Responses to Questions Asked During Public Comment
Board of Trustees Meeting - May 21, 2015
Q: Making annual request for live streaming of board meetings and request to keep the audio/video
recordings of meetings on the website indefinitely.
A: We began streaming meetings on Thursday, June 11. The video/audio recordings of all previous
public meetings, starting with 2009, are currently online and can be found on the Board of
Trustees website. This is a direct link to the archive:
https://www.cod.edu/multimedia/bot/archive/archive_log.html
Q: Regarding April 2014 announcement of the Community Farm being moved to a DuPage County
Forest Preserve property, having heard no further progress on this believes the time is now to
move the Community Farm back to the College of DuPage.
A: The request is under consideration.
Q: Under what authority can a trustee incur a legal debt for this College prior to Board approval?
A: An individual trustee cannot incur a legal debt.
Q: Where is the documentation that supports claims by Tom Glaser that dues paid to Max McGraw
are a part of Dr. Breuder’s compensation?
A: We cannot find the claims Mr. Allen refers to. The only interview we can think of that may have
quoted the College saying that Max McGraw dues were part of Dr. Breuder’s contract was with
the Northern Illinois University radio station in October 2014. We remember that they
inaccurately quoted Tom Glaser saying the dues were part of Dr. Breuder’s compensation. It is
not reflected in the online story, which does not mention dues being part of Dr. Breuder’s
contract. http://northernpublicradio.org/post/college-dupage-rejects-illegitimate-spending-claims
Q: Records reviewed under a FOIA show grant applications are including enrollment numbers that
are inconsistent with those reported to the ICCB. Why were those numbers exaggerated?
A: The numbers in question are part of an introductory paragraph this is used (and continues to be
used) that sets the context for the college before proposing a program. The number in question
(31,000) is an approximation of number of students enrolled in a term. It is not meant to be
compared with the 10th Day figure that is sent to ICCB.
Q: Pertaining to an item on the agenda for the bid item for firearms for Homeland Security Training
Center – appears that you asked for quotes were for brand name – why were cheaper ones that
meet the need not considered?
A: The weapons that were requested for the Homeland Security Training Center (HTC) were
specific to the weapons that the majority of law enforcement departments use. Both the Colt M4
1 and the Glock 17 are by far the most widely used weapons by law enforcement. Most of the
SLEA Basic Academy recruits will be using these weapons when they report to the police
departments, and having these weapons will prepare them for their roles as police officers. The
thought was to be able to provide the same firearms for police to use if there was a weapon
malfunction or other issue.
The Colt M4 is known for its reliability and durability. Additionally since the guns have been
manufactured by the same company for several decades, replacement parts are plentiful.
As far as the Glock 17 handgun is concerned, they are the most economically efficient firearms
and are used by most police departments and can be utilized just as easily by private citizen,
another group that will be utilizing the range. They are simplistic in their design and function and
can be repaired at minimal cost.
The Smith and Wesson is an additional durable and inexpensive handgun that we wanted to
offer private citizens as another option in the event they do not want to utilize the Glock 17
handguns at the range during a concealed carry or other firearms class.
The cost of weapons for the new range was included in the budget for the new building.
Q: In regards to legal billing payment for Mr. O’Rourke was that payment made to the College or
the Foundation?
A: The payment was made directly to the college by the Bauer Foundation.
Q: Does approval of a $105,000 SRC donor wall seem appropriate?
A: The Foundation raised over $5 million dollars last year for college programs and student
scholarship and increased the number of donors giving to the Foundation by 225% from the
previous year. Industry research (Council for the Advancement of Education and the
Association for Fundraising Professionals) shows that strong donor stewardship through the use
of donor walls, annual reports and one on one meetings for major gift donors, contributes
significantly in encouraging repeat, upgraded and cumulative lifetime gifts.
The College had to remove the old donor wall as part of the referendum funded renovations.
As the donor wall had not been updated for more than ten years, it was an opportunity to install
a more contemporary wall, which included interactive technology, so that donors, students and
alumni could personalize their experience with it, and provide staff ease in annually updating
categories and contributors. With the use of this technology, the life span of the new wall
should be 10-15 years.
Q: Why is an executive summary (3-5 pages) of the Budget not available to highlight the major
percent changes in the top 10 revenue and expense categories, summary of variations, brief
review of the major assumptions, competitive comparison information with the University of
Illinois and 2 to 3 other community colleges, brief explanation of new programs.
A: We have historically put together an Executive Summary of the annual budget which included
the major assumptions used in the development of the annual budget. While it was not
presented publicly, we put together an Executive Summary of the FY2016 Budget. With the
creation of the Board’s Budget Committee, however, we did not know what types of information
the Committee might want or the format in which they might want it. Subsequent to introduction
2 of the budget, we’ve met with Secretary Napolitano and Trustee Bernstein and have begun to
assemble information per their request.
Q: Visuals of presentations to Board should be available on website.
A: Presentations can be found on the Board of Trustees website
(http://www.cod.edu/about/board_of_trustees/index.aspx) beginning with the May 14 meeting.
Q: Internal Audit – how are projects selected, results made public and recommendations followed
up on?
A: Projects are selected using the following criteria: 1) Requirements in Board Policy, 2) Issues
that arose in an area during the prior year that indicate a review is needed, 3) Follow-up to
reviews conducted in the past to determine if improvement has occurred, 4) Regulatory
requirements such as report filing to the ICCB (apportionment reports sent each semester) and
taxing bodies like the IRS (Unrelated Business Income Tax) and State of Illinois (sales tax), 5)
Areas that the President feels should be reviewed based on information he has received, 6)
Areas with high dollar amounts such as referendum-funded construction projects, 7) Financial
and other areas that pose a high degree of risk, i.e. cash and 8) Concerns raised through the
COD Ethics Hotline.
Reports with the results of the reviews are prepared and given to the President who shares
them with other interested parties at his discretion. To my knowledge, the results of the reviews
are generally not made public.
Management is expected to respond to any recommendation made in an Internal Audit report
and their response is included in the report. Follow-up reviews are performed to determine if the
recommendations and management responses have been implemented and if they resolved the
issues that were raised in the reports. When needed, follow-up reviews typically occur within 612 months of the initial review.
Q: Will the Board publish all charters of the Board committees?
A: The committees to this point are ad hoc. To the extent any standing committees are formed, the
charters will be posted online.
Q: Hold a public Budget Workshop.
A: The Budget Committee of the Board of Trustees held a Budget Workshop.
Q: Publish a one page close-out report of the Master Plan 2010
A: 2010 Master Plan Report:
Q: Ensure community members input is included in the SLRP process.
A: Through the following methods input from hundreds of community members has been sought
and incorporated into the Strategic Long Range Plan for the College.
3 Environmental Scan
An extensive evidenced-based Environmental Scan (E-Scan) is conducted in the first year of
the three-year planning cycle. In conducting the E-Scan, members of the Strategic Long Range
Plan Advisory Committee (SLRPAC) are divided into taxonomy teams (Demographics,
Economy, Education, Labor Force, Politics, Social Values/Life Style and Technology) and spent
four months doing evidence-based research, conducting interviews (with community leaders)
and compiling trend statements. (Appendix A – Strategic Long Range Plan, April 2014 Update.)
Implications Workshop
Following the identification of the trends, over 300 individuals from the community are invited to
participate in a half day Community Implications Workshop. Prior to the workshop, participants
were asked what two areas or taxonomies interested them and are then provided the trends for
those taxonomies. The community members are then asked to study the trends and be
prepared to discuss what implications or consequences the trends might have on the
community served by College of DuPage. During the workshop, the community members are
divided into teams with each team discussing and refining implications related to their respective
set of trends. Once the implications are identified, the community members participated in a
nominal group exercise that identifies those trends that would have the greatest impact on the
community and ultimately on the College. (Appendix B – Strategic Long Range Plan, April 2014
Update.)
Community Nights
Over the past five years citizens from fourteen communities (Wheaton; Glen Ellyn; Naperville;
Lisle; Addison; Bensenville; Lombard; Villa Park; Downers Grove; Westmont; Aurora; West
Chicago; Winfield and Lyons Township) served by the College were invited to Community
Nights. A key aspect of each Community Night was to have participants (80 – 100 per event)
discuss and report out on several strategic questions or issues. Their responses were then
qualitatively analyzed and placed into one of three action categories (i.e., Education/Training
Opportunities; Partnering Opportunities and Awareness/Marketing Opportunities) for inclusion in
the Strategic Long Range Plan (Appendix C – Strategic Long Range Plan, April 2014 Update.)
Comprehensive Community Survey
At the start of the three-year planning cycle a comprehensive (scientific) survey is conducted.
Four hundred telephone interviews are completed, yielding an overall error margin of ±5.0
percent. The number of calls to individuals in any specific community (e.g., Naperville, Carol
Stream, West Chicago, etc.) approximated the proportion of residents that community has in
District 502. The survey focuses on three main areas: 1) current awareness of COD offerings
and services; 2) attitudes and perceptions about the College; and, 3) perceived community
needs as it relates to higher education.
Graduate Student Follow-up Survey
The Office of Research and Analytics conducts a Graduate Follow-Up Survey (GFU) with all
graduates in occupational degree or certificate programs within one year of graduation to gather
employment trends and gather feedback on how well the programs prepare the student for life
after graduation. This data is also considered when developing or updating the Strategic Long
Range Plan.
Q: Spoke on behalf of the College soccer program but the poor condition of the soccer field.
Q: Spoke of the soccer field and the poor condition – specifically overwatering, high level of grass
and mud patches and the non-compliance of the size of the field.
Q: Echoed the remarks about the soccer field; in addition, included that the women’s soccer team
has no area to change and no scoreboard.
4 A: We recognize and acknowledge the soccer field’s current condition. Our intercollegiate soccer
programs have been using the grass fields for practice and competition. After it rains, the soccer
fields hold water as the fields were built without an underground drainage system. To
compensate for drainage, the architect designed a pitch in the field development. Moreover, the
soils on which the fields are built have a heavy clay consistency, which does not drain well.
Although the College’s Building and Grounds Department has tried numerous procedures to
help with the drainage, none has been successful.
Because of the water issues, there have been some areas of the field where mud patches have
formed. These mud patches are created by standing water and the amount of play on the
fields. The length of the playing surface grass is also determined by the growing season we
experience in the upper Midwest. If the playing surface is cut too short, there is legitimate
concern this would damage the root systems leading to dead or dormant grass. While the fields
are cut shorter near the end of the season (mid-fall), we do lengthen the cut in the summer as a
grass protection method.
The soccer complex was designed to have fields that measure 110 yards (length) by 70 yards
(width). Concerns have been voiced that this does not meet National Collegiate Athletic
Association or National Junior College Athletic Association standards. Although the NJCAA
uses NCAA rule books for each individual sport, admittedly, there is inconsistency between
NCJAA and NCAA standards on the regulation of field size. We have verified with Brian Beck,
NJBCAA Assistant Executive Director, Compliance, that NCJAA regulations take precedence. In
Article XIII of the NJCAA rulebook, under Men’s Division I Soccer and Women’s Division III
soccer (the divisions we participate in), it states “All region and district playoff games must be
played on a natural or artificial turf that measures at least 110 yards by 70 yards, with a visible
clock.” We are in compliance.
As for the scoreboard, it is only required for regional games. The portable board that was used
recently became inoperable. During the regular season last year, we did play some games
without a scoreboard while we waited on the replacement board to arrive. During the regular
season, the time is kept on the field by the head official. We have always had a scoreboard
available for any regional or district games we hosted in compliance with NJCAA rules.
Ms. Toritto mentioned that the women’s soccer team had no place to change. Ms. Toritto was a
member of our team during the 2013 and 2014 seasons. During the 2013 season, the Physical
Education Center was closed for renovations. During that period of renovation, all of our sports
had to make due with difficult circumstances. We moved back into the facility in January 2014.
During the fall 2014 season, we did make locker room facilities available to the women’s soccer
team.
Moving forward, College of DuPage will play their 2015 Men’s and Women’s soccer seasons in
the Bjarne Ullsvik Football Stadium. The field measures 120 yards by 75 yards. It has locker
facilities, a scoreboard, and bleachers, and meets all field standards set forth by both the NCAA
and NJCAA. The artificial turf field will allow continuous use of the field in most weather
conditions and the majority of our incoming high school feeder athletes already play on a similar
playing surface.
Q: What are plans for the year-end Audit?
A: Crowe Horwath LLP is under contract to complete the FY2015 annual audit. This represents the
last year under their current five year contract. It is our expectation to issue a Request For
Proposal (RFP) in the Fall to identify a firm to conduct the external audits of the College for the
next five years.
5 Q: Can year-end financial projections be made and available to Board and to public?
Q: Budget to Expense report monthly, but no revenue to budget report – could that be included?
A: The Board is working with the Finance Department to update the package.
Q: Investment Schedule as of 4/30/15 investment schedule is overstated by over $4 million and
relates to IMET.
A: Finance Department is evaluating the IMET amounts that may not be collectible.
Q: Are the firearms new or used?
A: The Firearms are new.
6 Facilities Master Plan - Project Status Report
as of May 31, 2015
Project Nos.
Project Description
Budget
Expenditures
Balance
$ 3,536,000
500,000
410,012
$ 4,446,012
$ 2,679,559
6,400
479,916
9,280,738
7,158,698
7,012,426
107,590,237
48,927,719
57,485,705
15,309,220
964,309
4,328,555
1,093,367
154,661
1,861,875
338,387
46,057
1,764,509
353,946
2,036,241
138,391
716,269
454,542
7,015
4,877,193
1,075,612
30,541,973
24,420,233
10,197
1,695,001
3,974,685
5,463,982
3,768,760
14,927
$ 346,031,305
$ 350,477,317
$ 3,224,098
426,900
-­‐
$ 3,650,998
$ 2,679,559
6,400
479,916
9,280,738
7,158,698
7,012,426
107,590,237
48,927,719
57,485,705
15,309,220
964,309
4,328,555
1,093,367
154,661
1,861,875
338,387
46,057
1,764,509
353,946
2,036,241
138,391
716,269
454,542
7,015
4,877,193
1,075,612
30,541,973
24,420,233
10,197
1,695,001
3,974,685
5,463,982
3,768,760
14,927
$ 346,031,305
$ 349,682,303
$ 311,902
73,100
410,012
$ 795,014
$ -­‐ -­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
$ -­‐ $ 795,014
Year Project
Completed
Comments
Referendum -­‐ 1
758
771
999
718
719
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
736
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
750
751
752
755
757
759
760
761
764
765
767
770
772
Signage
Special initiatives
Contingency
Sub-total Open Projects:
Carol Stream Community Ed Center
Stratford Square
Satellite Dish Farm Relocation
Management Services
Parking Lots -­‐ Phase 3** (RPL 3)
Early Child Education Center (ECC)
BIC
Tech Ed Center
HNS Building
Parking Lots -­‐ Phase 2 (RPL 2)
Naperville Regional Center
Infrastructure McAninch Arts Center (MAC)
Regional Sites (Convalescence Center)
Athletic Fields Relocate/ Improvements Phase 2
Auxiliary Storage Buildings (MAC/FS)
Soccer Fields
Parking Lots -­‐ Phase 1 (RPL 1)
PUD
Relocate DP3 to DP2 (temp Parking).
Community Garden
Storm Water
Site Analysis/Service
West Campus Community Center
Athletic Fields 3
Move Management
Culinary & Hospitality Center
Homeland Security Center
Demobilize Trailers
HSC Landscape
SRC Wall Rehabilitation
Landscaping & Site Improvements
Campus Site Improvements (FY 13)
Bond Issue
Sub-total Completed Projects:
Total Referendum 1
In progress.
In progress.
2004
Project cancelled.
2006
Gilbane & Rise Construction Management consulting
2008
2007
2012
2009
2009
2007
2008
varioius
2009
2006
2005
2008
2006
2011/2014
2004
2006
2007/2009
2012
Phase 1 included SSC addition completed in 2011.
Multiple projects with various completion dates.
Graphic Arts project.
Project cancelled.
Updates occurred over a multi-­‐year period.
Storm flow improvements completed over 3 year period.
Project cancelled. Concept included in PE renovation.
2009
2009
2011
2011
2011
2010
2012
2010
2013
Project Nos.
Project Description
Budget
Expenditures
Balance
SRC Library (800) & ACC Center (812)
McAninch Arts Center (MAC)
Physical Education Center (PE)
Infrastructure -­‐ Campus Wide
Homeland Security -­‐ Phase II
Parking
Naperville Regional Center
Athletic Facilities Demolition Buildings (State Funds -­‐ 75%)
Demolition Buildings (COD Funds -­‐ 25%)
FY13 -­‐ Parking -­‐ West Campus, PE
FY14 -­‐Site/Infra/Parking Improv
FY15 -­‐ Site & Grounds
Contingency
Sub-­‐total Open Projects
Seaton Computing Center (SCC)
Site/Ground Improvements
Campus Maintenance Center (COD)
SRC -­‐ S. Lobby -­‐ Exterior Wall (glass)
SRC -­‐ South Lobby & Atrium
Campus Artwork
FY13 -­‐ Campus Site Improvements
FY13 -­‐ Irrigation & Drainage
Sub-­‐total Completed Projects
39,773,422
34,076,247
25,262,500
4,300,000
16,500,000
8,361,898
6,100,000
2,141,000
3,412,129
1,137,376
5,628,797
3,497,500
1,333,000
8,792,188
$ 160,316,057
$ 6,911,107
14,103,639
9,432,998
1,421,578
1,246,834
104,516
1,015,000
1,110,771
$ 35,346,443
$ 195,662,500
39,686,864
33,647,989
24,927,440
4,248,488
9,441,758
8,226,898
5,590,419
2,086,394
3,370,906
1,123,635
5,517,648
3,331,569
-­‐
-­‐
$ 141,200,008
$ 6,911,107
14,103,639
9,432,998
1,421,578
1,246,834
104,516
1,015,000
1,110,771
$ 35,346,443
$ 176,546,451
86,558
428,258
335,060
51,512
7,058,242
135,000
509,581
54,606
41,223
13,741
111,149
165,931
1,333,000
8,792,188
$ 19,116,049
$ -­‐ -­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
$ -­‐ $ 19,116,049
$ 546,139,817
$ 526,228,754
$ 19,911,063
Year Project
Completed
Comments
Referendum -­‐ 2
800
802
803
805
806
807
808
811
817
"
820
822
823
815
801
804
809
813
814
818
819
821
Total Referendum 2
Total Referendum 1 & 2
2014
2014
2014
2015
2015
2012/2013
2014
2012
2014
2014
2013
2014
Various projects (incl. pond 9). Final completed fall 2013.
Tennis Courts Not yet under construction.
2013
2011/2013
2013
2012
2012
2014
2013
2013
95% complete 2012. Pavilion completed spring 2013.