Board of Trustees Report
Harbor College
April 28, 2010
Planning and Student Success Committee
Harbor presented their Strategic Plan Update, their third revision in ten years, according
to Linda Spink. Dave Humphries, Jim Stanbery, and Ellen Joiner were the main
participants. Stanbery said they had carefully tied Harbor’s plan back to the district's, and
that budget and planning were now well-linked. He also claimed that Harbor had a very
favorable expenditure/graduate total, the best in the district at $64,000 (the district
average was $76,000). Gary Colombo, while pleased with all the planning work,
suggested that further reference to budget stabilization needs to be added.
This was followed by a Substantive Change Proposal for Distance Education from East,
as 50% of its program is now available online. The GE requirements for any AA degree
can now be done via distance education, and two AA degrees in General Studies can be
earned completely online, as may many certificate and CTE degrees. Georgia Mercer
asked about the origin of the 50% rule; Colombo said it was ACCJC's, not a national
requirement. Further discussion dealt with other DE issues, such as enrollment
processes and methods to verify that individuals taking tests online were who they
claimed to be. The change proposal was approved and will be forwarded to the full
Board.
The final item dealt with a motion by Sylvia Scott-Hayes recommending that the Western
Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) take over community college
accreditation itself, rather than assign it to ACCJC. Given that there seem to be new
opportunities to influence the make up of the ACCJC Commission (trustees and CEO's
are now going to be involved in the selection of new commissioners), any action on the
resolution was deferred until July.
External Affairs Committee
The Trade and Mission Foundations made reports. Trade's was especially spirited, with
its director claiming that they had dramatically expanded their board (20 new members).
They also have a surprisingly large endowment of $6 million, due mostly to a few large
donations. Some $300,000 is given out in scholarships each year, and their goal is to
double that figure.
Mission is starting up its foundation again after a dormant period. They also give
$300,000 in scholarships annually, but their endowment is only $1 million and their
development director only part-time. They are aiming at starting up an Alumni
Association, and busy promoting the Spring Fest on May 8.
The final report was from Brian Ricks, the director of the District Foundation. Its
scholarship totals have increased from $40,000 in 2003 to over $700,000 last year.
Some large recent bequests are in the process of being finalized.
A more general discussion followed. Marvin Martinez suggested that the district should
do more to support foundations, and that East is one college to emulate, given its
success in recent years. He suggested that we look much more at small business
support. Aerospace is also a likely sponsor. Ricks talked about the need to be careful
that his office not conflict with the local foundations. There was a general feeling that we
haven't done enough to support the work of our foundations.
Committee of the Whole
Another long session devoted to the bond program. It was supposed to begin with a
quarterly report from our auditors, Moss Adams. You’ll recall that they were severely
criticized a few months ago by our bond legal counsel, Lisa Wells, and by the Capstone
Group, the outside auditors called in last fall to do an independent appraisal of the
program. As a result, it was expected that they’d give an ample report, with written
copies to the Board. Instead, they presented only a very brief oral report. This was met
with considerable surprise, and some trustees were clearly displeased. Moss Adams
claimed that they had only been given two days notice for the meeting. It was an
awkward moment all around, with Mona Field apologizing on behalf of the district. No
one else offered any explanation for the confusion.
The second item on the agenda had to do with Valley's Allied Health Building. The
project was beset with delays and cost overuns in the last several months of
construction. "Everything went wrong on this building," according to Larry Eisenberg,
though Sue Carleo and Chancellor Wieder (the past president of Valley) argued against
exaggerating the extent of the problems. In any case, there was clearly poor work done
by the Construction Project Manager at Valley in 2008, and inadequate monitoring by
BuildLACCD (and perhaps DMJM before them). Moss Adams’s special audit identified a
large number of errors, including 423 notices of noncompliance with specifications.
Carleo detailed the lessons learned at Valley, where they’ve changed a number of
procedures. Eisenberg and the auditors insisted that the building was an aberration, and
that district-wide others are being built with far fewer problems (averaging around one
hundred notices of noncompliance, for example). Trustees asked, however, why action
wasn't taken against the contractor, FTR International. Eisenberg talked about the need
to carefully calculate the best step for the district: whether to fire the firm and pursue
legal recourse or to intervene intensively and get them to finish the project. He added
that recent problems with contractors are now handled at their inception and very
forcefully. Nancy Pearlman asked where the accountability was. Why wasn't
BuildLACCD held responsible for failing to identify and deal with the problems as they
emerged? A difference of opinion emerged between Eisenberg and the Chancellor as to
who was responsible, with Wieder arguing that the college presidents and staff can't be
expected to identify technical construction problems and that that's BuildLACCD's job.
Eisenberg suggested otherwise.
The final item dealt with Prop. 39. Bond counsel Wells (supported by several other
outside auditors) has insisted that several activities the district has been engaged in
were not legal under Prop. 39. (See BOT Report for March 10, www.laccd.edu/das)
Moss Adams had not said this in their audit, however, and the Board wanted to know
why. They replied that it was a judgment call, given that the language of the proposition
didn't specify. Asked then why they hadn't been more neutral in their audit, rather than
giving the bond program a very positive evaluation, they didn’t answer directly, but rather
talked about other recommendations they had made. They insisted that they had made
twenty-seven recommendations in their last report, and over one hundred over the
years, implying that they had been duly critical.
In any case, Wells and the auditors are now working together to give the Board a clearer
picture of what's allowed. Field suggested the Board needed to be given some slack
here, as LACCD was the first to pass a bond under Prop. 39.
Open Session
Linda Spink and June Smith welcomed the Board, and both mentioned the intense new
round of construction about to begin on campus. The new Student Services and
Administration Building and the Northeast Academic Building have been awarded
LEED’s gold level certification, and two commemorative glass tablets were unveiled.
Spink claimed that they’re the first two buildings in the district to get gold certification.
Among other things, they’re 36% more energy efficient than average buildings and used
regional materials for 42% of their construction.
Smith drew attention to a recent article in the Daily Breeze about the renovation and
clean-up of a city park and lake adjacent to campus. The district is considering selling
part of the contiguous campus property in a swap with the city for other land near Pacific
Coast Highway, and she suggested that the negotiations will be affected by this park
redevelopment.
Spink is retiring in the summer after ten years at Harbor, and she was presented with a
plaque by Chip Chapdelaine on behalf of other CEO’s in the region. Smith wished Spink
“good wishes” in her retirement. (More will be said about Spink at a later Board meeting.)
The recently appointed ASO President of Harbor welcomed the Board briefly.
I informed the Board that the Senate had a serious concern with the recent hiring
process for a Dean of Student Services at Mission, and that I needed to bring it to their
attention given the timeline on the appointment. Chancellor Wieder agreed to meet with
Judith Valles and me about this very soon.
Kris Kimble of Green Hive, a community-based sustainability resource center, urged the
Board to allow them to operate their center in the district-leased space designed for this
purpose at 811 Wilshire, just across from the District Office. Eisenberg replied that we
could not proceed, as sub-leasing to Green Hive was not compatible with the recent
legal finding by our bond counsel.
Tom Gratz, a client at the Van de Kamp Innovation Center, described the training
program there as a “great message to the community.” Later in the meeting, other
speakers, including Diane Factor, a prominent SEIU/health care activist, praised the new
use of the center. Factor said the center, a result of collaboration between the district,
the City of Los Angeles, and others, would be a “model for the country,” and that
Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis was aware of it and supportive.
The Process Plan Program at Harbor, which retrains workers for employment in the oil
refinery business, was described by a representative from Conoco Phillips, a partner in
the program along with an IBEW local and others, and by two faculty members. The
program has been very successful, with a very high completion rate (around 80%) and
placement rate (over 70%).
Nothing was reported out of Closed Session.
Committee reports were given for the three morning meetings (see above).
Two resolutions were passed: one reaffirming the role of the Student Trustee and the
second commending two recent classified retirees.
A resolution was presented by the Van de Kamp Coalition requesting a special audit of
the Atwater center by the State Controller (among other things). Daniel Wright said there
had been “serious violations of state law.” It failed for lack of a motion. (The public is
allowed to bring resolutions forward, though it is very rarely done. They then must be
moved and seconded by a trustee to proceed to a vote.)
A related resolution from Miguel Santiago was passed unanimously. It calls for the
Chancellor to direct the Inspector General (once selected) “to conduct a review of the
appropriateness of the expenditure of bond dollars for the site” and for the IG to do so
within the first two months of employment. The review is to be published, except for
those parts that need to be “privileged” (that is, kept secret) due to litigation concerns.
Santiago said this will ensure that “we do it right, find a long-lasting solution, and
address community concerns.”
The Consent Calendar was passed unanimously (as always). Trustee Mercer asked
again about our financial aid totals.
Finally, Southwest made a presentation regarding its Final Supplemental EIR and
Facilities Master Plan.
Comment
Harbor’s transfer numbers are much better than colleges of its size in the district and by
a good measure. While a bit smaller than Mission and West in FTES, for example, it has
considerably more transfers (408 to 279 and 208, respectively). They do have better
prepared incoming students, however.
I don’t understand how Moss Adams had only two days notice. It doesn’t make sense. It
may not have been their fault, but it certainly is odd, especially since all three items on
the agenda involved them.
I thought Kelly Candaele had the most insightful question for them. If they thought it was
a judgment call as to the legality of certain activities, why didn’t they say that, rather than
suggest that there was no possible problem?
There’s more to the park story at Harbor. June Smith is concerned that the district and
Linda Spink are determined to sell valuable park-adjacent property in favor of an
unnecessary PCH foothold. Eisenberg insists that the Harbor shared governance
committee has been involved in making the decision, and that he hasn’t pushed it. Smith
denies that. Attempts to get this clarified in Bond Steering have not succeeded, but we’ll
bring it up again next week.
The Van de Kamp Coalition folks just keep at it. However, they haven’t answered one
key question: how is the district supposed to afford the operation of a traditional college
program at that site when we’re already teaching thousands of students for which we’re
getting no state funding? They seem to think that lack of student demand there is the
district’s worry. Demand is not our problem anywhere in the district.
Are you tired of the sturm und drang over bond and Atwater? Try sitting there through
meeting after meeting! As consolation, I make a point of thinking about all the beautiful
new buildings on our campuses. Harbor’s Gold winners are two of my favorites. Both are
designed with sharp intelligence and quiet, elegant style.
All the best,
David