Board of Trustees Report
Trade Tech College
March 24, 2010
Infrastructure Committee
A formal policy on native plant landscaping was the first item of business. Bharat Patel
presented a proposal that was well received, but trustees were surprised to learn that
they didn't already have a formal policy already in place. What they definitely have had
had is an informal policy, one articulated often at BOT meetings. College plans are
currently in sync with the criteria Patel presented, but implementation has been uneven,
since it's enforced just by "jawboning," as Larry Eisenberg put it. Nancy Pearlman said
she would like to see a written policy soon.
Green cleaning products and tools were the second topic. Willie Richmond, a long-time
facilities director in the district, presented a wide range of new products as well as
machines (the "gum wizard," for example!) that make cleaning more environmentally
benign as well as much more effective. The committee will draft a general but nonprescriptive policy requiring the use of environmentally friendly products.
Whole building commissioning was the final item. This had been discussed in a
Committee of the Whole some months ago. Oddly enough, up until recently a building
contractor on one of our projects did not necessarily inspect his project for operational
soundness and repair any defects. Instead, problems were often discovered after the
keys had been turned over and the contractor had left the scene. There was then a
dispute as to who paid for the repairs, in addition to a frustrating first few months (or
longer) for the occupants. A commissioner evaluated the building, but only for the
electrical and mechanical systems. Now a wider range of systems are inspected and the
commissioner is part of the construction team from the beginning. INICI, the firm recently
given the contract to supervise whole building commissioning district-wide, described to
the committee how it would monitor the process. Mona Field noted the savings that are
expected from this greater degree of scrutiny, which, she argued, justified the expense
of the commissioning itself.
Finally, Lloyd Silverstein was introduced. He is the new director of BuildLACCD,
replacing James Sohn who left last June. He has an impressive resume, having worked
in construction management his entire career, with Parsons most recently. There he
was responsible for all of their projects in the western United States. He is an architect
by profession and has lived in Los Angeles for the last twenty years.
Committee of the Whole
The entire ninety-minute session was devoted to a discussion of the financing
mechanism proposed for the Edison photovoltaic projects at East and Southwest. You’ll
recall that the Board agreed in December to take out a $44 million bridge loan in order to
try to obtain a power purchase agreement with Citibank for both these projects and two
DWP projects at Pierce and Harbor. In January a surprising and favorable rule
clarification from the INS made a "lease-purchase" agreement possible, which, for
complicated reasons, is much more appealing to DWP. They have refused to agree to a
PPA with us. Citibank has come up with a detailed proposal for the Edison projects, with
a DWP agreement expected in a few weeks. James Angelica from First Southwest, our
independent financial analysts, reviewed the details of the plan. It would provide 16%
greater revenue than an outright purchase ($11.6 million, approximately, as compared to
$10 million).
The two college presidents present, Jack Daniels and Sue Carleo, were asked their
opinion. Though Daniels hesitated at first, both eventually came out in favor of the lease
arrangement, given the likelihood of additional revenue. When asked, I said the Energy
Oversight Committee was also in favor, having heard the same presentation from First
Southwest a few weeks ago. Board members seemed generally supportive, but Miguel
Santiago continued to express skepticism. After a long discussion, they resolved just to
keep the process moving forward, with a vote in support anticipated at some date in the
near future.
I pointed out to the Board that there was an apparent discrepancy between the
leveraging possibilities of our Measure J energy fund that we have been promised and
the rate promised with this particular deal. For over a year we have been told by
Eisenberg that the $125 million set aside for energy projects can be leveraged (that is to
say, used in PPA’s which take full advantage of tax credits, depreciations, et al) such
that we will actually get $600-650 million worth of energy projects for our money. That
would be a rate of return of 500% or more. However, the Edison proposal, which we
have been told is typical of what we can expect, only generates an additional 16%
increase in revenue. After I noted this gap, Kelly Candaele immediately stated that I had
misunderstood what Eisenberg had proposed. Jeanette Gordon and Angelica reiterated,
however, that the only savings with the Citibank proposal was the 16%, implying that I
was right to point out the discrepancy (see comments below).
Eliot Hines, our outside legal counsel, said that one lesson to draw from this situation is
that we should do our financial planning first, before any construction is done, and not at
the end of the process, after it's completed. There was broad agreement all around the
table.
Open Session
A spirited welcome from Alison Reid, the past ASO president at Trade, to start the
meeting! She and fellow students presented the Board and others with “cool swag,” as
they say. Singled out for thanks were Gary Colombo and Kathleen Burke-Kelly, for their
work on accreditation at Trade, and yours truly, for regularly attending the Student
Affairs Committee meeting.
Chip Chapdelaine praised and thanked his management team, all of the guilds, and
various workers.
Brad Vaden gave a presentation on the new First Year Experience program, which
served 300 students in the fall. Ten cohorts were guided by team teachers (an instructor,
a counselor, and a tutor), and video making was an integral part of the program.
Significant student success improvement was claimed.
Marcy Drummond reported on a visit to the campus by California Public Utilities
Commission representatives. They were there to learn about Trade's energy efficiency
training curriculum.
Several public speakers followed:
Victor Orellana complained about slow financial aid processing at Trade, and fellow
student Camille Williams praised Vice President Ramon Castillo for organizing a town
forum regarding the budget cuts. "No more cuts to student service programs," she
insisted.
Laurie Hunter, a veteran classified staff worker at Trade, complained about problems
with the new buildings. Chapdelaine said that things were getting fixed as soon as
possible.
Three speakers about Mission were next. Eugene Hernandez complained that none of
the four last administrators hired there have been Latin males, nor are any of them
bilingual. He accused the ASO advisor of threatening two students, among other
allegations, and asked that he be reassigned. Norma Ramirez, a frequent speaker at
BOT meetings, complained about an administrator having a relative involved in the bond
program (no other details were mentioned), and said things had moved backwards with
Judith Valles as president. She also insisted that we should not have an "outsider"
named as chancellor. Finally, student Cesar Valencia criticized Adriana Barrera, Mark
Rocha, and Valles, but did compliment Ernie Moreno for "guts and integrity."
City ASO Vice-President (and Student Trustee candidate) Linda Tong talked about the
recent "March in March" in Sacramento. James Butler-Zetino, ASO President at City,
mentioned the need to assist veterans returning to college. Georgia Mercer noted that
LACCD is one of five districts in the state participating in a pilot program with enhanced
services for veterans.
The last three speakers were the usual triumvirate from the Van de Kamp Coalition,
Laura Gutierrez, Micky Jackson, and Dan Wright. They delivered a blistering attack on
the Board, focusing on the recent revelations that some bond-funded activities are illegal
under Prop. 39. They derided the Board for not knowing this, with Wright saying they
had been “treated like mushrooms: kept in the dark and fed manure" by Eisenberg and
Camille Goulet. Gutierrez claimed that the improvements at Atwater for the charter
school and the job training programs run by the Mayor's Office were illegal, as they fall
under the category of "tenant improvements," which were listed last time as illegal.
These total some $700,000, she claimed, with some of the work submitted after the last
Board meeting. Wright accused the Board of "greenwashing as much as the mayor,"
blaming the older BOT members and Eisenberg and Goulet the most.
No action was taken in Closed Session that had to be reported out.
Committee reports were given (see above).
Resolutions were passed in support of Young Child Month and the Day of
Remembrance for the Armenian Genocide. Earth Day was also endorsed, with
Pearlman noting that this is the 40th anniversary year. She added that one or two
species were lost daily in 1970, but the figure has now risen to five to ten, while the
human population has continued to grow at an alarming rate.
Two classified staff were honored on their retirement.
In her report, Chancellor Wieder noted that students from Pierce, Southwest, Valley and
City were on the list of Phi Beta Kappa recipients recently released by the System
Office. She also said a recent study showed that East, Trade, Valley, and Pierce were
among the four fastest growing CC's in the state.
In reviewing the Consent Calendar, Mercer inquired about our financial aid totals. I noted
the recent study showing that our students are losing out on over $50 million in federal
aid each year due to a failure to apply. I asked the Board to urge more action by
administrators, faculty, and staff to boost our totals. Field asked me to draft a resolution
for them.
Two easements, one at Mission and the other at West, were passed.
Comment
It was a little odd to hear a detailed report on green cleaning products when there is a
much larger cleaning issue that remains unsettled. That has to do with whether or not it
is advisable to coat the outside of our buildings in a titanium dioxide (TiO2) compound.
Some buildings at Harbor, Southwest, and Valley have already been treated. The
coating is said to offer up to five years of protection from dirt and grime, but Don
Gauthier has drawn attention to studies suggesting possible adverse health
consequences. After lengthy discussions, the Bond Steering Committee and the
Chancellor agreed that we should bring in an outside expert to advise us as to whether
to proceed with TiO2 applications, and a UCLA professor in their Pathology Department
has agreed to provide us with a recommendation. Our concern may well be for naught,
but it’s prudent to check out these reports. The contract for TiO2 application was signed
without any discussion in Bond Steering. Had there been proper consultation, the doubt
and concern could have been dealt with before any building had been treated.
I have no direct knowledge about Atwater, but district officials and Ken Sherwood insist
that the coalition speakers are not speaking for the community but for themselves.
For over a year now we have been told repeatedly by Eisenberg that we can earn a
500% return on our $125 million energy fund, if we leverage it wisely. Most of us on the
Energy Oversight Committee have been suspicious of that from the beginning, as we
were presented only with vague evidence that such a favorable return, or even anything
close to it, was possible. We never saw figures for a particular proposal, as the banks
pulled out. Now we finally have a specific proposal in hand, one that we're told will be
representative of others. The payoff is not 500%, not 100%, but 16%. I'm not the only
member of the committee wondering what to make of this. Jeanette Gordon, our CFO,
Don Gauthier, Ernest Moreno, and the rest—we all have the same question. First
Southwest, our trusted (because disinterested) advisers, do too. Eisenberg will be asked
again to explain how he came by this claim at our next meeting. We need to get this
clear once and for all, as he continues to use these figures in discussions with the Board
and the Chancellor.
There will be no Board meeting next week, but rather in two weeks--so it's a double
vacation of sorts—Spring Break, and an extra week between reports!
Enjoy your time off.
David