Minutes: 1/29/09


Peralta Community College District Board's Policy Review Committee Thursday, January 29, 2009 Present: Trustees Gulassa and Withrow, Thuy Nguyen, Gail Waiters, Sadiq Ikharo, Joseph Bielanski, Carlotta Campbell, Debra Weintraub, and Mark Greenside. 1.



Presenter: Inspector General Waiters A matrix was reviewed by Inspector General (IG). Topic: Policy Number 1 – It is inappropriate for them to be considered an independent contractor if they are also an employee, unless a different code is used for identification purposes. Monies are then transferred to the employee’s W-2 salary schedule. This is not a rampant problem, but a few instances have been found. It occurs sometimes during the grant process, or for a classified employee with a special skill. The suggestions presented are representative of what is done in other organizations. HR has to ensure that payments are coded correctly. Under vendor management, employees should not be considered vendors in the system. A code “E” could be inserted. Other colleges that have PeopleSoft are able to do this. Number 2 – Consultant and contractor as the same in this instance. There is no way current way to disclose a conflict of interest. The IG has a draft form on this. General Counsel (GC) distributed a contract template that is used. Page 19, section 10.11 addresses conflict of interest. It was suggested that there be a sign-off on conflicts of interest. It is not used consistently, but these elements are examined when contracts are signed-off in the legal department. Number 3 – Board intent should be carried out in the administrative policy (AP). APs should come to policy review committee. There is not much dialogue between the Board to comment on the AP. The Policy review committee could agendize the AP to see how the institution administers the policy. AP can be added to the policy review agenda to acknowledge the AP. Number 4 – A check list of responsible bidder issues was read from prudent business practices. Those considerations are taken into account here within scope of work. Pre-qualification of vendors is done in screening. A board hearing determines if a bidder is not responsible and if they don’t withdraw. Legal problems could arise if we develop a more extensive check-off list for bidders. The Board policy doesn’t sufficiently include responsibility. A simple document is needed for internal auditing purposes. The procurement process for non-professionals needs future review.

Minutes: Board Policy Review Committee January 29, 2009 Standing operating procedures (SOP) for procurement has been established, and it will become an AP. The prevailing wage is just for public contracts. Number 5 – There is not enough education for staff on this issue so that they don’t violate the provision. Board policy should explain what is appropriate and the definitions. “Intent to evade bidding” is the key definition. Purchasing usually catches this if the amount goes over the bid threshold. The buyer will communicate that they then have to go out to bid if they go over. This is exhibited in professional services. Funding source – The Chancellor can enter into professional services up to $25,000 each fiscal year per vendor, but the issues can go to the Board when it goes over this amount. Bond money piggybacks onto the purchasing limit. Board policy could explain the exception and how it’s treated. $76,400 is the current threshold. Date – contract extension is not technically contract splitting. The GC and IG will meet to work on these issues. Better training can occur. Website links can be posted with the procedures. Better comprehensive planning is needed between the colleges, as well. Some organizations also bid professional services. We should make things as public as possible. The issues of scope of work, milestones, planning, contract administration, and clear deliverables are all important to the Board. Policy should examine the germane things the Board needs to know. Board committees should have more information presented. Documents have to be living, used, trained, and implemented by staff to mean anything. IG needs to know where to access information for internal audit. She doesn’t feel that some of her concerns have been discussed in the policy and in the APs. These issues could go to the audit and finance committee. It was suggested to have one hour on the agenda for this at the next policy review meeting. The IG should also call the GC if she has procedural questions. Complete Chapter 6, introduce Chapter 3.



Matrix Policies in Audit and Finance Committee 6.02 – 6.40 Policies Reviewed already by SPPAC, and need final vote to send to Board. Remaining Policies to be reviewed



6.81 6.82 – 6.93


Introduction of Proposed Revisions for general policies in Chapter 3 Remaining Policies to be reviewed – (see matrix of Chapter 3) 3.01-3.21 3.22-3.91; and BP 1.18 & 1.18b Page 2 of 3

Minutes: Board Policy Review Committee January 29, 2009




BP 2.23 Role of the Faculty Senate in District Governance b.

BP 1.02 Student Trustees c.

BP 6.71 Timely Warning (new) d.

Management Retreat Rights e.

BP 2.30 Orderly Conduct f.

Management Absences (new) g.

Grant Application (new) h.

BP 5.22 i.

Suggestion from the Standards committee: The issue of adopting a textbook policy will go to the Board policy review committee.

Policies needing Administrative Procedures College Facilities Page 3 of 3