Board of Trustees Report
City College
April 29, 2009
Legislative Committee
Patrick McCallum reviewed legislation initiated by the district as well as other bills that
relate to us. Topics included a property tax backfill, concurrent enrollment, student
expulsions, high cost CTE programs, and feed-in tariffs. This last item is now practiced
in three countries in Europe and has been getting press attention in the US. The basic
idea is that you generate electricity on your own (through various means, but primarily
solar panels) and feed it back into the grid for compensation from the utility. Currently,
there is no provision for that. You can run your meter back to zero, but any additional
energy generation is a gift to DWP or Edison. While the amounts would be trifling for the
utilities, they’re fearful of any break in their monopoly. Some action in Sacramento this
year is a possibility, given the need to meet the AB32 standards re carbon emissions
reductions.
Regarding the propositions on the May 19 ballot, Patrick reminded the Board that with
their passage we would get not only our share of Prop 98 money, but an additional $178
million/year, effective in July, 2010. Prop 1B would give us this latter amount, which
would be factored into our base. 1B can only take effect, however, if 1A passes.
Currently both are losing in the polls, with opposition to 1A coming from both the left and
the right.
Planning and Student Success Committee
The meeting was devoted almost entirely to City College’s Institutional Effectiveness
Report, which included a review of how they developed and what’s included in their
strategic plan for 2008-2013, a brief summary of their recent performance data, and an
extended discussion of various successful programs. These included Gear Up and
Upward Bound, the Child Development AA to BA Program and various nationally
recognized programs (which were mentioned again in the Open Session). There was
acknowledgement, upon questioning, that Math performance figures were low and that
transfer totals were flat.
Mission College’s online paralegal certificate program was discussed and its substantive
change proposal was approved for submission next week to ACCJC.
Infrastructure Committee
Mission’s new Math and Sciences building in its East Campus Complex was the focus of
the first half of the meeting. (The complex is one-third of a mile from the main campus,
directly down Eldridge, the street that borders the main campus to the south.)
Preliminary design approval was granted, after extensive discussion. It will be the first
LEEDS Platinum building in the district.
Larry Eisenberg and James Sohn, the director of BuildLACCD, the program
management consortium for the bond program, briefed the committee on the costs and
work of BuildLACCD. After DMJM failed to have its contract renewed in 2007, URS was
given the job. But they employed a number of consultants from other firms and a new
“brand” was used, to stress the educational goals of the district. Currently there are a
total of 110 working at BuildLACCD, 53 in basic services (which includes general
leadership, oversight of CPM teams, design and construction support, procurement and
purchasing, and other operations), 24 in augmented services (energy, PR, special
projects), and 33 at E7 studios. URS staff make up half of the basic services team.
The total cost of program management since 2001 is currently running at 2.9% of the
bond total and tracking lower ($180 million of $6.1 billion for three bonds and various
grants). This was said to be a low figure. DMJM was getting 4%, by way of comparison.
BuildLACCD was said to be 22% more efficient than LAUSD’s management team. In
terms of overall soft costs (beside program management, they include design,
construction management, specialty consulting, and legal/audit expenses), 30% was
given as the typical figure. The likely figure for our total bond program is currently
projected to be 22-23%.
Safety performance and DSA issues were also reviewed. In both cases, excellent
progress was reported.
Open Session
In her welcoming comments, President Moore noted some of the recent successes at
City, including the recent first-place finish in a national competition for a team of Math
students. This was the Math Dept.’s third top national finish in a row. Successes in
journalism, speech, and basketball were also highlighted.
Several City baseball players, as well as an assistant coach and the father of one of the
players, spoke very critically about the head coach, George Henshaw, accusing him of
making repeated abusive comments and being generally unfit to coach. Given that it’s a
personnel matter, the Chancellor and Board declined to make comments, beyond saying
that the matter would be looked into. Jamillah Moore offered to meet with the players to
hear their complaints.
The ASO president-elect at Pierce, Shani Simms, introduced herself, and James Zatino,
the current and returning ASO president at City, identified key issues of concern there,
calling in particular for a strong recycling program, one led by someone other than
Recycling Strategies (whose contract is not being renewed, as I understand it).
There were no closed session items to report out.
Committee reports were given (see above).
Three resolutions were passed, one reaffirming the role of the student trustee, one
noting a classified retirement, and the third in support of Propositions 1A to 1F. While the
votes were all unanimous, the last was hardly an enthusiastic action, with Board
members literally attaching clothespins to their noses to register their ambivalence.
Mona Field stated that passing the resolutions was the lesser of two evils, and would be
the most advantageous step for community colleges.
Next up was a report from the Sheriff’s Task Force, a group that was set up after the
incident at Trade in the fall of 2007. Since June of last year, a consultant has been
interviewing district employees and students (talking to over 1,000!). She noted the
“incredibly low” crime rate on our campuses, given the neighborhoods in which some of
them are located. Night security was a concern for some surveyed, as well as having the
sheriffs trained more thoroughly in “community policing” (that is, gentler behavior). More
outreach was suggested, as well as more visibility of deputies. All in all, it was a very
positive report, one endorsed by Capt. Webb, who head up the district sheriff program.
The Consent Calendar was approved, with only the usual clarifying questions.
Two students, one from Trade and one from City, complained angrily about the lack of
film courses available at those colleges.
Carmello Cuellar, a student leader at Harbor, spoke to the Board again regarding Rachel
Roberts, the ASO president removed from her position by the administration there. His
statement was especially articulate. There was no comment from the Board.
Comment
Don and I have been spending a great deal of time this semester working on bond
issues, both in the Bond Steering Committee (which I’m glad to say Ken Sherwood also
attends now), and on the Energy Task Force. This is a small group that the Chancellor
brought together to assess the technical and financial feasibility of the very ambitious
energy proposal that Larry Eisenberg is proposing for the district. That’s one reason I am
especially interested in the Infrastructure Committee meeting. BuildLACCD’s numbers
do look impressive on the one hand, but I think that many more questions need to be
asked than came up at the committee meeting. I certainly am not reassured to know that
we’re doing 22% better than LAUSD, for example. We need to be vigilant that they are
being as cost effective as possible, in spite of the large amount of money we have to
spend on bond projects. We will have more to say about this at future DAS meetings.
David