Board of Trustees Report
District Office
December 14, 2011
Institutional Effectiveness Committee
Accreditation self-studies were the topic today. Yasmin Delahoussaye began with a brief
report on what was being done regarding ACCJC recommendations for the district as a
whole. The DBC Exec is studying the district allocation model and steps have been
taken to clarify the relationship between the district office and the colleges. The
Governance and Functions Handbook that Gary Colombo put together has been very
helpful, and has served as a model for other districts.
The three seaside college presented their self-studies, done in preparation for their
ACCJC visits next spring. Harbor was first up, with faculty leaders Jim Stanbery and
Ellen Joiner making the main presentation. Key achievements cited included a balanced
budget for the first time in many years and a well managed bond program. Particular
areas focused on include program review, SLO's (at the program and institutional level),
and the interfacing of both of these with budget planning. "Closing the loop" on SLO's,
that is, evaluating their effectiveness and changing them as needed, was cited in
particular. Marvin Martinez’s leadership was cited for its transparency and full embrace
of shared governance. The Budget Committee meets weekly and the college is being
fully informed. Structural change has been the focus, with difficult decisions that were
ignored in the past now being confronted. Trustee response was very positive, and the
chancellor called Harbor "a model of what's possible" in terms of cooperation.
Steve Veres asked why there were far fewer assessments done in the Math Department.
This led to a discussion of varying attitudes in math departments districtwide toward
SLO's and new ideas generally.
West was next up. New President Nabil Abu-Ghazalleh briefly reviewed West's recent
years. Vice President Bob Sprague and faculty chair Fran Leonard headed up the team.
Senate President Adrienne Foster noted that 81 faculty were involved in preparing the
self-study, with many adjunct among them. Program review, SLO's, and planning
improvements were areas of concentration. Leonard said the college community was
more self reflective now and had learned from the last study. The number of planning
agenda items has been dramatically reduced, for example, from 79 to around a dozen,
in order to allow for better focus.
Southwest made the final presentation. Jack Daniels reviewed its recent accreditation
history, which included probation in 2008. They came off that the next year and have no
sanctions remaining. Accreditation Liaison Dan Walden was profuse in his thanks to
Delahoussaye and Deborah Kaye (the earlier teams had also been very grateful).
Faculty participation was comparable to the other colleges, Latino enrollment has risen
to 25%, and some 80% of courses have been assessed by now. SW has also reduced
its agenda items drastically (from 64 six years ago to ten). Areas of focus will be the
library, distance education, campus communication, and "total cost of ownership" (not
explained).
Committee of the Whole
Delahoussaye updated the Board on the work of the Student Success Task Force. She
went over the history and charge of the committee and noted the concerns raised in the
public comment period. They were divided into six key themes:






Objections to narrowing the focus of our colleges
Concerns about the mechanisms to help students become more focused
Worries that the recommendations might compromise academic quality
Alarm about the balance of control
Belief that the recommendations would have a negative impact on vulnerable
students
More input needed
The task force subsequently made several significant changes, among them:




Categorical program consolidation will not be recommended.
Non-credit funding will not be limited to career development and college prep
courses.
Students will not be asked to pay the full cost for courses not in their educational
plans.
Professional development will be linked with state student success goals, but
there will not be a mandate to align the two.
In terms of funding, Delahoussaye said that state Student Success Initiative (the new
name for Matriculation) will be funded second, after COLA restoration but before any
growth funding.
Veres asked about measurement of student success (the “scorecard” remains in the
recommendations, but will be based on ARCC, apparently). Scott Svonkin said the
Board needed to speak as a body on the recommendations. Delahoussaye pointed out
that it was too late for a statement, given that the recommendations were now finalized
and being sent to the Board of Governors.
The second part of the meeting focused on the student information system
modernization project. I didn’t stay for that, as it was the same information that’s been
presented to the Exec already.
Open Session
Velma Butler complained that classified were not being given their due as stakeholders
in the district. She gave the example of classified not being allowed to serve on hiring
committees. There was no reply to her comments.
City ASO President Jaden Ledkins expressed concern about possible changes (not
specified) to the food truck operations on the colleges, since some of their revenue goes
to the ASO’s. No reply was given.
There were no public speakers, a rare event.
In his report, Daniel La Vista spoke at length about the state of the foundations
districtwide. All nine colleges have one, each with a board and 501.3c status, but only
two have a good tracking system (no colleges were identified). Four have endowments
(one for $4 million). Galas are their main focus currently. Government grants are
available if a workforce development connection can be shown. The chancellor would
like to obtain a grant and use it to hire an executive director for the district office
foundation and to develop a comprehensive donor management system. “It’s way past
due for us to give more attention to private fund raising,” he said. Trustee response was
positive, with Svonkin saying that he “was shocked” that we don’t have more of an
infrastructure already in place.
No actions were reported out of Closed Session, nor was there a Consent Calendar.
Veres and Tina Park, respective chairs, gave summaries of the morning meetings.
Three new members were approved for the District Citizens Oversight Committee.
Capital Construction Committee
Joanne Waddell read out a statement expressing “grave concern” about the chancellor’s
proposed bond moratorium. She mentioned promises made to the voters and the
importance of a key faculty role in decision making.
Trade Tech made a brief presentation regarding some infrastructure projects up for
approval.
The bulk of the meeting was devoted to the moratorium proposal. The chancellor
presented his case for a year-long freeze. He called it a forward-looking plan, one that
gave heed to the recent attention paid to the bond program, in particular, the State
Controller’s Office audit. He cited three areas of concern:



$19 million/year in new M&O expenses (if energy savings don’t pan out as
predicted, in which case it would be half that amount)
A reduction of 25% in course sections offered from our peak three years ago
(and hence less need for immediate classroom space than previously thought)
A funding shortfall of some $125 million, if all buildings are built as planned (he
didn’t go into the reasons)
He stressed that the bond funds would still be available for future use. One year would
allow for the maximum use of key upcoming budget check points (namely, the next state
budget and the election in November). He said bond construction was now 55%
complete (with $3.4 billion spent), with 70% of the total $6.2 billion awarded.
Trustees seemed generally skeptical of the need for a year-long moratorium. Mona Field
was the only one to support it without any qualification. Svonkin asked why the trustees
had not been consulted earlier. He said he agreed with the AFT concerns and
questioned why BuildLACCD had not been doing a continual review of the program.
Nancy Pearlman talked about the need to build for future growth and to use creative
means to maintain the new buildings. Miguel Santiago said the chancellor, Tom Hall,
and Lloyd Silberstein were forced to take heat now for mistakes made years ago. He
said the problems were just discovered recently. But he called for balance, saying that
waiting could lead to greater costs, for various reasons.
I said I was concerned about how exemptions would be handled. In Bond Steering we
had been told that they would be fairly readily obtained, but the language of the memo to
the trustees seems much more restrictive.
In the end, the Board agreed to extend the moratorium as requested, with a review in 90
days (April 1).
There was a short report from the Inspector General and an update on the hiring
process for a permanent Executive Director of the bond program. Recruitment of
candidates continues till Dec. 16, with a final eligibility list done by Jan. 25, and the
selection process completed by Mar. 1.
Comment
The task force seems to have made considerable changes, but I’d like to read the final
version myself before commenting further.
I do think a case can be made for the wisdom of a moratorium, though I have doubts
about the proposed length. My main concern, however, is that exemptions be readily
allowed. It doesn’t make sense to hold up very justifiable projects at some colleges due
to inadequate planning at others. I think the chancellor is hearing us on this. We
discussed the point at length in Consultation two days after the Board meeting and he
seemed receptive to our concerns.
David