustees as elected public officials voted almost unanimously to support them and to support the public's right to know. And as one trustee, I don't care if anyone knows I make $400.00 a month. [ Laughter ] >> And so--and I think that is--so I don't care if anyone knows either that's why I just said it. But I think it would--that this is obviously something that it's--it's win-win for us because we are transparent. We are not, you know, involved in any kind of manipulation of funds. >> Okay. Then let's move back to item G on our agenda, appointment of trustee for area 5, discussion with possible action. I'm going to suggest that we begin this with--have Mary Dowell, our counsel kinda layout for us the procedure to follow this evening and things to be aware of to do or not to do. >> Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Thomson, Dr. Rocha and members of the board. This will be a little bit of a review of what we discussed last night. The item before you now is the decision regarding selection of a 7th trustee and it is an action item so the first thing to ascertain is whether there are any members of the public who have come to speak on the action item before the board members themselves begin to deliberate. Once you have heard from any members of the public who may wish to address the item, then it would be appropriate for members of the board to engage in such deliberations as the board members wish to engage in. You're not required to debate or discuss this but you can debate or discuss it so if there is deliberation that you wanna engage in, you should do it at that point. Then you will move to a vote and we have arranged and developed ballots for you to vote with, that lists all of the candidates. We have a ballot for each board member so that when the ballots are tallied, the votes will be publicly announced as to which board members voted how. We decided last night that Mr. Martin as the clerk will keep the tally of the votes as they are read off by Mr. Thomson. >> And that's how we'll proceed. If after 1 ballot you have made a selection, you'll be done. If you do not have--if no candidate has received 4 votes after 1 ballot, then we can move on to a second ballot and a third ballot and as many ballots as you need to vote. Are there any questions about his procedure? >> Any questions for Ms. Dowell? Okay, thank you very much. >> Okay. >> Before I turn this to the audience for comments about individual trustees, let me just say that last evening, we did meet with and interview 5 candidates and Benjamin Figueroa, Dr. Melinda Hsia, Warren Weber, Linda Wah and Adam Murray. I think it was the genuine feeling of--certainly of myself and I believe all board members that we feel that these are 5 very, very fine people, excellent people and I think we feel very fortunate to be able to have to make the very difficult choice of choosing 1 person out of 5 very well-qualified individuals. So with that having--having said that as background, let me invite anybody from the public who wishes to address us to advocate for individual or whatever you may wish to say on this topic, this is your opportunity to remind everybody that we have this wonderful light way over there now that flash you yellow when you're getting near the end of your 5 minutes and red when you are at your 5 minutes and so we ask that you abide by that. We typically limit public comment on agenda items to no more than 30 minutes and so we would hope that we can satisfy or say within that limit. My comment always is if you've heard one person say the same point or 2 people say the same point, you don't have to tell us 6 times the same thing just either thank us or move on to something else. But, anyway having said all that, let me now open up to--we don't have comment cards I guess but just if you wish to address us, come to the podium and we'll take everybody in the word they come up and listen to you and then move this process forward, so anybody wishing to address the board? Okay. Then not, let me turn it open to my colleagues for comments or questions or how ever you--whatever you may wish to add to the discussion, so. >> Let's vote. [ Laughter ] >> We're not gonna vote that easy. Mr. Baum? >> Just wanna take a moment to acknowledge that I see 3 of the candidates that are here today and want to recognize them publicly for their willingness to put themselves forward for this opportunity and so I'm gonna just see who I recognize. I see in the back room, Mr. Benjamin Figueroa, if you could recognize Mr. Figueroa for his willing to serve. Adam Murray in the front row here and Warren Weber and is Linda Wah and Melinda Hsia here. No, but I just wanna thank--I again also thank for coming and for willing to go through the process and then just with the respect to the vote itself, I was so impressed with each individual that presented to us and I thought I could trade any of those individuals with any current member of the board and we thought it would be better off. [ Laughter ] >> Well thank you, Geoff. >> Yeah. [ Laughter ] >> And so I wanted to express my sentiments and my vote will be based on not who's better or who's worse but who's best needed at this time in the history of the district to serve on the board of trustees given all the challenges that we're facing, who is best prepared to be a part of this institution right now. >> Mr. Pack, if you're raising your hand. >> I'll make this really brief and just say that I--again, I'll echo the sentiments of the other board members and say, I am very impressed with all the candidates. I do regret that the ballot only allows us to choose one at a time. >> You do what? >> I regret that the ballot only allows us to select one candidate. >> Oh. >> At a given time as opposed to ranking or something else. I like so many of them. >> Okay. Dr. Mann? >> I would like to echo what Mr. Baum said. I think all the candidates were extremely well qualified and they can--they've conducted themselves very well on the interviews and that we would be fortunate to have any of these people on the board. When I vote, I am looking at trying to select the person who I think is the best for this board at this time. And so it has more I think to do with where I see the college going and what I see we need than maybe the individual characteristics and qualifications of the candidates 'cause they're all well qualified and I think anyone of them could do a good job. I think if we were making this decision 2 years ago, I might have voted differently for making it--3 years from now so I mean I'm still in the board, I might vote differently then. But I do think that at least I am making my decision. I'm looking at what I think is best for the college and best for the students. >> Other comments? [ Pause ] >> Pass out the ballots and we'll see what happens I guess. [Laughter]. [ Inaudible Discussions ] >> Before we mark this up, let me--I wanna ask Mary when she has a chance to get back to the podium to explain to us again clearly how we're handling this thing. >> Okay. Each trustee should vote for 1 candidate. You can fold your ballot up if you want to or not as the case maybe. Pass it forward to Mr. Thomson. When all of the ballots have been collected, Mr. Thomson will read the votes. We'll read each ballot and then Mr. Martin will keep a tally of it. Or would you like to have Mr. Martin read it, however you prefer. >> I'll read them and I'm sure Mr. Martin will keep an accurate tally. [ Silence ] >> And when Mr. Thomson is done reading them, Mr. Martin will then announce what his tally shows. [ Inaudible Discussions ] >> Yeah, we got them. We got them. >> Yeah, I've got them all here so let me just pick them out on random here. Dr. Fellow, Linda Wah. [ Noise ] >> Mr. Pack, Adam Murray. [ Noise ] >> Mr. Thomson, Linda Wah. [ Noise ] >> Mr.--Ms. Brown, excuse me, I'm sorry, Linda Wah. [Pause] Dr. Mann, Warren Weber. Mr. Martin, Warren Weber and Mr. Baum, Warren Weber. So I think-- >> Interesting. >> Well, I'll leave Mr. Martin to tally that. [ Laughter ] >> Three votes for Melinda Wah, an advisory vote for Adam Murray and 3 votes for Warren Weber. >> Okay. >> To the board members who wish to deliberate further or would you like to do another ballot immediately? >> I'm happy to comment. >> Go ahead please. >> I agree with what's--well first of, I agree that all of these candidates were just incredible. I was just totally wowed by all the candidates and in particular, I sense in each candidate as I listened to them speak yesterday a passion and perhaps deepen up to say a love certainly for education and in particular for Pasadena City College. I think we're in a unique position and in some ways, there's the old saying 1 in the hand is better than 2 in the bush but I think we're in a situation where maybe it's 2 in the hand is better than 2 in the bush. There are certain fantastic things about all these candidates but there is certainly one candidate that has not only--the potential to do these things but actually the proven record of doing these things. >> I'm referring of course to Mr. Weber who spent numerous years on this board. He's been--he lost an election and yet continued on the foundation board. He continued with Measure P under different roles. He's been certainly a generous donor to all the PCC campaigns. That proven track record would speak well even before itself but I think there is one other argument for Warren Weber that I really appreciate and that is of all the candidates, he is the least likely to actually run when the seat is up for election. In essence, I feel like I'm in a position where I'm making a decision for voters whom I do not represent. And I don't feel comfortable being in a position making that decision for somebody else so I realized the law requires us to do it. So it would be my preference to have somebody who will hold the seat until the next election when the voters of that area can make their own choice and that choice will not be favored in any way by any appointed incumbent that I selected. And, of all the candidates, Warren Weber certainly expressed the least desire to continue on should that--when that opportunity comes in a little over a year. In essence, when we get in positions here at that college and we needed a president or sometimes a vice president, occasionally a dean, you need the seat filled quickly, you need somebody with experience. Many times, you go to a retired dean or retired president, or retired vice president and you rent them for a short period of time to hold you over until you can get a final selection. And certainly, in the trustee world, if there was a trustee that would fit in the category of needing to rent a trustee for a short period of time who was retired and has all the experience in the world, that certainly would be Warren Weber. So it's actually for that reason that I think it's in the best interest and fairness to all the voters of the Trustee Area 5 that we kinda go the rent a dean, the rent a president, the rent a trustee, the proven 2 in hand shall we say and so I would encourage us to rethink and in particular rethink of Warren Weber. >> Other comments or anything? Ms. Brown, you look like you're-- >> Actually I do. [ Laughter ] >> I do appreciate the fact the Mr. Warren Weber has been so faithful to PCC and for all his hard work but I am a new board member and I do see things very much differently. The reason why I will much rather have a new trustee and board which in this case, I'm referring to Linda Wah is because number 1, she has the credentials, there's no question. She is very, very well connected with community work, that's number 2. And I am one that believe in opportunities. I don't believe in remaining--actually I don't believe in going backwards but I really like giving people opportunities. We have a very good board. We're not desperate. This board is a strong board. We go forward. We make decisions, that's one thing I know. We have seasoned people here that really can care. It's not that we're going down, no we're far from that. We have a strong board. So the fact that we're giving a new person that's retired with 30 years of community experience, the opportunity for serving on this board, I think it will be commendable so that is the reason why I think we should bring a new board member on. >> Dr. Mann? >> Yes, I like to make a couple of comments. I heard Ms. Brown's comments on providing opportunity at the subcommittee meeting and probably should have said this then but I do wanna say it now. All 9 of the people who applied for this position had an opportunity to have this seat. They could have run for it a year ago as Ms. Brown run for a seat against the sitting board member, as Dr. Fellow did, and as Mr. Gibson did. I think in my--the way I look at it, I think Mr. Martin's analysis is as much more accurate. It's the people of District 5 who should select the trustee. No one of these people ran and so Dr. Bradbury-Huang didn't even have to have an election a year ago. So I don't think it's our job to provide opportunities necessarily to people from District 5. I think it would be much better for us to rent a--I like this analogy rent a president and rent a trustee to put a trustee who we know has the experience and the background and then there would be kind of an open plain field the people in District 5 can select whoever they think they want to--whoever they want to represent them. The other thing I would say is I'm not sit up here and say we don't have a good board. I think we do have a good board. I think we have a very dedicated and very hardworking board. But college has gone through a lot of change and we're at a point where I think we need someone who can immediately begin functioning as a board member and it does take a while even for someone like Dr. Fellow with all his background and higher ed and as well qualified as he is. To learn the difference between a community college, how the board functions and sometimes that can be several months and we're talking of appointment for less than a--for just a little over a year. So for that reason, I think it's extremely important that we select someone who can provide stability to the board. And the third thing I wanna say is if we look at the criteria that we all approved for this position, experience with PCC, experience working in public--I don't have it right in front of me. Experience working in public committees comparable to PCC. You go down those one after the other, Mr. Weber is in a different category because he was a board member all these years. He has all that experience so the--you know, the issue was really do we wanna appoint someone who we know can function well as a trustee, who has done that and demonstrate it or do we want to appoint someone actually based on an interview? I thought Linda Wah did a great interview. She also is--she has lots of goof letters of support but actually, we're not hiring people to give interviews. And so for that reason, I don't think we can afford at this time with a brand new president, with trying to get this, you know, accreditation, with facing our master plan in the worst physical crisis, you know, since the great depression to bring on a new person who all the people were qualified but they will all except for Mr. Weber have a learning curve. >> Mr. Pack? >> If I may, I would--in complete respect for all the discretion that's going on, I seem to be the odd one out and chose neither of the 2 candidates that are on the table [laughter] although I will say, of the 2 that we've sort of I guess narrowed it down to through this vote. I will point out that on some of the issues that as a student, I'm very sensitive to technology, diversity, transportation sustainability, I think that there was--from my perspective based on paper and in person, one candidate who was particularly vocal about these issues and acknowledge them and I thought Linda Wah did a stellar job addressing a lot of these issues. I have the greatest faith that she'll bring a really unique perspective--very new perspective to this board. I also think too, we have this issue in the subcommittee--the selection of committee of stability and I will say, it's my feeling that we must be cautious about confusing continuity with stability, they're not necessarily the same and just because we have something that has been proven to work in the past does not mean it will translate to stability for this board now. Learning by nature is a dynamic experience. PCC should be a dynamic institution adapting to and changing with the times and I think that there is a--there's not a better time than now to have fresh ideas and new blood on the board. I think that, you know, because we're talking about these 2 candidates, Linda Wah was--she exceeded my expectations in every respect in terms of areas that I would hope as a student that she would address. Again, I think that as we move forward with the Educational Master Plan, there is a substantial amount of discussion on technology and the colleges need to upgrade technology. >> And I think that--I'll go out in layman say that she's the only candidate that had a truly substantial amount of background experience in that field and that she would again bring that perspective to the board which would be really valuable for us as we move forward with that. If I'm not mistaken, she was the only candidate to mention any type of transportation which, as many of you know, is a pet issue of mine. The I-PASSes are really important project that we're moving forward with and why stop there. There's so many ideas that we can look into and a trustee that's cognizant of that and was willing to mention it in the interview, I think that that has a lot of value in and of itself. So since we are going to be voting again, I would ask the board to consider that, particularly, that times are changing and again continuity does not necessarily translate into a more stable institution. I think that the time is right for us to embrace new ideas. [ Noise ] >> Any comments, Dr. Fellow, or? >> How does--I just made of something. I am--these were all great candidates and I--and the 2 that are on the table I think were--are very--are stellar candidates. But if you know me, I have a very big background of hiring women. I don't know what it is. I've hired more women as an editor of the newspaper and as an administrator to university. And I'm very much in diversity and I just thought with PCC and the population being 33 percent Asian, we really need that voice. But I also, out of respect for Ms. Mann, I totally agree. Mr. Weber did go for election and if there's one candidate that the people voted for, though he didn't win that time, he did stand for election and I respect that and that weighs very heavily on me. Thank you. >> Other comments? >> This is a very difficult choice for me because I have never served with Mr. Weber on this board but I've known him and interfaced with him, my city council days and some of the interesting issues that we had affecting PCC which is in the area I represent on the city council. And so I have great respect for him and it's difficult for me in that sense. But I would say that I was very impressed, in fact, I was surprised at how impressed I was by the presentation by Ms. Wah and I think that she will be able to come in, do an excellent job. She addresses, I think, some of the issues that are live ones for the district and particularly for Area 5. I think that she is eminently well qualified and I think we'll be able to come on the board and in a short period of time, learn what she may need to learn and be able to do an outstanding job. As I say, it's very difficult for me 'cause I just feel on a very awkward position that we wanted to have someone to occupy the seat and certainly do a first rate job for 14 months or whatever the time period is, 15 months. Mr. Weber will do exactly that. But I prefer to take what I regard as a very small risk and look forward and I would urge my colleagues of the very same thing and to select Ms. Wah and let's move forward. >> Mr. Thomson, I would like to--what Dr. Fellow said I feel now compelled to say something else. I worked at Cal State Northridge for almost 25 years as Director of Equity and Diversity. I spent much of my professional life trying to open systems to women and people of color, faculty stuff and students. I've been very actively involved in National Women's Political Caucus who nominated Linda Wah and I have received many, many, many, many letters, phone calls, e-mails asking me to support her. And I've also received many, many letters and phone calls asking me to support some of the other candidates. It's only because I feel that the college is at a place where we really need an experienced board member and that we, in order to do what we have to do, as we are coming, I would say, out of or maybe through a crisis or facing a crisis, we really do need someone who can hit the ground running. I would never in my life have thought that given this choice where we are now, because I agree with everything Dr. Fellow is saying about diversity, that I would be supporting a traditional person. But, actually, it's only because of what--of where I see the need for stability and for experience. And we're not talking about continuity because Mr. Weber has not been on the board for 5 years. But we were talking about someone who knows how the board functions, knows the appropriate way to work with the CEO, knows the appropriate attitude, and stands to take working with the bargaining units. And we can move and not have to worry or be concerned about anything else that will cause any of this. So I wanted to say this because it's very, very hard for me. This is also a very difficult, difficult choice because my natural inclination would be to vote for Linda Wah. But I just can't--I just can't do it. >> Any other comments? Are you ready for the second ballot then? [ Noise ] [ Inaudible Remark ] >> The ballots, like they used to do in conventions. [ Noise ] >> Got them all? [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Okay, Dr. Fellow, Linda Wah. Mr. Pack, Linda Wah. Mr. Thomson, Linda Wah. [ Noise ] >> Dr. Mann, Warren Weber. [ Noise ] >> Mr. Martin, Warren Weber. [Pause] Ms. Brown, Linda Wah. And Mr. Baum, Warren Weber. >> So we have the advisory vote for Linda Wah and 3 additional votes for Linda Wah and 3 votes for Warren Weber. [ Silence ] >> Okay, I think we need--excuse me--the advisory vote is just exactly that. He doesn't get the-- >> That is correct, Mr. Thomson, you need to have 4 votes from the trustees. >> Okay. Further--excuse me. Further comments or discussion or we go at this one more time. [ Pause ] >> The only thing I would add is that, again, I think we had 5 people come before us and talk and I think each of them could be selected and in a very short time, learn what has to be learned to be able to do the job. I don't really see that as an issue. Again, I'm not suggesting that the prior experience is a negative. Don't misunderstand me. But I think we have to make the decision as to whether in the year 2010, that's the direction to go or should we go a different way. I guess I didn't expect to be in this position making these comments, these arguments in favor of this individual either because I was, quite frankly, almost blown away by her presentation. Certainly, on paper, she looks eminently well qualified, no doubt about that. But I was particularly impressed with the way that she handled herself. She was congenial. She was able to engage in the give and take of the interview. And I think she will work very, very well with us and understands the role of a board of member vis-a-vis the campus constituency, and will do that. >> So I do feel strongly that that's the direction we ought to go and again would urge people to vote for Ms. Wah. Anybody else have comments or? Mr. Pack. >> I'll just echo Trustee Thomson's earlier comment about Ms. Wah's ability to adapt to her role in the board. I have the utmost confidence that she will be able to integrate very quickly with this board and that, if what's holding us back from embracing that candidate is this idea of experience, I think that she has tremendous amount of experience with public groups and that her connection--her genuine connection with her community, which is proven both through the interview and through her resume and application, that she'll do a wonderful job from day 1 on the board representing her community which I assume is something we're hoping that the candidate will do. So I really do think that she's a wonderful candidate and that she'll get on board quickly if chosen. >> Other comments or? Mr. Baum. >> I'll just say some--and nothing is holding me back from supporting Linda Wah. I was very favorably impressed by her and admire so many qualities she has. And as do--I do for Adam Murray and Ben Figueroa. I would love to have Adam Murray's passion and commitment to education as if it's civil rights issue working on behalf of this district. Ben Figueroa with his long record of community service and links to the community would bring another aspect of leadership to the district that would be very helpful. And my conviction right now is, even though we have a new president, in--what we need right now, right at this time on the board, from my experience and also and thinking about the people that I represent on this board, it would be--I see that Mr. Weber is the man for the job for next year. >> Other comments? >> Again, I do have to say that--and right here before me is the 2 people I was impressed with are the candidates on the table so I have--I'm very torn. [Laughter] >> Well, it's a nice position to be in, in the sense of having to choose between very, very competent people as opposed to, golly, how did we get in this mess. But so that's it. So any more comments or discussions or shall we vote number 3? >> I feel bad about reiterating something I've said before, but I think when we're at a stand still between 2 competent people like this, I guess the argument that bubbles up in my mind is I don't wanna to be deciding this for Area 5 when I should not be deciding it or when--obviously, I have to decide it now, but I think we have an opportunity to stay neutral for Area 5 when it comes 14 months from now. We heard--we asked each of the candidates, specifically, did you plan to run? We got basically affirmative from most, questionable from 1 who's not 1 of these 2, and Mr. Weber's comment was that, as long as there's other good candidates, I don't need this. He's obviously doing this 'cause he loves the college as the same reason he's part of Measure P and everything else. I think that gives us a unique opportunity to let this area do what they like to do without our influence, and I think that's important. I'm also the guy that every time somebody brings up some state legislation that we need to, as a board, you know, put a recommendation in to support or oppose, I say, "It's not my place, I don't wanna go there." So this is very consistent philosophy of mine that we save--you know, we need to not superimpose our will on somebody else's who has a fair decision to make. It's difficult to debate the qualities of these individuals 'cause they're both incredible people. So to me, it's a deeper philosophy especially in the time of a tie, why don't we stay neutral, use Mr. Weber for 14 months and let all these other qualified candidates and whoever else is interested run openly for an open sea 14 months from now. >> Ms. Brown. >> I am not sure that I agree with the point that we will keep it neutral because regardless, in 14 months we are going to oppose. So, the fact that Mr. Weber was here before seems to be that security blanket that we may say that a lot of us are looking at and that's okay. The fact that this individual, Ms. Linda Wah, is given the opportunity to come to PCC, work in the board, show who she is, feel the board out, run for office, we are--District 5 will select a candidate one way or another. The argument that these applicants did not run for office to run against Dr. Huang, it could have been just because they were very happy with the way--and I hope that was the reason--that we're happy with the way she was doing her job. That's the reason why they did not run for office, just like several board members here that's been here several times because they're constituents are happy with their performance. So that been said, I think I will stick to Linda because I don't see it as a neutral ground. I see it, again, as an opportunity for someone to bring fresh ideas to the board and for us to embrace them and see new things happen. We always--I mean, this is the time we're going to allow the changes and we all know that. However, we have selected a very, very dynamic president which I have great faith in. I think the school has great faith in him. So we have a good president and we were a little skeptical moving forward. But you know what, we got to move forward. Time is changing. The board is still strong. We have strong board members here. We have one, two, three, four strong board members. How difficult can that be? I will insist that Linda is the girl. >> Geoff. >> I don't wanna open the Pandora's Box here, but we do have another option. If we choose--If we are not--unable to reach agreement on an appointment tomorrow, then superintendent can call a special election and take it to the voters. Is that correct? >> That's correct. If the board doesn't appoint the--there will be an election. >> And what is the deadline for the board's appointment? >> I'm--I'm-- >> I think September 22nd. I think, I'm not sure--23rd. >> I need to check the calendar, Mr. Baum. It's very close. >> Yeah. [ Simultaneous Talking ] >> [Inaudible] right up to the line. >> The superintendent will call an election. >> Not the superintendent, president. >> No, no the superintendent of the county. >> The state--the superintendent of schools. >> Schools, right. >> Yeah. >> So just not to open the can of worms but that is another way this could be resolved. But that would come at considerable, considerable expense to the district. >> That large group of subtraction was expensive [inaudible]. [ Laughter ] >> Mr. Pack? >> I'm actually really grateful to Trustee Baum for bringing that point out because I wonder now if we have, you know, for instance, a candidate who's not necessarily interested in running during the next election. If we were to have an election, would that candidate even run or be interested in that? And so with that perspective, should we be considering a candidate who would not run in a normal election or should we be talking about a candidate who has expressed an interest in running for this position again and probably would run if there were a regular election. >> I will put my lawyer's hat on here and say one thing and then I will follow my lawyer's habits and keep my mouth shut. But, you know, lawyers wouldn't have to do that, so. But I have, again, great respect for Mr. Martin and his consistency on issues like this, but I would point out that we did have the opportunity to let the voters of this, of Area 5 make their choice. We opted not to do that. We put people through the application process, through the interview process. We brought ourselves on the verge of making a selection and I would think it would not be the thing to do now to back away from all that and say, "Gee, maybe we've made a mistake, let's go back and let the people of Area 5 have a vote at the cost of 300,000 dollars or 350,000 dollars or whatever it will be to us to our taxpayers that could do that." >> We had the choice to let Area 5 make its own selection. We opted not to do that. So I think now, it's not really the place to argue that, well, I want Area 5 to make that choice so therefore, I'm gonna opt for a person to hold a place for this period of time. And, again, I don't say any of this being critical of Mr. Weber for whom I have enormous respect. But it just seems to me that this is the time to make a decision. We can either find someone to or select someone who will occupy the seat for the next 14 months or we can take some risk and move forward and say, "Okay, we've got a person here who we think is well qualified, will do an outstanding job, and we can go in that direction, so." >> I'd like to defend my statement 'cause I think you comingled it. Not talking about the candidates now, but I'm talking about my comment. I certainly want the board to choose because I don't want to knockout 25 English 1A classes, 'cause that's about what an election would cost. And 25 English 1A classes means more to me than 14 months, okay. But I did--that being said and that decision being done should not be comingled or confused with my comment and my philosophy of not imposing myself where I feel I don't belong. And the way this happened to come out in the questions we asked and the answers we were given by the candidates, we have an opportunity, for me, to hold dear to that philosophy of not putting my nose in somebody else's business when I don't have to. So please don't mix those two points because they're very separate in my mind and they're two separate decisions. It has nothing to do with either one of the candidates, it has nothing to do with the decision we are about to make, but it's important to me that those two separate points are clearly understood for what they are. >> Well, it seems to me that the logic following from your argument is you just kept saying you don't vote that you don't take a choice. >> That's right. >> It's not a logic to my argument at all. >> It is. >> It is not. >> Anybody else have comments? Dr. Mann? >> Yes. I was, you know, I was hoping that we would not have to go down this road. Not that road you two guys are going down. I hope we don't have to go any further down that road. But I think that in the past two years the board has made some decisions that it's had to unmake and the two new people who came on to the board came on to the board at--in my opinion, a very bad time. And because of that I think that there is a lot of--and I'm doing my hand, you can't see it. Maybe the audio audience can't see it, but there is a kind of a--I don't think I would say this. I think two or three years ago, PCC's board was regarded as probably the best--probably the most effective board in California. And maybe it's because some of us spent all of our time or a lot of time at conferences telling people that. But, you know, Mr. Martin and Ray Castro [phonetic] and I have done workshops on state and on a regional--regional conferences on our norms and protocols. We have--I have participated in board effectiveness. And I think there was in general a lot of feeling that this was a very good, very strong board, a board that work together very well and did not micromanage. I think that what--if you look at just kind of the--what you hear on campus, what I hear from people who talk to me, there's a different attitude, at least on campus and the community towards the board. This is why--one of the reasons why I said, I think the board needs to become more stable, more focused on what its role is on policy. And since we have a very competent new president, let him do his job. And I think it's--it would more likely do that if we have a board kind of getting its own act together and you have this kind of stability. I think Ms. Wah is undoubtedly very talented, very bright. She did a very good interview. But it takes a while to learn how to function as an effective board member. And I think with our two new members we did a disservice to, I think there're a lot of things about being on the board. They haven't had the opportunity to learn our experience. And I just don't think we--I think we would be better off with a seasoned board member; particularly it's only for 14 months. If it were three years, of course it couldn't be legally. Then it might be different. And also, we have a person who said he would probably not run again. So--But I think we--that's what I meant what I said earlier. I'm thinking about the board itself and the college. And I think if the time where we need stability, we've had--we--just because a person has been on the board before does not mean they won't be open to new ideas, doesn't mean that they cannot have new perspectives, can't--doesn't mean any of these kind of things. So I think we should at this time--this time now--I'm gonna pick up one of Mr. Murray's, what he told us last night. If we look at where we are right now, right now this board needs a seasoned, experienced board member, and that's why I think we should vote for Mr. Weber. >> Mr. Pack? >> I completely agree that stability is a really important element at PCC. I don't necessarily disagree with anything that Dr. Mann is saying, although I will bring out again that within 14 months our educational master plan will have been approved. So that is something that will happen during this trustee's tenure, interim though it may be. And given when there was tremendous experience in technology, I think that she's in a position to answer questions that most of us sitting up here on the board and off are on the position to ask necessarily. She--I mean, she comes from a background in that and she's--she brought up points that I didn't hear from any of the other candidates though I consistently asked the same question to all of the candidates basically. And, again, I can't stress enough. I don't think that a new board member will necessarily translate to instability. I think Dr. Rocha is a new president and the college is more stable now than it's been in years. So, again, I just--I will hold firm to that position and hope that others will consider that perspective from the student side of things. >> Mr. President? >> Yes. Okay, so now you and I we're back on speaking terms again. >> We've always been on speaking term. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Disagree without being disagreeable, right. >> So, in short, I just--as one of our protocols I wanna say that I actually appreciate the opinion of the other trustees with whom, when it finally gets to the surface in the last post, we haven't voted the same. I think, you know, we're all different individuals, we have different perspectives, we value things differently, and we all agree that we have two if not five incredible candidates and this is just a delay. And I also see that we're slowly entrenching each ourselves into our positions here [inaudible]. I'd suggest--so I just--but I want to let the other trustee know rather than us sitting here with the intellectual debate for the moment to say that is our protocol. I'd suggest let's just give it a one more time around and then let's rethink what we should do from there. >> Any other comments? >> Can we take a break for five minutes? >> Can we do that? Can we take a break? >> I think that'd be a really good idea. >> We can certainly take a break. Anytime. >> Yeah, me, too. [ Simultaneous Talking ] >> Alright, we'll take a five minute break. We'll be back in five minutes here. Stay tuned. [ Pause ] >> In the session here, you know, the--is there more discussion before we have another vote? >> No one has his hand up there. >> Oh, I'm sorry. No, I missed it. >> Just really briefly. I was reminded as I was reflecting of the meeting yesterday and some of the--one of the things that was brought out, actually by Trustee Baum, is the idea that perhaps because the advisory vote functions in the sense that it's used first in order to inform other votes in most instances that we could consider that here not to read the advisory vote first but to look at and reflect on the role of the advisory vote in an instance such as this when we've had a tight three times, if I'm counting correctly. >> That the student trustee, in my role I'm representing a relatively large portion of the college, 30,000 plus students, and their voices, and so we have an interest in innovation, advancing the technology as I stated before and not sound like a broken record. But that perhaps the trustees that were flirting with the idea of the student trustee's vote taking a role yesterday could consider that today in this tie before we go and have another split vote that we could reevaluate the role of that advisory vote in the actual decision making process. >> Mary, you wanna comment on that please? >> I apologize, Mr. Pack, but I'm not entirely sure what you're proposing. >> Oh, no, I'm--basically, I'm just asking us to rethink what we said yesterday. >> It sounds to me like you're--if I may, and tell me if I'm wrong, but that you're urging the trustees to consider seriously the import of your vote. >> I'm not asking that it be counted. >> That's what I'm saying. You just want them to pay attention to it. >> Right. And so to consider the sentiments that were expressed yesterday at our meeting. Just to think about it. >> Okay. Geoff? >> And I just wanna say thank you to Mr. Pack. He's done an exceptional job advocating for the students and I hear exactly what you're saying and I agree with so much of your points about the focus on technology, on sustainability, and others. And I, again, will say that I agree that Ms. Wah is an exceptional individual. I would say that from my time serving on the board alongside Mr. Weber there was no more passionate advocate about making every decision weighed on what is in the best interest of students above all else. And that was a role model for me in my service as a board member. And so I just wanted to explain that. But you are a--you've done such a good job representing the students and I--and just if I ultimately don't agree on this vote, that doesn't mean I don't take anything you say, Ms. Hammond or the students say with every bit of consideration because I admire everything that you've said so far. >> Okay. And then if I may really quickly. >> Sure. >> Thank you. That same sentiment turned around if we don't necessarily agree at the end. I still am in favor of our idea yesterday pulling the item for unanimous vote. I'm not trying to be difficult and I will support the decision of the board. I just would be remised in my responsibility representing the student interest if I didn't express the concerns I've been bringing forward. >> Right. And I think what you're asking is that because you do represent the students, you're asking us to give significance to that view. >> Precisely, thank you. >> Any other comments or? Okay, let's go for one more round. What color this time? >> That's a different color of paper. >> You don't wanna commingle the ballots. [ Laughter ] >> You can count my vote three times, otherwise. [ Inaudible Remark ] [ Noise ] [ Inaudible Discussion ] >> Do we have them all? I think so. Okay, Mr. Pack is Linda Wah. Mr. Thomson is Linda Wah. Dr. Fellow is Linda Wah. Dr. Mann is Warren Weber. Mr. Brown is Linda Wah. Mr. Martin is Warren Weber. And Mr. Baum is Warren Weber. So I think that adds up to the same identical score. September 22nd is our deadline for making a selection. If we don't meet that deadline, then the county will hold an election. So it is now roughly quarter to nine and we've been after this for some time. If you want to adjourn and have a--contemplate a special meeting, do you want to just adjourn and have the county hold an election, or you wanna stay here and have that, I guess? Any of the three choices? My recommendation would be that we adjourn for the evening and give some thought to this. The 22nd, I believe, is, what, next Wednesday. >> It's next Wednesday. >> Next Wednesday. So we could have a special meeting before that time if that's where we wanted to go. That would be my thought rather than to stay here now and spend more time on this particular issue, so. Views of others? Dr. Mann? >> I think Mr. Baum had his hand up. >> Okay, I just wanna clarify the dates. It's actually 60 days. And if I recall, Dr. Brandbury-Huang's letter was dated July 22nd. Given that there are 31 days in July and August are we actually looking at, if you count the number of days, would that be the 20th as opposed to the 22nd? >> Mr. Baum as I understand that the county has notified the college that the drop dead date is the 22nd. >> Okay. >> Am I correct, Mr. Thomson? Yes. So we--you have been officially put on notice that you gotta do it by then or the county will call an election. >> Okay, I just want to clarify that. Thank you. >> Well, I was just going to say, if those of us who are older have to remember when you had contested conventions for major political parties, we'd know they would stay there almost all night until they finally would elect someone on the 87th ballot. And so I, you know, I don't think we wanna have a special election. I think people maybe need to release, stop and consider what that would do. And I think people just really need to maybe consider, are they really acting the best interest of the college? >> Well, that's mean--not to respond to that substantively, but those are the arguments that we've been using back and forth throughout the evening and so the 22nd is next Wednesday evening, a week from tonight. >> Mr. Chairman, can I ask Ms. Dowell? Can you do this on the 22nd or does it have to be done before? >> Mr. Fellow, I would have to check that. I think you do have until the 22nd. I wanna see the letter that Mr. Thomson got from the county. I would recommend that you try to do it before then so that you are sure you have a timely notice to the county. >> Thank you. >> I would like to recommend that the board do this not later than the 21st. >> I was gonna suggest we do--or if we choose to go this path that we look at Monday evening for at least to put on an agenda and notice, a special meeting, and rather than wait till Tuesday or Wednesday. >> Mr. Chairman, I just wanna say I'm taping a television show Monday evening so I would have to be around 7 o'clock, would be the earliest I can come here. >> I have another employment meeting at my employment on Monday evening. Available Tuesday evening. >> What is the pleasure of the board? What time? >> Tuesday is fine at 6:30 or 7. I've a board meeting at 5:30. >> I'd go with Dr. Mann. I think that we should try to resolve it today. >> I am happy to stay here. >> Mr. Murray, have been offered to put himself over as a consensus candidate when I saw--talked to him during the break. >> Noble young man. >> And so I appreciate that. >> Tuesday is fine though. We can-- >> Neither one of those dates are great for me, but Tuesday would be better than Monday. But all I see that will happen if we delay it is that we will all just be lobbied more. I know I will be lobbied more and I don't think it's gonna make any--I don't think it's gonna make any difference. >> Well, that--yeah, that may be true. But I guess my hope would be that given the chance to reflect on this to some extent, some of us might be open to considering other paths. >> He's wise. >> What's that? >> I think you're very wise. >> I mean, I don't see staying here this evening as changing anything. >> I think the longer we stay the more entrenched we have to become. And the more direct and possibly contentious to discussion we become. So I think it would be in our best interest not to stay here longer this evening. We've had good discussion. We've got three votes. We seem to be where we are. And my recommendation would be that we adjourn and schedule to come back. My preference would be Monday next week or--I don't have my calendar here. I think I have a problem Tuesday night, anyway, Geoff? >> My concern about that is just that such a delay would actually to do with this service to the campus 'cause I think it would get--gonna be a very politicize environment. I know there're a lot of interested folks. Mr. Marhimes [phonetic], in the audience, Mr. Krausa [phonetic] was here and I--and this--the shared governance groups are here. I would expect that if chose to delay, we would only continue to extend this conversation and would--would further politicize the campus community. I think we're having a valuable discussion with philosophical points of view here. And I don't think it's a ready to throw in the towel. I think as the judge send the jury back to the jury room and see if we can reach some consensus. But I don't think--I seriously think, but actually be a disservice to the campus community if we were to extend this, because I would predict a very contentious debate going forward on. >> Other points of view? >> What is the pleasure of the board? >> I'm very content to stay and, I mean, we've got at least 6 colors and we've only used 3. [ Laughter ] >> I think we got the same break. [ Laughter ] [ Inaudible Remarks ] >> Well, yeah, I got the tally sheet. I know what the next color is. >> Oh wow, that is not fair. >> Yeah. I mean, if--my experience with meetings like this is that the longer you stay and the more entrenched people become the more difficult it to breach and compromise. So, I--we've had three goes at it and none of the trustee members has changed his or her vote. I don't listen to comments on here, the openness to doing that. So I'm not sure that we gain all that by staying here. Ms. Brown you haven't spoken. Let me put you on the spot. >> I don't mind, I could stay here. I don't have any problem with it. But I agree with you. I'm not sure that staying here till midnight is gonna make a difference. >> And Mr. Thomson, I don't think waiting [inaudible] gonna make a difference. You know, I--what--the only thing that I can see that will happen first of all, we're prohibited from Brown Act by--to discussing this amongst ourselves. >> Yeah. >> So what will happen is--then we would--as I said we will start getting lobbied, and we'll get more lobbying from people on campus. And it will just--and, you know, we would just have to decide. That's--You know, I think we need to decide now. The issue is--I don't think the issue is gonna change. And nothing, as far as I see, there's nothing to do with the people's qualifications. It is simply, three people think that at this point we need an experienced candidate that can bring stability to the board and three people think that we have a very excellent candidate and that we need new ideas and new thoughts. I mean that's what I've heard. >> Well I think the--just to tag on to that, I think the feeling about Ms. Wah is that she will also bring stability and stability. So I don't think--speaking for myself, I haven't heard that any of the four of us suggest that we think that she would be lacking in either of those qualities. I'm not sure that you meant to imply that either. >>I didn't--I didn't mean to imply. I meant stability in the sense of someone who is experienced and knows how the board functions. And has a sense of the appropriate relationship between the board and the president--superintendent. I think that is a critical point and Ms. Wah, who I was very impressed with has no experience on a Brown Act type of board. I mean, Mr. Murray, at least has been on a Brown Act board. He told us that--and he's talked Brow Act. And I think that it is different. It requires a different kind of engagement. And right now, with the new president who's doing a terrific job and has a tremendous load and the word I heard in his remarks over and over and over again was tired, tired, tired. We're gonna work until we collapse. I'm a runner. I hit the wall then I stop. I think the board should do every possible thing we can to assist this president, to be successful as he can and to make sure the college has the opportunity to continue to be as great as it is. And to me, to do--in order to do that, the board needs to be a strong and united as possible. And I think that--an experienced board member like Mr. Weber would do that. I'm not saying that Ms. Wah would bring an instability, I'm saying any new person who comes in I think would create a different dynamic and particularly someone who has virtually no experience in higher education, or she worked for what the city, she has--maybe volunteered in a school, she knows virtually nothing about community colleges except that I think neighborhood children attended them and she's had no experience on a--an elected body. Like she hasn't been a city council person, she hasn't served on a commission. So it would be unrealistic to think that there wouldn't be a steep learning curve here. This is what I'm saying and this is not being critical of Ms. Wah. She can--It's not negative that she hasn't done these things and I'm sure she would learn to do them. It's just I don't think we have the time right now. >> Mr. President, I just want to say, what are the benefits of the democracies, we can elect people with no experience? As a matter of fact, I think nine members of the United States Congress will have no experience in government--come November, and our president doesn't have much experience, the President of the United States and he became President, the job, so. >> Mr. Dr. Fellow I think you just made my argument if you look what congress is doing and the president. >> If I may, I don't know that what congress is doing has necessarily anything to do with their level of experience. I think it's much more complex than that. The other thing that I would say too is that--I mean forgive me if I'm asking it as a point to the question, but I'm not sure that I'm understanding why exactly Mr. Weber brings said stability? What types of decisions will Ms. Wah will not be prepared to make? And what will she not be prepared to do that somebody with more experience would be able to do? Like I'm--perhaps you can enlighten me. I'm just not understanding. >> Anybody have an answer or have to comment on that? >> Okay. I'll try. The--It's really difficult to answer that without appearing to be critical of other people on the board. And so that makes it--that makes it, you know, very, very difficult. I do think the board last year was engaged in micromanagement, and became very involved in how things were done, was on the campus in ways that were really inappropriate. And I think a more experienced Board might not have gone down that group. It's very difficult for me to say this because I was out for almost four months last spring. But I do think that there were--there were--let me just--let me just--I think the micro management is probably one of the--one of the biggest concerns. And the--And sometimes it's difficult to know when you're going into micromanagement. [ Noise ] >> Can I--I'm-- >> Yes. Okay. >> Thank you for clarifying that. I know--I guess, now I see the issue that's on the table and I wonder though, if there is anything about Ms. Wah's personality that makes her appear that she'd be predisposed to micromanaging? Is it the experience of the board or anyone in particular that someone with a lack of experience on a public work will be necessarily be prone to micromanaging. [ Noise ] >> With all the letters of recommendations she has received from different people and different backgrounds, everything, it's--I would not think that would be something, it would be a tendency that she would have. But I don't know. It's a--Dr. Fellow were you gonna say something or do I-- >> I suppose what I'm asking is the fear of micromanaging in this instance realistic? [ Noise ] >> It's realistic I think and it happened. And again, I don't--I just really can't go to--I don't wanna go too far down here but I think there are--I guess--I guess what I'm saying is a person who's had more experience on the board will know how to support the president and what is appropriate to do and what is not appropriate. And I would hope we would never have a situation where the present is getting mixed messages. The whole thing of the board acting through the board president is not intuitive. And so that's one thing, the whole--the idea of that has not an idea. If a board member sends an e-mail to all the other board members hits reply all, and begins discussing an issue affecting the board--I'm just giving some examples--that's a violation of the Brown Act. There's a lots of things like that that just takes awhile to learn. And those may not sound major but they can have tremendous implications. So with such a brief period of time, I just think we should--we should just not risk it. >> I do wanna tell you when I was elected to the water board I didn't knew nothing about water and today I'm one of the eminent people in the state of California about water, so. >> How long have you been on the water board? >> 20 years. >> I hate to do this. Can I request a short break? >> Well we just--we had one a few moments ago. >> I know. >> It can't hurt. >> Okay, 5 minutes we'll be back. [ Noise ] >> Okay, let's come back to order if we can please and back to our discussion. One thing I wanted to offer to the board is the question of whether we should invite shared governance groups or anybody from the public to which I brought card to come and address us to give an opportunity to do so since we've been going on for quite some time here. And we didn't have any input from any of those groups or the public prior to that time, question for your consideration. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Are there any shared governance groups, people who would like to offer any views? Jamie, you look like you're posed to grab the microphone there. >> I was, unless anybody else would like to speak. >> Go ahead. >> Okay. Well, first I'd like to thank you all for this discussion. I really think it's great to hear such passionate views one way or the other about the future of the college. And so I thank you. But I do wanna say that I see nothing but opportunity in this moment 'cause we're--I think that this is the perfect opportunity to go towards the values that we say that we embody as a college. Because I came to this college because I heard that it value diversity, community, innovation, sustainability, and all of are those on banners that we have outside all over the college. And so, if these are things that we value, I only see this as an opportunity to move toward a new direction with concept--with just these concepts that I say we value because I'm--I think I speak for my constituents when I suggest that there is a disconnect between the Board and the students and the rest of us that spend our days at the college and just to give you some more of the student perspective. Last year during the student government election, there--the students seemed to like they wanted--like instead of the old ways that student government was used to running, they wanted progress, they wanted innovation, they wanted something new, and a new student government board was elected and now you have Nolan and I--and I another very strong individuals that are asking for a lot of the same things. And so, all of what Linda Wah values form sustainability to technology are all things that we are in dire need of moving for towards. And so I hope--I urge you, those of you who are still--are still considering the other candidate. I do hope that you keep this in mind as well. Thank you. >> Okay. Are you advocating for a specific person or are you just making the point in general? >> May I? I would advocate for Linda Wah. >>Okay. Thank you. Any other shared governance groups [inaudible] comment? Yes, go ahead. >> [Inaudible] well, if I could just clarify. I have a view, but I'm reluctant to state it because I have not had any opportunity to discuss this issue with the faculty. And so I wouldn't want to pretend to represent the faculty on this--on this very, very important issue. I would just say that certainly, the faculty would be concerned about the issues that have been expressed, concern about not having micromanagement and moving forward. But again, I would decline to give any specific endorsement. >> Okay. Anyone else? Invite any audience, they wanna throw out a card and then hand that in please and Ms. Thomson have the cards, it's-- >> Where are the cards? >> Mary has them right here. >> What? >> Mr. Thomson, may I speak while he's filling out the card? >> Yes, please. >> I think probably, Mr. Weber knows as much about the physical plant here as anyone except maybe even including Dr. van Pelt and although Mr. Weber did not articulate anything about sustainability, I know the college is receiving a major award for sustainability and for what we have done, is that not correct in Denver with next month, Dr. Rocha? Are we not receiving them? And what is that award we're receiving for? >> It's the College President Climate--Global Climate Initiative. >> And what are we receiving it for? >> For just being general good guys on sustainability, you know, so. >> Which would include--at which would include physical plant, the things that has have happened here and the construction of the buildings and Mr. Weber was the chair of the oversight committee. So I think that although Mr. Weber did not articulate, maybe anything about sustainability, he has a long record here. And I guess that's what--the problem here is that some of us are much more far familiar with the scope of his work. And that's one of the reasons why we're supportive and I think sustainability is very important and I think most of us do. >> Here we have a [inaudible]. >> I was just gonna answer a little bit of college history and I don't mean this--articulate this as--actually I'm not trying to make this as an endorsement for Mr. Weber. But I think it goes to the point that Dr. Mann said, that obviously the ones that are supporting [inaudible] the ones that's been around here. Mr. Weber was extremely instrumental in the forming of the PCC foundation. >> Talk about innovation back when nobody had a foundation, Mr. Weber and another trustee got together and started moving to create the PCC foundation which has millions of dollars in funds, millions of dollars in scholarships. So if you wanna talk about innovation, Mr. Weber used his engineering degree back in our original master plan, back with Jack Scott, walked this campus, talked about new ideas, if you look at some of the changes that we've done to save energy, the concept of the system underneath the front lawn. He used his engineering degree to work through with the architects. He personally knows his architects and attended those meetings. If you wanna talk about proven sustainability, you got to talk about Warren Weber. In technology, we obviously know we are weak in technology and obviously, Dr. Wah is gonna be tremendous in technology. But he was part of our initial technology plan. Has represented us on the KPC radio station and resolved that whole issue they created and moved the station to Mount Wilson, talk about innovation, talk about expansion. I mean there's--what we're missing here is a history and the reason you see the old timers voting for him is there's just a hundred stories like these that we have lived through and we know. Now that's not to say if Linda was on the board 25 years and 25 years now, we probably can say some wonderful things about her too. And that's--and that may all start a year from next November. But you got to be careful when you're starting these arguments, 'cause you're talking of some people that have been around a really, really long time. And have watched this man, even when he wasn't on the board attending football games, attending basketball games, supporting athletic departments and music programs and over and over and over again, working with staff, working with architects, resolving issues, communicating with the radio station when we didn't know what to do with it. Working with the [inaudible] and creating the foundation. I mean the legacy goes on and on and on. And so, you know, I just warn you to be careful 'cause somebody comes in here and says I'm for technology, I'm for this. I mean the guys got a 23-year proven record in these areas. So, yeah, that's not to say--you know, I know some of my fellow trustees are looking upon the other candidate with some very good reasons and she's an incredible candidate and I have nothing, nothing bad I can possibly say. But careful when you start quoting--when you start thinking of Warren Weber as not being innovative, not being sustainable, not being technology, not being dynamic, careful when you start going there 'cause I've got too much history that just says exactly the opposite. So, I didn't really even mean to say that as an endorsement for Warren Weber. I just gonna put out the warning that there's just--you know, the reason the three of us that have been here so long are for him, it's just these kinds of experiences and reconciliations and issues, he walks the campuses, he said in his interview, he just knows people. He cares about people here. That's not to say Linda Wah--I'm sure she will. She has the passion. She is a wonderful individual. She just didn't have 23 years. So--or however many years. So, you know, that's all. So I'm just warning you when it comes to that. Watch what you say because I got too many examples. >> We have--the cards have been turned in from Ralph Hurtado. >> I'll bring them to our board [inaudible]. [ Noise ] [ Inaudible Discussion ] >> I am a student and I'm also a member of the President's Latino Advisory Committee. I would like to make an observation that I'm very distressed about. This decision is building a wedge between the old timers and people who had been here less than three years. I think that's a very dangerous precedence. The Board has always been known to work together. What I'm sort of beginning to lean towards an election even though I think you will be very heavily criticized for spending that kind of money at this difficult time. But the wedge that I see developing is a more frightening to me than even paying for the election. Thank you. >> We have a card from, excuse me, Kristy Rowe, PCC student. [ Noise ] >> Hi, good evening. Just being an observer for my first time actually under the request of a professor here. I too am very distressed. I heard several ambiguous comments being made by the trustees as to "it is not our job" to appoint this, that is the district's responsibility, but then it was also rebutted that that was a decision made by the trustees to not give it to the district to decide on. I would like to fully believe that, you as trustees have the competence to elect somebody and it's not that you're faced with this decision to make consistently, there are elections and it is given to the district, and it is our right to be able to make these decisions. But you're faced with the situation where it is then your responsibility. It is for you to step up and make that decision. Just learning tonight on who Ms. Wah and who Mr. Weber is, I think you are very more educated than I am as to what they have to offer and what they have offered in the past. I think, you know, as a student I would like to see change. I would like to see positive change. I don't think--You've all said that every applicant was very well qualified and came very well talked about and recommended. But I hear ambiguity in as--someone stated that, you know, is this candidate going to fulfill what our college needs? I have yet to hear someone say exactly what our college needs. Do we need someone for technology? Do we need someone to implement new policy? Do we need someone to fight for a specific budget or, you know, for the faculty, what is it that our college needs? I'm really unaware as to what it is that you're asking of these candidates. And if--I would feel that if you would at least lay that out, it shouldn't be very hard to fulfill that. I mean I understand the election is gonna be in 14 months and there's a temporary, you know, candidate that's willing to just take this responsibility on for a short amount of time but is that what our college needs? Is it just a temporary position? I mean, I don't understand how you're not on the same page, you know, and I hear, you know, the old and the new and it--personally, being a second year student, I--it's not my opinion to say, well, I prefer someone to be on the perfect 20 years and that's who I'm gonna stand behind. But I do hear a lot of positives coming out for one candidate versus the other and we are looking for a future. We're not looking behind and what happened in our past. I'm very disturbed that this is what's occurring. You know, I heard that I'm here in an exciting meeting and it's not always like this and not really as exciting as I wanted it to be, you know. I would--I have more confidence in you as trustees to make good decisions for me as a student. And for the faculty, I hear a lot of their comments as well. That's who, you know, has to live with your decisions, and as well as the surrounding community. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Anyone else who wants to address us? There are these cards or sheets back there, just please fill one out and pass it to Mary [inaudible] and she'll give it to me. Geoff? [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Well, the only--I think that the last speaker raised a really excellent point and probably--maybe people in the audience are not aware what the criteria for this position are. And I think maybe it won't hurt to remind the board members this is what we approved. It was handed to all the candidates. It's been on the website. And okay, so this is to help you understand what we're looking for. Interest and commitment to serve the community, interest and commitment to public education and student learning, knowledge about and commitment to the role and mission of community colleges and communities they serve in the context of all of higher education, willingness [inaudible] to represent those who live in the service area, mindful of the perspective with different constituencies, willingness to advocate the district and its interest to community. Knowledge and background, relate to issues considered by the board such as community needs, funding, education, district operations. Ability to work as member of a public governing board, ability to articulately express perspectives and respect of perspectives of others, willingness to work [inaudible] with others and in partnership with the college president, time and energy to fulfill the responsibilities, willingness and time to engage on ongoing professional development, commitment to fill the ethical and legal obligations, qualities back on statute that will enhance the standing of the District and the community. >> My point is, and maybe it's not been correctly or properly articulated all evening is that Mr. Weber is--not only meets these particularly when you talk about, you know, experience, commitment, ability, knowledge of the community colleges of this district, of the background of the district. Almost every single thing here, he not only meets it but he meets it better than the other candidates because of his experience as a trustee. There's just no way that someone who has never even as far as we now taken the class on as Mr. Hurtado just told us he is are served on an advisory committee on this campus or any other college campus as far as we know can have this kind of background and experience. So what--in my view, what we have is someone who meets all of these criteria and we have accounted who is--has had good community experience, has no experience with higher ed as far as she articulated, no experience with community college, and no experience working with the board. That's why I think that it was good for us to--you know, for you to raise the point of what are we looking for. This is what we said we were looking for when we went out. This is the criteria that we should be using to evaluate these candidates and I think if we go back and look at that criteria. There's nothing here about technology, there's nothing here about innovative ideas. There's nothing about somebody's other attributes which are fine. We approve this ourselves if what we were looking for was someone to bring a new perspective and new ideas and so forth. We should have said this. But that's not what we said. We put together a series of criteria that were strong on knowledge and experience and we have one candidate who has that. So I think if we look at the criteria we advertise and the candidates that there can just be no question here. And maybe I think that's one of the reasons why the three of us as Mr. Hurtado pointed out is becoming this wedge between the three who've been on the board for more than three years and those who haven't. But the time to have had that discussion was about two months ago. When we looked at this and Mary went over them point by point on a PowerPoint and we agreed every single one of these. Now when it comes to time of applying them, we are looking at how well a very articulate person did an interview. >> But let me just make one comment then I'll turn it Geoff. The--What you pointed out the criteria, it does state in the introductory sentence that the selection of final candidates were reviewed with the entire board shall include consideration of following criteria. It doesnt say that's all that--that they have. So Geoff. >> I just wanna address the comments both by Ralph and by our student. First off, thank you for coming forward and saying something. And I don't wanna confuse kind of spirited passionate debate with the sense of division of the board. One of the things--the hallmark from the board that my colleagues have seen from, we come from about as broad a political spectrum as possible. Dr. Mann and I don't always see to eye on politics and in--especially when it comes to politics outside the district. But we're all well committed to advancing what we think is in the best interest of the district and I don't take the fact that there's been a couple of votes by Dr. Fellow, Mr. Thomson, Ms. Brown has a sense that we're divided. We both--We're all elected to have a different perspective and bring the perspective to the table. So I wanna reassure everybody that however this turns out, I think we're going to move forward as a board that works together, sees beyond political differences, works across a political spectrum to the advantage of the district. That's why I really appreciate the feedback that I get from the campus community. I have a strong feeling about who I think would be best suited to serve as a trustee for--and represent district 5 at this time but--and others have a different point of view. So please don't confuse a different point of view with--on this issue as a division or a sign of dysfunction within the board because I'm confident however this is resolved. We will move forward walk elbow to elbow to advance the district. >> Geoff I just want--I think that's very--a very good statement. We all--all of us have belief and I am very committed to diversity and when I look at this campus and it's 33 percent Asian, that's just a lot to me too but I appreciate your remarks. >> Mr. Pack? >> I'd also like to--I--well, thank you Trustee Thomson for bringing out the point that the criteria are including but not limited to essentially and I would also point out not to say that one candidate universally means all of those criteria better than an another is sort of dangerous because when we talk about willingness to represent their area I think that Linda Wah's involvement in that district is very impressive, particularly in the sense that she was--during her interview was able to site specific statistics about the needs of South Pasadena High School students, their transfer rates to PCC so on and so forth in a way that was very clear. Obviously, she understood the issues well and I--I mean, would dare say that I didn't see that from any of the other candidates necessarily in terms of representing their district in that specific way. So again, like--just because one candidate may have more experience as defined as--by membership on this board, I don't think that there's one of these two candidates that universally as better at all the criteria than the other. >> Mr. Thomson, I think that is a excellent example of the point I was trying to make. This is what Linda Wah said in there, the fact that Mr. Weber was elected to represent his district what, five times? Certainly shows more than a willingness to think it shows that he had support in his district and at--that's why I think it's almost impossible for someone who hasn't--doesn't have this experience to actually compete against this criteria. That's the point that I'm making. And he didn't tell us this but we knew it. So he has represented his constituents more than just giving--more than giving statistics from South Pasadena. It's not any of these candidate's faults that they haven't had the opportunity to have the experience he's had because none of them have had served on this board. >> And I would caution us against using that as the only criteria because Linda Wah for instance I don't think in her lifespan could have served on this board for 30 years. I don't know that that's even possible one and-- >> Hired, I think she could have. [ Laughter ] >> Well, I mean to run--and she would have to run at a fairly early age. I also think too that the circumstantial stuff that she talked about, for instance her children are in a place now where she's not having to care for them constantly. She has stepped down from a number of positions or responsibilities that she had before. I think to say that because she was not on the board of trustees means that she's not qualified to be on the board now is counterintuitive to the idea of ever having new candidates, I just I wonder if taking experience into account so heavily is blocking us from viewing other positives about this candidate especially given the circumstances that she explained to us very clearly prior to her applying for this position. >> I do have a question. >> Yes, ma'am. >> I wonder if--if I'm not mistaken, I think Dr. Mann mentioned that the constituents did elect Mr. Weber, you know, four times I think it was? But then at the fifth time or whatever time it was they did not elect him if I'm not mistaken. So someone else was elected I think that was Dr. Wah. So basically there is something to be said of what the student trustee was mentioning. So he was not elected on the fifth time that's my point. >> Geoff, [inaudible] >> The only point I make, I understand and I thought--I thought about that too. But another way to look at it is that he was the runner up and then the person left so then the opportunity to serve could go to the runner up in that district so that's another way to look at that. >> If I can sort of verify the comment that I made too. I don't think that revealing it from the perspective of who was the runner up and who participated in the selection versus who didn't is necessarily constructively to engage this discussion because not only Linda Wah but other candidates who applied for this position were simply not in the position in there life at that time to have ran in any of those elections before, perhaps they didn't live in the district at the time or whatever it require them to drop a number of important things, perhaps they were caring for children. So I think that the idea of who didn't and participate in the election is not necessarily the best litmus test for who's the appropriate candidate in this case, many of them expressed that they just weren't in the place to run before. >> Let me try to serve a useful purpose here and suggest it might be time for one more vote. >> I would offer just the suggestion that again I do believe sincerely we have two qualified, two very well qualified people here. The question is are we going to select somebody to simply--to not simply--someone to occupy a position neatly making good contributions to the school, big contribution to the board et cetera. Or we want to choose a person who has indicated pretty clearly that she will be a candidate for reelection, 14 months, and the people in her area will have a chance to judge her, to see how confidently or not she--functions. And so I think that's really the choice. So anyway, Ms. Dowell can you pass out what's the color this time around? >> John knows. [ Laughter ] >> Green. [ Laughter ] [ Noise ] [ Inaudible Discussion ] >> That's the color we want. >> Sure. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. [ Noise ] [ Inaudible Discussion ] [ Laughter ] >> Okay, Dr. Mann, Warren Weber. >> I'm sorry. [ Inaudible Remarks ] >> Okay, Dr. Mann, Warren Weber. >> Mr. Baum, Warren Weber. Ms. Brown, Linda Wah. Mr. Martin, Warren Weber. Mr. Thomson, Linda Wah. Dr. Fellow, Linda Wah. And Mr. Pack, Linda Wah. Nothing seems to have changed in the-- [ Simultaneous Talking ] >> Just the color of the paper. >> So what is your pleasure? Do you want to vote again, you want to adjourn, do you wanna call an election or what? >> Would it help if we did come back next week and brought the two candidates for a little discussion? And we've done that in the past. >> Ms. Dowell has a frown on her face. >> I guess I'm not entirely certain what you mean by a little discussion. Mr. Fellow but I think-- >> We could have an interview with two candidates. I've done that many times. >> You certainly could, yes. Yeah, you could continue this meeting until--I mean you could recess this meeting and reconvene it and ask the two candidates to make one more presentation to you before you vote again. That would certainly be possible. Mr. Thomson, what I want to do if you do recess this meeting is to work with Ms. Thomson to be absolutely certain that we don't misjudge the date, but would you have to act. We know that the county has told us that it's the second. I wanna be really sure. I--It's making me nervous that you wanna push this over until Tuesday or Wednesday. I would be much happier as your lawyer if you did it tomorrow or Friday so that we're certain we were inside the deadline. >> I don't think we would have, well, if we recess, do we have to provide notice then? >> If you recess, you can I believe recess for up to 48 hours. >> Okay. So we would not have to worry about noticing the meeting? >> Right. Although you--you would because you'd be inviting the candidates and letting the community know. But yeah, you can recess up to 48 hours. >> Any other comments or do you wanna try one more vote before we go or Mr. Pack? >> I would endorse Trustee Fellow's idea. I don't see anything changing tonight, perhaps having the candidates involved in the dialog more or being able to speak to them a second time. What enlighten us more or at least create a different atmosphere than this, I don't know that. I don't know if there is any value in staying here longer. >> I don't really wanna stay--stay much longer but what is the board's pleasure? Do you want to--anybody in the public want to hand a card in and comment, offer any advice. >> I like the idea of recess and bringing both candidates back and then hear them out and then both. >> Geoff? >> I must admit. I still have serious reservations about adjourning this meeting--I mean recessing this meeting because of the impact it could have on the campus community will then feel compelled to get engaged in the process in a way that--you know, it's in the spirit of passion for where people want to advocate. You wanna encourage that but I don't know if it would be the best thing for the district to do that? >> Well, do you wanna have one more go at it and see what happens and then-- >> Can I have-- >> Can I ask for a recess just for 5 minutes? [ Laughter ] >> Yes. >> Yes, you may ask for one and yes, I will grant it. [ Simultaneous Talking ] [ Laughter ] >> Alright. We'll be back in [inaudible] 10 minutes to 10. [ Noise ] >> Okay. Let's come back. [ Simultaneous Talking ] >> And see where we want to--to go with this. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> It's been suggested that we might recess this and come back on Friday afternoon. I don't know how that fits with Dr. Fellow's schedule or Nolan's or anybody else. That would be one opportunity. Tuesday night of next week is difficult for me, added to it later. But Monday would be open. But--if that's what we wanna do and question this, do we want to invite Mr. Weber and Ms. Wah to come and speak to us and--or do you wanna try one more vote this evening and see what happens. We seemed to be having two choices. >> I think we should bring them. >> Yeah. >> Invite them--Invite them back. >> Recess the meeting and then invite them? >> Recess and invite both candidates to come back and meet us here on Friday. >> I couldn't do it before 2 o'clock, but I could do it 2 o'clock. >> So what time are we looking at? >> We're looking at 2 o'clock Friday afternoon. That works for your John? >> Yes, I can do that. I'm-- [ Noise ] >> President Thomson, as far as the administration is concerned, I of course be here but I would ask that if staff has commitments on Friday that they be, you know, receipts for those commitments. >> Sure. We don't need staff here [inaudible]. >> No. [ Simultaneous Talking ] >> And Mrs. Thomson. >> Yes. But you're certainly welcome to come. [Laughter] No, no, no, I'm not trying to push in the way but I know I've got them working pretty--[inaudible] pretty fast. I know they have meetings on Friday. And so just in case not all staff attends just let you know. >> Is it the consensus that we want to recess until Friday afternoon 2 o'clock and invite Ms. Wah and Mr. Weber to come and speak to us? >> Yes, please. >> Maybe Mr. Weber, sure, maybe we should ask him if he would be available Friday afternoon, 2 o'clock. We don't know if Ms. Wah will be. >> Are you available? >> I'm available. >> Okay, good. >> Saves one phone call. >> Assume that Ms. Wah is available and hopefully we'll call her right after this and find out. Mr. Baum? >> I wanna just raise my concern but not make it an objection 'cause I won't stand in the way of this. But I do want to say that I appreciate the passion, the commitment that everybody on the campus has for it too. I will be making--continuing to make my decision based on who I think is thoughtful, independent, understands the challenges, facing the district who will be open-minded when they serve as a board member. >> And we'll listen to all perspectives before making a decision. And that will be important to me. And so I anticipate a floodgate of comments but I just wanted to say that's what I'll be looking for when I--when we reconvene. >> Any other comments? >> And I think I would say the same. >> Other comments? Then we will see everybody at 2 o'clock this Friday afternoon. We are in recess. >> Alright. [ Noise ] [ Silence ]