Board of Trustees Report
District Office
October 19, 2011
Institutional Effectiveness Committee
Chito Cajayon gave the committee an update on developments in Workforce and
Economic Development. He presented information about industry employment
projections, grants the district has obtained in recent years, and the new state law
requiring job centers to give 25% of their federal funding over to training programs (the
City of Los Angeles gives just 6% on average now). Cajayon said we should be well
positioned to do some of this training. It could be a very substantial program, involving
tens of millions of dollars. Mona Field asked about the role of for-profit institutions in
work force programs. In an indirect reply, Cajayon discussed the need for us to work
closely with employers.
The discussion then turned to the recent announcement of Department of Labor grants.
While the district had applied for five grants totaling $62 million dollars, we did not
receive anything. But nor did anyone else in the state, other than a consortium of
colleges in the San Joaquin Valley. The chancellor said we were requesting the reader
files from DOL to assist us in future applications. He is also asking Cassidy and
Associates, our D.C. lobbyists, to help us understand why we didn't get anything. Field
said she knew it would be a highly political process and that not winning was in no way a
reflection on our team. Committee chair Steve Veres, however, asked that the reader file
information be reviewed at a future IE meeting, as the grants totaled too large an amount
to ignore. He wondered whether Cassidy was part of the problem. He also talked about
successful WF programs in neighboring districts and asked what we could do to
compete with them. Cajayon talked about the value of working in partnerships with other
districts, at least on occasion. He believes these can be mutually beneficial. As to why
we didn't get DOL funding, he reiterated that it was very political, with every state
designated for just one award. He noted that the same San Joaquin consortium had won
the previous year also, making it especially suspicious.
Interim Associate Vice Chancellor Maury Pearl and Ryan Cornner, Dean of Institutional
Effectiveness at East, presented information about new ways of looking at student
success data. They talked about the high level of interest in student progression, and
described the tools they’ve developed to facilitate research in this area. They then gave
examples of how this data can be used to answer particular questions, as well as ways it
can be made more accessible to faculty and others.
Field was interested in assessment testing. In particular, she was concerned about
"shock" testing, that is, testing a student on the spot with no time to prepare. This led to
a discussion of the state Task Force on Student Success recommendations. Veres
asked what would be the one best thing to do to improve outcomes, and I talked about
first year interventions, such as the Trade Bridge Academy, an attempt to offer all
incoming students an orientation/bridge program before they begin their classes.
Cornner stressed the need for data that was relevant for faculty to use, with a focus on
how to reduce the huge number of students lost in the first semester. Field suggested
further discussion at a later meeting of the impact of the new limits on student attempts
of any one course. With the reduction to three attempts, she predicted dire
consequences. Veres asked how Achieving the Dream fit in to the presentation, and
Yasmin Delahoussaye spoke about interventions that can be planned once the AtD data
is developed and analyzed.
LaVista reminded the committee that the next Committee of the Whole (on Nov. 2) will
focus on innovative student success practices in the district, as will an IE Committee
meeting in January or February.
West LA made a brief presentation about a substantive change report having to do with
distance education. Dean Eric Ichon led the panel. Veres was interested in how the
district compared to others in DE education, and Field wanted to know how well DE
students did compared to those in traditional classes. Ichon claimed that at West they
actually did better in some departments, but I mentioned a study showing that
districtwide they did somewhat worse. Veres expressed interest in coming back to DE
issues at a future meeting.
Finally, Delahoussaye reviewed the recent work on the strategic plan. Forty focus
groups have already met this month districtwide. The Strategic Plan Committee will meet
all day this Friday, reviewing external and internal data. David Rattray, Vice President of
the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce will present, among others.
Open Session
There were no public speakers, a rare event.
The chancellor introduced Kevin Sherrod, an architecture student at Harbor who was
recently named “Intern of the Year” by PV Jobs, the firm that runs the bond internship
program. Sherrod was singled out for his work in the E-7 Studio, which does all the
computer-generated videos of the new buildings. He developed a model to help verify
building measurements that was described as “revolutionary” by his employers, and he
now has a full-time job with one of Harbor’s construction firms. Sherrod thanked the
Board, his professors, and PV Jobs. Over 1,100 internships have been created since
2004, according to the chancellor, in architecture, engineering, computer sciences, and
other fields.
LaVista expressed “deep disappointment” that the district was not awarded a DOL grant
(see above), but highlighted grants recently won. Valley, Mission, and Harbor all got Title
3 Hispanic Serving Institution STEM grants totaling $4.3 million per year for five years.
Tutoring will be augmented, curriculum developed, and technology upgraded with the
money. Also, Southwest and West were given Department of Education grants totaling
$2.4 million (over four years, I believe) to boost African American student success totals.
Finally, City’s Goldman Sach’s grant was renewed for $1.3 million. It helps small
business owners get started.
No actions were reported out of Closed Session.
Steve Veres gave a brief summary of the Institutional Effectiveness Committee meeting
in the morning (see above).
Next up was a vote on the new (bond) debt issuance policy. While there had been a
protocol followed in the past, there was no written policy. Over the last few months, the
Finance and Audit Committee has drafted one, working closely with Jeanette Gordon.
One controversial issue has been whether to restrict the work to financial firms that are
headquartered in the area. Up to now, much of the business has gone to Citibank and
other Wall Street firms. In the end, the restriction was changed to firms that are “located
in the area.” Field asked whether the policy would still allow for “cost effectiveness” to be
the main criteria. She was assured that it would. Kelly Candaele very pointedly kept up
this line of questioning. He wanted assurances from Gordon that the new policy would
not be “dangerous to the district” by not allowing us to get the lowest possible price.
Gordon had our bond counsel, Lisalee Wells respond. She said it would not be
dangerous, given that the district would not be restrained by the new policy from
selecting the bidder who offered the lowest cost and risk. He asked Gordon whether
enough bidders would apply. She said they would, given the change of language. Veres
strongly defended the policy, saying that Candaele’s concerns were groundless. Lower
risk and cost effectiveness should be the focus, he agreed, but he also cited Occupy Los
Angeles at City Hall as an example of the national anger towards Wall Street. LaVista
said the language change addressed any concerns, and Gordon added that small, local
firms were considered in the past. Svonkin said he would have preferred to say
“headquartered,” adding that he shared some of the concerns of the protestors, but that
he was comfortable with the new language. He said, “It was a new day for the Board,
with new members, and a more transparent process.” The motion passed unanimously.
A recommendation from the chancellor for three new appointments to the District
Citizens’ Oversight Committee was approved.
The Board then adjourned from its Open Session in order to have a Capital Construction
Committee meeting.
Capital Construction Committee
Lloyd Silberstein reviewed the CPM evaluation process that is about to begin. The
evaluation materials will be sent out to the colleges Oct. 20, and they’ll have three weeks
to complete the evaluation. The results will then be tallied and presented to the Board in
December. The trustees had some questions about the process. Svonkin asked that
candor be encouraged.
Inspector General Christine Marez reported on her office’s audit concerning the selection
of construction contractors. Several internal control deficiencies were found, such as
insufficient document control, no evidence of conflict of interest management, and
inconsistencies in the administration of the design build scoring process. Her office
made five recommendations for improving procedures. Tina Park had questions about
the time frame covered and the number of samples read. Field thanked Marez for her
work, saying the process had been too loose. She said she had no knowledge of the
earlier process till now, and Nancy Pearlman expressed surprise that there were
deficiencies. LaVista said the value of the Inspector General’s work was evident this
week, a reference to the Board actions taken against FTR and Gateway as a result of
another IG report. He said the charge of the office needed to be reconsidered, given new
circumstances, and will bring something back to the Board about this.
Comment
Perhaps it would have been better if Chito Cajayon had not described the DOL
proposals in such detail, as he did at a Board meeting some months ago. Be that as it
may, it’s a real shame to see California getting only one grant, when some much smaller
states received more than one. The likelihood of more money becoming available is
small, given the federal deficit. What looked like a bright opportunity for us just a few
years ago has diminished greatly.
The news about FTR is very welcome, given the enormous problems with their work on
the Allied Sciences Building at Valley. About Gateway I have less information, though
I’ve heard lots of recent complaints. It’s great to see the Board taking strong action,
though I’m not at all surprised, given the discussions since the new trustees came on.
David
David Beaulieu
District Academic Senate President
Los Angeles Community College District
(213) 891-2294
dbeaulieu@email.laccd.edu