Board of Trustees Report
Pierce College
October 21, 2009
Open Session
Joy McCaslin, Interim President at Pierce, welcomed the Board and talked about
the new Student Services Building, just completed, which the Board toured
earlier in the day. The ASO Vice President also welcomed them briefly, and I
thanked the four trustees who attended the Summit.
We then heard from fifteen (yes!) speakers on the status of the Agriculture
Science program at Pierce, the Equestrian Center, and related issues. All but
one were there to criticize the administration. Among the charges: that the
administration should not move agriculture classes to the new Science Building,
set to be completed next semester, but keep them in the historic building used for
the last sixty years; that the program has declined in recent years and is now
being cut back further; that the Equestrian Center is not being used by outside
organizations sufficiently; and that a caretaker was needed on the farm, in case
of animal escapes.
McCaslin and Nabil Abu-Ghazaleh, the Vice President of Academic Affairs, then
responded. Among many other things, they said that the program was not being
cut back in any way, and that the new facility will provide more space, better labs,
and more modern amenities for the program.
Camella Williams, a student at Trade, criticized an art instructor there who
distributed a handout that many students found racist, and claimed that this was
part of a pattern of discrimination against African-American students at Trade.
She then engaged in a blistering attack on Chip Chapdelaine, the president of
Trade, and read out an alleged list of reasons as to why he was removed from
the presidency of a college in Illinois some years ago. This led Mona Field to
read out a warning statement against possible libelous comments. Chapdelaine
defended the investigation at Trade into the instructor’s behavior and implied that
while the teacher’s judgment was subject to question, it wasn’t clear that there
was any racist intent with his handout. Half the students in the class reported not
being offended by it. Chapdelaine also denied that there was any pattern of
discrimination at Trade.
There were no actions taken in Closed Session that needed to be reported out.
Carl Friedlander issued a sharp critique of the way that the Business Services
office here in the District Office has handled health care access for adjunct
instructors. Some 400 of them are apparently unable to access the open
enrollment system, for technical reasons, among other problems. Board
members expressed concern that no one be denied health care due to any
glitches. Adriana Barrera gave an explanation as to how the problem arose. In
the course of the discussion, it was mentioned that only 38% of district
employees have chosen a health plan, with only ten days to go before the end of
the month.
A resolution was passed honoring our veterans and noting Veterans Awareness
Week (Nov. 8-14), urging that we engage in educational activities that
acknowledge the contributions of veterans.
Ernie Moreno presented a draft of the Energy Oversight Committee report. This
committee has been meeting since February to determine the financial and
technical feasibility of the various energy proposals that Larry Eisenberg has
been proposing. Moreno noted that four technologies were being recommended,
among them central plants and solar, but that four others were not. These
included hydrogen fuel cell systems and wind turbines. As for the controversial
PPA (power purchase agreement) financing mechanisms, the committee
recommended approval of a PPA with Edison in June, but has since had some
new doubts. A final report will be presented to the Bond Steering Committee and
to the Cabinet. After that, it will be presented to the Board.
The Consent Calendar was passed with just a few minor questions.
You’ll recall the debate over whether AON or Kaercher-Campbell should get the
insurance broker contract for the bond program. How could you forget? Well,
they came back. Six speakers argued that the Board’s decision last time, to
reject the advice of staff and award the contract to AON, was a mistake. Their
key point was that the $600,000 discrepancy in price was due largely to transition
costs that Kaercher-Campbell was obligated to include (AON wasn’t so obliged,
as they’ve had the contract). But we also heard from some minority labor
representatives, suggesting that the firm should be favored, given their
impressive history of working with minority firms. Kaercher-Campbell also made
a none-too-subtle threat to sue, if they weren’t given the contract. They even
detailed the strength of their threat, as opposed to what they saw as AON’s
weaker case. Three speakers from AON then rebutted the claims. In the end, the
Board voted 4-3 to keep the contract with AON (Candaele, Scott-Hayes, and
Pearlman dissenting). However, they then voted 7-1 to limit the contract to one
year, rather than five. That means the process will start all over again in a few
months.
As a final item, the Board authorized Tyree Wieder to begin the search for the
new Chancellor, with a selection committee of the same size and makeup as in
the last three searches. That means it will again have four faculty
representatives, two from the Senate and two from the Guild.
Comment
It was pretty odd to hear speakers decry the fact that their beloved program will
have to go into a brand new building. I don’t think I’ve ever heard that before.
That said, it was impressive to hear their dedication to the farm. I agree with their
emphasis on the importance of understanding agriculture and living with animals
and the earth.
The broker duel has gone on for too long.
Don and I have been very active members on the Energy Oversight Committee.
It’s been a great deal of work, frankly, and a great distraction from the usual
tasks that we’re involved in as Senate officers. But we felt that it was very
important that we stayed with it. Frankly, the proposals that Chancellor
Drummond was hearing about late last year--hydrogen fuel cell systems on each
campus, in particular--were alarming. They would have been extraordinarily
expensive, and it wasn’t at all clear that the technology was anywhere near able
to generate energy on the order of what a college requires. There were also real
worries that the solar financing mechanisms suggested were being oversold by
the investors, who stood to gain quite a bit from the deal. It does indeed seem
that both worries were justified. The proposals of the committee represent a
dramatic pulling back from these original plans. It remains to be seen, however,
how the Board responds to our recommendations. Nor are they entirely settled in
terms of financing possibilities. Our frustration is that with appropriate
transparency and communication, much of our work wouldn't have been needed
in the first place. It could have been handled by others. Chancellor Drummond
was right to sound the alarm.
David