District Education Committee
MINUTES of the Districtwide Meeting
March 19, 2010, 9:30am – 12:30pm
Committee:
Date:
Attendance:
Co-Chairs:
Facilitators:
Note Taker:
Guests:
Absent:
Educational Committee
March 19, 2010
Wise E. Allen, Betty Inclan, Donald Moore, Linda Berry, Krista Johns, Pieter de Haan, Anita Black, Kerry Compton, Jannett Jackson, Eileen
White, May Chen, Stacy Thompson, Donna Marie Ferro, Ayele Lemma, Eric Gravenberg, Brenda Lewis Franklin, Pat Jameson
Wise E. Allen, [Jenny Lowood], Kerry Compton [Alt.], Pieter de Haan [Alt.],
Kerry Compton, Linda Berry
Pat Jameson
Linda Sanford, Marco Menendez
Jenny Lowood, Bob Grill, Karolyn van Putten, Inger Stark, Trulie Thompson, Rona Young, Scott Albright, David Reed, Carlos McLean, Debbie
Weintraub, Bonnie Schaffner.
Agenda Item
Discussion
Meeting Called to Order
9:30 a.m. by Wise E. Allen
I.
No changes or additions mentioned.
II.
Review of Agenda
Review Minutes
Follow-up Action
DECISIONS
(Shared Agreement
/Resolved or
Unresolved?)
Time for review of minutes of 2/19/10.
MOTION: To approve
the minutes of the
February 19, 2010 DEC
Meeting.
Motion to approve the Minutes of 2/19/10; Seconded; PASSED
(K.Compton abstained as she was absent on 2/19/10)
VOTE: APPROVED,
with one abstension.
Agenda Item
III.
Discussion
Update on Smart Classrooms
and Measure A Funds
w/Sadiq Ikharo
Follow-up Action
DECISIONS
(Shared Agreement
/Resolved or
Unresolved?)
Yesterday VC Ikharo held a meeting re Smart Classrooms with
various stakeholders. All new facilities and classroom
modernizations that have not yet been done, e.g., Allied Health at
Merritt College; Bldg. C& D at COA; and Library at Laney -- all
will have Smart Classroom features when they are built.
They visited Ohlone and Foothill-DeAnza to see what they’ve
done there re Smart Classrooms.
Within the next two years, most of this should have been
completed. The main question is what do we do about the
existing classrooms, and what upgrades to do to them right now.
Deadline given to colleges that this all be done by August 1st.
VPI Jackson and a committee reviewed standards and approved a
list, with various levels of “smartness” for various classrooms.
This document is available online under Dept of General Services
(DGS), as well as their Roadmap to the Future document, and an
expenditure report per college.
VC Ikharo passes out a document re FF&E figure (10% of capital
projects) that shows the sum available for this purpose, per
college; the colleges can use these amounts to make their
procurements.
VC Ikharo has hired an architect who will work with the colleges
to help make a plan for each classroom; then they will go out for
bids to make those upgrades. They want to buy industrial grade
equipment.
Passes around a sample spreadsheet from DGS that will enable the
colleges to just fill in the blanks re number of classrooms,
upgrades desired, contact person, quantity, estimated cost, etc.
2
Agenda Item
Discussion
Follow-up Action
DECISIONS
(Shared Agreement
/Resolved or
Unresolved?)
There is a separate spreadsheet for each college (passed out) on
the DGS website, which is user-friendly.
DGS is asking for preliminary information on the Colleges’
Smart Classroom needs via the spreadsheets accessible on the
DGS website, by March 31st, as announced at the meeting
yesterday. This info should all come through the VPIs and the
College Presidents; then VC Ikharo will approve; then the
Chancellor.
Everyone should go through their shared government process at
the colleges.
At BCC, Pres Inclan’s predecessors made some decisions that
request less than the current administration feels is necessary, but
VC Ikharo says they won’t be penalized, and increased amounts
will be authorized.
Question whether the funds for the Smart Classrooms coming
from the Colleges’ Measure A funds, or from funds under DGS?
DGS is asking for
preliminary
information on the
Colleges’ Smart
Classroom needs via
the spreadsheets
accessible on the
DGS website, by
March 31st, as
announced at the
meeting yesterday.
This info should all
come through the
VPIs and the
College Presidents;
then VC Ikharo will
approve; then the
Chancellor.
Per VC Ikharo, the FF&E that you have in your current budget
allocations is what is coming from the colleges. For the buildings
that have not been built, the DGS is holding funds that will be
used for this purpose. DGS will also supplement College budgets
if costs exceed what the Colleges have available to make this
happen.
COA made a concerted effort to go through shared governance to
decide equipment to be purchased by their FF&E; so now face
having this whole pot of funds ($2.8 M) be used for Smart
Classrooms and not for what they all have approved.
Some feel that infrastructure construction will be needed to
support even a minimal level of Smart Classrooms (S.C.). For
3
Agenda Item
Discussion
Follow-up Action
DECISIONS
(Shared Agreement
/Resolved or
Unresolved?)
example, the Nomad Units at Merritt come with huge wires that
cross the floor and present a trip hazard. The wiring should be
built into the walls and not just portable; thus maybe more should
be part of a capital works project by DGS. The question is
whether there can be some capital construction to make optimal
conditions for Smart Classrooms.
VC Ikharo says that the Board Room cost over $250,000 -- to
raise floors for Smart Classroom features, etc. The budget doesn’t
allow for this kind of cost for each classroom throughout the
district.
At BCC, FF&E and I.T. funds were requested to complete the
actual building; they were not discretionary, but for desks, etc.,
that should have been done when the building was built.
Per VC Ikharo, COA got about $73 Million from Measure A and
$71 Million from Measure E and still has some funds left that
hasn’t been spent.
VPI Jackson responds that they have been trying to spend this
money the past 2 years on Smart Classrooms, but have been
stalled, stopped and delayed by DGS hurdles.
VC Ikharo says, by contrast, Laney has spent over $4 Million.
There is also I.T. funding that is available to COA.
At BCC, the College must make their own priorities.
The District will go out for another bond by 2012. The capital
budget itself is almost $1 Billion, and what we got was only $350
Million for Measure E. Those funds were used for BCC, COA
and Laney, but we need more funds to move the Colleges into the
21st Century.
VC Ikharo
confirmed that these
classrooms should
be installed by
August 15, 2010.
4
Agenda Item
Discussion
Follow-up Action
First look at your resources, then come to the District for
additional funds.
MOTION TO ACCEPT
THE DGS REPORT
AND EXPECT THAT
THIS REPORT IS
CARRIED OUT; and
that this now goes to the
Planning & Budget
Council. This Motion
includes having College
Smart Classroom need
plans in by March 31st,
and that classrooms be
upgraded by August 15,
2010.
VC Ikharo confirmed that these classrooms should be
installed by August 15, 2010.
Gravenberg: MOTION TO ACCEPT THE DGS REPORT
AND EXPECT THAT THIS REPORT IS CARRIED OUT;
and that this now goes to the Planning & Budget Council.
This Motion includes having College Smart Classroom need
plans in by March 31st, and that classrooms be upgraded by
August 15, 2010. SECONDED. PASSED.
Comment that with this issue, our PBI process has worked.
Some feel, however, that there could be some inequity between
Colleges, without any criteria on how many classrooms we can
upgrade, or what amount of funds will be available to each
College.
The focus should be on our major programs at our classes.
When one Dean worked with the Academic Senate, they
developed a series of criteria, like starting with lecture/general
purpose rooms only, first; then labs came later. They also
considered the sizes of rooms, to include all sizes. And they
looked at proximity, to make sure that every building got at least
one Smart Classroom.
At the meeting yesterday, there was concern expressed that all
Colleges state their needs, and try to be in a similar range with
each other.
DECISIONS
(Shared Agreement
/Resolved or
Unresolved?)
Everyone agrees to
try to get their
respective College
Smart Classroom
needs submitted by
March 31, 2010, on
the new DGS
spreadsheets
created for this
purpose that are
accessed via the
DGS website. And
VC Ikharo confirms
they plan for the
actual work to be
completed by
August 1, before
classes begin for the
Fall 2010 term.
SECONDED.
PASSED.
5
Agenda Item
Discussion
Follow-up Action
DECISIONS
(Shared Agreement
/Resolved or
Unresolved?)
Most of the Measure A funds have been used for capital projects,
and there is now just a finite amount available for Smart
Classrooms. Let’s proceed and try to get this accomplished on the
timeline stated.
Everyone agrees to try to get their respective College Smart
Classroom needs submitted by March 31, 2010, on the new
DGS spreadsheets created for this purpose that are accessed
via the DGS website. And VC Ikharo confirms they plan for
the actual work to be completed by August 1, before classes
begin for the Fall 2010 term.
IV. Discussion Items
A. Action Items from Other PBI
Committees
1. Motion from Tech
Committee to Facilities
Committee to defer to the Tech
Committee on hardware and
software items that are needed
for district-wide solutions for
smart classrooms and
instructional technology labs.
VPI Jackson is the facilitator for the District Tech Committee. At
their last meeting, they were the first ones to look at the hiring &
equipment priorities for technology at each College. There was a
great deal of frustration expressed, especially around Smart
Classrooms.
The District Tech Committee made a motion: that on items
that concern software and hardware for Districtwide
needs/solutions, that the decisions be referred to the District
Tech Committee and made there.
There is another thing involved, the notion of equipment, and we
end up classifying it in different terms. E.g., at first equipment
and classified staff requests were lumped together.
Since DGS covers everything in FF&E, we may need some
distinctions to be made. Both the District Tech Committee and
District Facilities Committee feel these items should go
through them as final decision-makers. We need to address
this grey area first.
The District Tech
Committee made a
motion: that on
items that concern
software and
hardware for
Districtwide
needs/solutions, that
the decisions be
referred to the
District Tech
Committee and
made there.
Both the District
Tech Committee
and District
Facilities
Committee feel
these items should
go through them as
6
Agenda Item
Discussion
Some think it’s very clear; that the District Tech Committee is
only focusing on technology -- instructional or non-instructional
technology.
However, although all would agree that Smart Classrooms should
be in a Technology Committee, when construction is involved, the
District Facilities Committee and DGS needs to be involved. This
will be true for other areas of Smart Classrooms, like wiring
within walls, that may then indicate that e.g., lights should be
upgraded at the same time.
VPI Jackson reminds the DEC that she has been working on
Smart Classrooms for 2 years and DGS and facilities people
brought it to a complete stop.
If it’s a districtwide solution and recommendation, the District
Tech Committee wants to be deferred to as the experts to
decide what technology is included in Smart Classrooms., etc.
ABlack was on a statewide committee that clearly separated
infrastructure from equipment. Procurement, Purchasing, DGS,
co-opted our charge on this issue of Smart Classrooms. We need
to say we have identified infrastructure changes that DGS needs to
deal with; we need to clearly state this and have it on the record.
The District Tech Committee was formed under VCES Margaret
Haig; that’s how long they’ve been trying to get the Smart
Classrooms in place.
MOTION to endorse the motion of the District Tech
Committee.
Some feel the motion should be wider than that brought to this
body. That we defer to the District Tech Committee for
decisions related to Education technology & equipment and
Follow-up Action
DECISIONS
(Shared Agreement
/Resolved or
Unresolved?)
final decisionmakers. We need to
address this grey
area first.
If it’s a districtwide
solution and
recommendation,
the District Tech
Committee wants to
be deferred to as the
experts to decide
what technology is
included in Smart
Classrooms., etc.
MOTION that the
District Ed Committee
endorse the motion of
the District Tech
Committee, to defer to
the District Tech
Committee for decisions
related to Education
technology & equipment
and support services
technology needed for
Districtwide solutions.
SECONDED, with
friendly amendment.
MOTION with friendly
amendment
APPROVED. This will
be referred back to the
District Tech Committee
and to the PBIM
7
Agenda Item
Discussion
Follow-up Action
support services technology needed for Districtwide solutions
(or solutions at the colleges).
DECISIONS
(Shared Agreement
/Resolved or
Unresolved?)
Council Committee.
Maybe we should use support services for technology. Friendly
amendment: Education technology & equipment and support
services technology, not just informational technology.
Friendly amendment accepted.
MOTION: W/FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, SECONDED
and APPROVED. This will be referred back to the District
Tech Committee and to the PBIM Council Committee.
B. Kaplan University
It was reported that Jack Scott signed a MOU w/Kaplan
University; effective in February 2010. Under this agreement,
students can take classes at Kaplan University to complete their
AA from Peralta, and Peralta students can enroll in Kaplan
University to pursue online classes.
At the Los Rios District, they had a problem with Kaplan. Kaplan
has been very aggressive in pursuing MOUs with community
colleges. There have been serious deficiencies in their program.
The Academic Senate had no involvement in this arrangement;
the articulation officers weren’t involved; Kaplan does not meet
ACCJC standards; Kaplan does not have required pre-requisites;
and, there is no assurance that UC and CSU will accept Kaplan
University courses from our students.
This issue came up at the CCLC Conference this week and is very
important. The Academic Senate is taking the lead on this issue.
It was requested that if Kaplan University approaches any
PCCD College, that the DAS be notified so they can have a
discussion about this before any decisions are made.
It was requested
that if Kaplan
University
approaches any
PCCD College, that
the DAS be notified
so they can have a
discussion about
this before any
decisions are made.
8
Agenda Item
Discussion
Follow-up Action
DECISIONS
(Shared Agreement
/Resolved or
Unresolved?)
Some were appalled about this decision having been made and the
lack of shared governance that was allowed while major decisions
were made.
COA’s articulation officer pointed out that their articulation is
course to course, and not a package deal that can be co-opted by
slick marketing companies. There was an article in the Wall
Street Journal about this recently.
The DAS has talked to VCES Allen about this, then decided to
bring it to the District Ed Committee.
C. Online tutorial support &
other Student Support Services
for online Distance Ed
VPSS Gravenberg gives a report from the Sub-committee on
Online Tutorial Support & Other Support Services for Online
Distance Ed that was established at our last District Ed Committee
meeting. This sub-committee met yesterday on this. VPSS
Moore chairs the Matriculation Sub-committee on Technology.
When this came up in the Student Services Committee and in the
Matriculation Committee, VP Moore pulled together some
documents for them to consider, and the sub-committee is looking
at what VP Moore has provided. Also, ABlack has looked into
some online tutoring services, etc.
ABlack reported that she was helping an economics instructor in
her office, and they stumbled on a free economic online service
that students could use free. She didn’t realize they were online
live, until a person responded instantly. She will follow up on this
to see if it is a 24/7 service, etc.
At today’s meeting, the sub-committee is bringing forward a grid
for all student support services in two phases, I and II. They
realize there are some they won’t be able to deal with. The grid
lays out what’s being done where, what’s needed, and what can
they do to move this forward. They will then need to figure out
9
Agenda Item
Discussion
Follow-up Action
DECISIONS
(Shared Agreement
/Resolved or
Unresolved?)
how to move these things forward; e.g., what’s the cost of having
an actual person serving in an advising role online, live, for
extended periods of time.
They want to know where to send their information and questions
on to, e.g., the Ed Committee or Tech Committee. Anything that
assists a student in matriculating toward their goal falls under
Matriculation. E.g., counselors are meeting districtwide this
semester to see whether to advise online, etc. Another subcommittee is looking at other assessment tools, e.g., Compass,
which is not ADA approved; and, it is not a web-based assessment
tool. They want to find a web-based one.
It was
recommended that
the Matriculation
Committee
recommendations
come to the District
Ed Committee.
The Matriculation Committee is Districtwide, just as the Ed
(DEC) Committee is. It was recommended that the
Matriculation Committee recommendations come to the
District Ed Committee.
Our accreditation is done at the campus level. We will be asked
what our colleges are doing about this. The activity of our
discussions and planning around these items need to be known to
be credited for accreditation purposes.
Our Distance Ed folks need to be brought together with the
counseling/student services folks; thus, a suggestion is made that
Alexis Alexander, Eddie Loretto, and Gary Perkins be involved in
this as well.
Classified staff also need to be included in the discussion,
especially since they get calls from students who can’t make
contact with their instructors of online courses, and especially
with instructors who are out of state.
Our program review should indicate what we’re doing re support
services for online classes; e.g., we’re providing services to all
The Statewide
Academic Senate
had a model policy
as to what is needed
to have in place for
online classes. We
need to revisit this
in terms of good
practices.
Collaboration
between all stake
holders is the main
thing that needs to
happen. There will
be an expectation
10
Agenda Item
Discussion
students, not just students of online courses.
We need to also do some work with our faculty as to what they
need to post online very early, so students will know what books
they’ll have to buy, etc. This info should be very visible up front,
and posted very early by instructors of online courses.
The Statewide Academic Senate had a model policy as to what
is needed to have in place for online classes. We need to
revisit this in terms of good practices.
Collaboration between all stake holders is the main thing that
needs to happen. There will be an expectation for online
support services, which will initially impact the classified staff,
so they must be included.
Follow-up Action
DECISIONS
(Shared Agreement
/Resolved or
Unresolved?)
for online support
services, which will
initially impact the
classified staff, so
they must be
included.
What’s done at the
colleges needs to be
brought back to this
District Ed
Committee.
What’s done at the colleges needs to be brought back to this
District Ed Committee.
D. DEC Sub-committee Report re
a draft structure and proposed
budget for Distance Ed for next
year
Regarding the budget for Distance Ed for next year, we need to
define a component that includes student support services as well,
as part of the portal. Some of this needs to be centralized,
especially for cost efficiency.
KJ: MOVES THAT ANY RECOMMENDATION COMING
FORWARD ABOUT IMPLEMENTING ADDITIONAL
ONLINE STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES BE LINKED
WITH THE BUDGETARY IMPACT – I.E., THAT
ANYTHING WE COME UP WITH BE LINKED TO COST.
SECONDED. PASSED.
Since we’re supposed to bring our budget development needs to
the PBI Council, later this month, will there be a meeting with
Distance Ed Coordinators soon to factor in their release time, etc.
The Matriculation Reps need to meet with the Distance Ed
MOTION THAT ANY
RECOMMENDATION
COMING FORWARD
ABOUT
IMPLEMENTING
ADDITIONAL
ONLINE STUDENT
SUPPORT SERVICES
BE LINKED WITH
THE BUDGETARY
IMPACT – I.E., THAT
ANYTHING WE
COME UP WITH BE
LINKED TO COST.
SECONDED.
11
Agenda Item
Discussion
Follow-up Action
DECISIONS
(Shared Agreement
/Resolved or
Unresolved?)
Coordinators.
PASSED.
We need some clear criteria from the PBI Council and a clear
understanding of how the budget development process is to be
carried out under the PBIM, e.g., what kind of allocation process
takes place at that level, what is to be supported or not supported.
Question was asked about a time frame by which these
recommendations get implemented. Our timeline in our binders.
However, since we don’t have a budget, prior years haven’t
closed, and don’t know what we have in our reserves and may not
know until later in April, we may not be able to answer these
questions for a while.
We need to plan much sooner, but we need to know that after we
struggle through shared-governance to come up with our
recommendations, that the decisions get implemented.
Reality check is that there won’t be any new money in the State,
on top of PCCD not knowing what we even have financially. We
need to plan on having to re-prioritize even more in the future.
E. Planning certificated (including
the 15 approved positions) and
classified positions for next
year, our timeline and the cycle
We should say that we’re also looking forward another two years
when we do our program review at our colleges.
We need to work within our own colleges and on our own
timeline, while planning on lean times and possible budget cuts
mid-year. We should have a template to use, so we can be proactive.
Suggestion is that
we ask those present
to bring ideas from
the colleges, and
that the cycle for the
districtwide process
be a two year
process.
We need to have back-up, two years ahead, recommendations
from each college, so that we can more smoothly move into the
next level. We’re all trying to define our areas, e.g., from the PBI
Council to SMT.
12
Agenda Item
Discussion
Follow-up Action
DECISIONS
(Shared Agreement
/Resolved or
Unresolved?)
If we do this, we also need to do a two year schedule of classes.
Suggestion is that we ask those present to bring ideas from the
colleges, and that the cycle for the districtwide process be a
two year process.
F. CTE programs and possibilities
for fee based and contract ed
classes
Tabled and not discussed.
G. Update on Smart Classrooms
and Librarian request
Tabled and not discussed.
H. Student Services programs and
adjustments being made as a
result of Categorical Funding
Reductions
I.
Priorities for Facilities,
Technology and Equipment
Requests from Unit Plan and
Program Review summaries
Tabled and not discussed.
COA: Hands out their priorities list for facilities, technology and
other equipment; they did not include recommendations for
classified staff. They went through their shared-governance
process to prioritize. They did not identify a funding source, but
just their priorities. Some funds can clearly come through
Measure A. In Tech priorities, they have 3 levels, 1st, 2nd and 3rd
levels of requests.
BCC: Since BCC has almost doubled their enrollment in the last
3 years, they want what they get to reflect this growth. What they
have now doesn’t allow them to make their baseline level. We
were fairly conservative in what they’re requesting. In
technology, they feel each college should have sufficient funding
to get what they need to meet their baseline level. Instructional
equipment is the equipment they’re requesting., and they often
look for used equipment.
13
Agenda Item
Discussion
Follow-up Action
DECISIONS
(Shared Agreement
/Resolved or
Unresolved?)
LANEY: They have identified the major areas of Laney campus
that needs major work, technology, and equipment. Karolyn van
Putten and Lilia Celhay are co-chairs. Laney has a security issue;
equipment disappears as soon as they get it. They’re installing
some 150 cameras on campus to deal with this. They’ve had
attacks on our network where classes had to be cancelled and
everything shut down for up to 6 hrs at a time. They don’t have
the staff to watch all our equipment all the time. They only have
2 network coordinators at Laney, plus some facility lab staff. In
some of our CTE areas, there is no network coordinator available
to deal with equipment when they break down.
MERRITT: At Merritt, they used their unit plans as a base to start
with.
They have a number of serious repair items which are serious
health and safety issues. E.g., bathrooms that don’t work, roof
repairs, not enough electrical power, leaks, loud, faulty heaters
that don’t work, etc.
They also have serious security issues, e.g., a new flatscreen TV
was stolen over a weekend.
Each college had use of Measure A funds; why weren’t some of
these things taken care of by these funds?
When Merritt submitted these items to use Measure A funds, they
were told that they would be dealt with at the district level, but
they never were; then the items were even removed from the
overall list.
Merritt’s Tech list was presented to the Tech Committee, and their
equipment list went to the Facilities Committee.
J.
Prioritization of classified
positions
At BCC, this went through shared governance including through
the classified staff committee, and their priority list reflects this
inclusive discussion. They listed general funded classified
positions separately from categorical positions. At BCC, they
14
Agenda Item
Discussion
Follow-up Action
DECISIONS
(Shared Agreement
/Resolved or
Unresolved?)
only have 50 classified staff, in total.
Laney is going with the list of classified hires that they did last
Fall.
Merritt divided their classified staffing list into Groups A and B.
Some, although lower level, are crucial. E.g., they really need
custodians. We must revisit our I.T. support level at our colleges.
A.Black wrote the first job description at the District 15 years ago,
at Laney.
K. Establish districtwide criteria
for ranking faculty and
classified position requests.
L. Review of evaluation
tool/survey for the PBIM
model
M. Priorities/goals/responses for
next year as budget cuts
continue
Tabled, and not discussed.
People are asked to review the Assessment Survey form and
give any feedback to D.Budd or J.Bielanski.
We still don’t know where we’re at fiscally, but the structural
deficit keeps going up; it was last at $8.1 Million. This has to be
addressed, and will impact us next year.
The Chancellor will be sending out a notice to freeze budget
codes 4000, 5000 and 6000 as of April 1st.
People are asked to
review the
Assessment Survey
form and give any
feedback to D.Budd
or J.Bielanski.
The Chancellor will
be sending out a
notice to freeze
budget codes 4000,
5000 and 6000 as of
April 1st.
We’ve got increasing health care costs, expected to be at least 1518% for next year. We’re negotiating with the unions about
absorbing (some of) that.
And, there are debts were not budgeted for at all.
We definitely don’t have the reserves that were stated earlier. The
15
Agenda Item
Discussion
Follow-up Action
DECISIONS
(Shared Agreement
/Resolved or
Unresolved?)
law requires 5%, and Tom Henry has indicated we may have 35% reserves.
We still haven’t determined the total amount of student fees that
have not been collected. When moving from the Legacy to PS
system, items were not clearly identified as to what the deficits are
– whether student fees, etc.
We used to be the highest collecting college, but there were so
many errors the first year of PS, the collection process was
expended, and hasn’t resumed. There is a good consultant
working on this, and we’re developing our plans for collection of
the fees. For the first time, we will be implementing hard holds
this summer so that students will be pulled out of the classroom if
they don’t pay. Wait lists will also be enforced.
The future of Peralta is not good at this moment; it is not
devastating, but we can recover. WASC is coming to visit, but
our finance dept. is crucial. WASC sent out a letter just about our
finances. The good thing is that Peralta identified our main
problem and asked for help and the recovery team up front, so the
state didn’t have to implement a trustee which they would have by
now. We are hopeful that we will be able to take care of this. If
we can’t, our accreditation will definitely be in jeopardy. We
hope we won’t get any Show Cause determinations. We hope we
will be able to close the books and not have audit exceptions like
we’ve had the past couple years. We’ve reduced our debt in audit
exceptions from over $2 Million to just $600,000. We’ve fixed
our financial aid problems which were huge.
We met this morning about our OPEB bonds, and need to get on
top of this. These bonds sell every 5 years. But the assumptions
of having a COLA and high interest has not happened, and is not
real, so we need to make immediate drastic changes in this.
16
Agenda Item
Discussion
Follow-up Action
DECISIONS
(Shared Agreement
/Resolved or
Unresolved?)
Question was raised as to why we are still hiring?
Effective April 1, there is supposed to be a hiring freeze, but they
will be reviewed on a case by case basis. Even those being
advertised may not be filled. If positions can be moved from
general funds to categorical funds, we should do that.
IV.
Future Agenda Items
None stated, but see tabled items above.
V.
Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 12:15 p.m. by Pieter de Haan.
Next meeting:
April 16, 2010, 9:30am - 12:30pm; District Office Board
Room;
Minutes taken by Pat Jameson
17