Board of Trustees Report
District Office
February 23, 2010
It’s odd to talk about something other than the Times’ articles this week, but here’s my
latest report. As it happens, the bond energy program was the sole agenda item for the
Committee of the Whole.
Infrastructure Committee
East's Student Success/Retention Center was the main item today. It's a 135,000 sg/ft,
five-story building that will house the English, Speech, Foreign Languages, and Chicano
Studies Departments, as well as two learning centers. Designed with sustainability in
mind, it will be a LEEDS Gold building. A huge central atrium is its most striking interior
feature. Trustees were very enthusiastic, "gorgeous" was one description, and Ernie
Moreno testified to the extensive faculty input in the design. He pointed out that the
English Department at East was “real hotbed” for shared governance.
This was followed by a report on ADA compliance projects at East, as well as other
small projects at City and Pierce.
Mona Field asked about ADA project money, as well as other district-wide projects and
centralized accounts set up with Measure J. Larry Eisenberg and I reviewed the two
meetings that were held last semester to answer questions about how the money in
these two areas was being used. I said that I was satisfied with the answers we'd been
provided, though a question remained as to whether or not the distribution to the
colleges of any remaining money couldn't be distributed earlier than at the end of the
building program.
Committee of the Whole
In the third in a series on the bond energy program, Lloyd Silberstein reviewed the
projected savings from the district's plan.
Before he did so, however, there was a heated discussion among the trustees due to the
fact that no materials were presented to the Board in advance of the meeting. Kelly
Candaele had explicitly requested that the report be available 24 hours ahead of time,
but, according to Larry Eisenberg, due to the complexity of the issues, that wasn't
possible. Candaele was not at all satisfied with the explanation, saying that he couldn't
do his "due diligence" as a trustee without the material in advance. Without it he couldn't
prepare questions. Miguel Santiago agreed with him; Scott-Hayes disagreed. She said
she had no problem with not having materials early, as she needed someone to guide
her through them in any case, and they could always have a follow-up meeting. Later in
the meeting, the trustees returned to this point, with Candaele very passionately insisting
that he had to have the materials in advance. At one point, he snapped back at ScottHayes, who had apparently made a side comment. Santiago insisted that the
responsibility was not Silberstein's, but the chancellor's.
As to the report itself, Silberstein claimed that the district energy bill will decrease from
$6 million per year to $4.9 million by the end of Measure J construction, even though the
district will have increased its square footage from 5 million sg/ft to 8 million (and
increased energy demand due to more computers, et al, as well). The savings accrue
due to three steps that are being taken:
1. use of renewable energy
2. central power plants installed at all colleges
3. energy demand monitoring and control
While a total of some $220 million will be needed in these three areas in order to achieve
this degree of savings, Silberstein projected a simple payback savings of $416 million
over the life of the technology in the three areas (power plants last for 50 years, for
example). In fact, using a return on investment calculation, he projected a savings of
more than twice that amount.
Candaele pointedly asked how our energy plans compared to the "fair market cost" for
such plans, given that he's been warned by others (not named) that we didn't get the
best deal possible. Several were confused as to what he was getting at here. Silberstein
talked about the cost of energy per kw/hr and the costs of materials, in both cases
insisting that the district was getting a fair or even good deal. But Candaele was not
satisfied with his answers, and indignantly reiterated his question.
In the end, the Board resolved to meet again in two weeks and go over this again.
Field asked about the value of such long-term projections, given the difficulty of
predicting too far into the future. Silberstein insisted that his projections were
reasonable. Scott-Hayes thanked Eisenberg and him for their work.
Open Session
The first item today was a presentation regarding the recent partnership between
West L.A.’s Black Scholar's Association and an influential outside organization
known as 100 Black Men. Rose Marie Joyce, the Interim President at West, and
Adrienne Foster, the Senate president introduced the discussion. They were
followed by representatives from both organizations. 100 Black Men is
international, with 13,000 members worldwide. Of the 130 in Los Angeles,
several are in high government positions, such as Councilman Bernard Parks
and Mayor Villaraigosa. Given the influence of this group, its new formal
partnership with West should be very useful to our students. One key goal of the
partnership is to help reduce the low academic achievement of African-American
men. Other colleges may want to form comparable partnerships with 100 Black
Men. The presentation concluded with Vice President Bob Sprague presenting
the trustees with poster copies of an interesting work of art celebrating student
advancement and fusing Korean and African American artistic traditions.
A Nursing faculty member and two students from City decried the imminent loss
of two classified staff, saying it would threaten the integrity of their program.
Fifteen students were present in solidarity with the speakers. City Vice President
Kim Perry, sitting in for Jamillah Moore, and Velma Butler both said the move
was necessary due to a work classification problem. Butler said they had no
choice but to fix the classification and to avoid an imbalance in assignments
between the departments at City.
Nancy Pearlman and Miguel Santiago gave reports on the committee meetings in
the morning (see above).
A Scott Lay sponsored resolution in support of expediting implementation of SB
1440 was pulled at the request of the Academic Senate. I explained that we had
serious concerns about it, as it overstated the benefits of the new law and
contained factual errors. A replacement resolution, being prepared by the DCC,
will be presented to them in the next few weeks.
Chancellor LaVista, in his regular report, lauded the efforts to celebrate Black
History Month across the district. He described the speaker series at City and
West, in particular. He then turned the podium over to Chip Chapdelaine and
others from Trade, who made a short presentation about expanded use of eportfolios there. Acting Vice President Leticia Barajas (Marcy Drummond is on
medical leave) and DE Coordinator Linda Delzeit discussed the various positive
uses of e-portfolios and described their efforts to dramatically expand usage.
In the Consent Calendar review, Butler raised questions about one item in which
she said students would be doing work that classified workers should be doing.
Linda Tong agreed that students were often put in positions inappropriately.
Given that the only one able to speak to her concern, Adriana Barrera, was away
on jury duty, the item was pulled.
A more extended discussion followed regarding faculty evaluations, prompted by
the request for their annual approval of step advances. Scott-Hayes wanted to
know to what extent the Ed Code prescribed how we did evaluation. I answered
that I believed it was mostly contractually driven. Nancy Pearlman had several
questions about the details of the current evaluation process. This led ScottHayes and other trustees to argue that her requests were unreasonable. I added
that faculty evaluation was generally much better than it was ten years ago. Guild
Vice President Bill Elarton, filling in for Joanne Waddell, concurred.
The final item was a presentation about Valley's Master Plan/EIR update. This
had already been reviewed once, if not twice, by the Infrastructure Committee.
The history of the development of the master plan was reviewed. The emphasis
is on landscaping, given the large number of trees on campus. There are plans
for an ambitious indigenous plant open space running parallel to the green space
at the center of the campus.
Most of the presentation was given over to a review of plans for a new
Performing Arts/Media Arts building at the north end of that green space. The
siting is the most controversial feature, as it will involve the removal of some 63
fifty-year-old Canary Island pines. The architect and project manager insisted
that moving the building further north into the parking lot along Oxnard would be
unfair to the neighbors. Eric Swelstad from the Theater Arts Department and
three students spoke in favor of the project, citing the "desperate need" for the
facility. Deborah Weintraub, the Chief Deputy Engineer for Los Angeles and a
local resident, complained forcefully about the removal of the trees. She said
they’re only half-way through their life cycle, and so could last another fifty years.
Sue Carleo responded that for every tree removed one, if not two, would be
planted.
The report will come back to the Board for formal approval in about one month. A
public forum is planned for the week of Feb. 28.
Comments
The new East building looks just wonderful. Great light, smart design. As my future
home, I was especially interested!
Silberstein’s presentation does seem to be built on some dubious assumptions. I just
don’t see how you can project 50 years for a central power plant. As for photovoltaic, 35
years seems even more questionable, given the very rapidly changing technology. Nor
should installation of central power plants be construed as a bold step forward. It’s
actually just catching up with what major educational institutions around the country
have been doing for decades. (Silverstein did not make that claim, but nor did he point
out the differences.) Nothing is gained by making public projections that can’t sustain
even rudimentary scrutiny. This has been a problem with the bond energy program from
the beginning.
I leave it to Valley to decide where to site its new buildings. I would just say one thing: To
say one should not be upset to see a fifty-year-old tree cut down because it will be
replaced by another tree is not a good argument. Really, it’s a very, very poor one.
Unless, of course, you can have a process by which fifty years of growth can be
compressed into five days. We used to get that argument at East, and we just winced.
I will something to say about the Times’ articles next week, after all of them have been
published.