Board Policy Review and Standards Committee Minutes
February 25, 2010
Present: Trustees Gulassa and Withrow (via conference call), Thuy Nguyen (via
conference call), Gail Waiters, Karolyn van Putten, Wise Allen, Sadiq B. Ikharo, Joseph
J. Bielanski, Jr., Abigail P. Brewer, Krista R. Johns, Mark Greenside, Becky Hsieh, Lisa
Watkins-Tanner, Jean Washburn, (COA Co-President of Save our Schools club,
Delegation Chair for the Model UN club), Jurena L. Storm (COA VP of Administration,
ASCOA), Leonard Hutton (Laney ASLC Senator), Brian P. Nelson (Laney ASLC
publicity commissioner/ICC Vice President), LaDawna Williams (Laney), Sharon Cligg
(BCC Senator), William Snell, (BCC Student Senator – PACE), Dawna Williams, (Laney
ICC rep.), and Ryan Simon.
Board Policy (BP) 1.25 Policy and Administrative Procedure
Trustee Withrow suggested that the Board approve that the Administrative Procedure
(AP) is consistent with the Board policy. There was a discussion of what occurs with the
violation of Board policies. If one Board member disagrees with an AP, but not a
majority of the Board, it was asked how that is handled? If the Board wants to use the
word “approve”, that needs to be defined. Approval by the policy review committee
could mean that the AP implements the ideals of BP. It was suggested that the dissenting
Trustee send a memo explaining why he don’t feel the AP fulfills the BP. Other possible
terms could be “acknowledges”, “concurs”, or “accepts” to ensure that the BP language
is consistent with and will implement the policy. There was a suggestion that the board
policies be available on the website be added to the policy text. There was some concern
for full Board to give authority to the Board policy review committee to authorize APs.
Trustee Withrow feels that the full Board should ratify APs on the Board agenda. It was
felt that this would be an overwhelming job for the Board to have to ratify all of the APs.
The Inspector General (IG) will be looking at all of the polices, to possibly merge some
and improve formatting, which may eliminate the volume of some BPs and APs. Our
current challenge has been that we don’t have many APs. Departments have procedures
that aren’t always transparent that can be attached to pertinent APs, and the General
Counsel (GC) requested submission of those to her. There was a suggestion to have more
headings and identifiers in our policies. The GC offered a paragraph for consideration,
that was incorporated. This policy will return to the next meeting for refinement.
GC Position Description
The GC position description will be discussed at a future meeting.
BP 6.86 Conflict of Interest (COI) and BP 1.06 Governing Board Code of Ethics
The appearance of conflict of interest is a concern. Resolution 9/10-14 on ethics was
passed at the October 13, 2009 Board meeting, and this will be incorporated into this
policy, as well. The policy should reflect the appearance of COI language, the GC’s new
role to collect Form 700, and the ethics resolution. Trustee Gulassa doesn’t want our
ethics position to be lost in this policy. The IG will also be suggesting a future disclosure
affidavit form to address the appearance of conflict of interest. Trustee Withrow has
some possible proposals, as well. Reference to the “Board of Trustees” should be
Board Policy Review and Standards Committee Minutes: February 25, 2010
replaced with “The Governing Board”, and “District” should be changed to “College”.
There was a suggestion that the ethics component be incorporated into BP 3.16
Institutional Code of Ethics. BP 1.06 Governing Board Code of Ethics could be
condensed by the Trustees, and it will return to the committee. It could parallel
statements made in other areas related to employees. An ethics training occurred last
week for all of our managers as part of their Managers’ College.
Review of Dr. Drummond’s Policy Recommendations
The IG feels it’s premature to review Dr. Drummond’s policy recommendations, as she
may have some recommendations that conflict with his. She feels that the listed subitems should be separate items on their own. She’s concerned that the consultant’s
proposals weren’t privy to all of the District’s standard operating procedures, concerns,
and people in the organization to interview. Each of Dr. Drummond’s is of great public
interest, and was thus agendized here as presented for transparency. There was a
suggestion that the issue of consultants also be inspected under the procurement
procedures section when the issue proceeds. BP 6.85 on Independent Contractors was
sent to the audit and finance committee, which could be a possible future forum for the
issue. The IG feels that she will start there, as well as proceed here on the issue, when the
IG is ready to proceed. 12-15-09 Board resolution 9/10-33 needs to be codified into a
Board policy, which will be added to the next Board policy review agenda.
Vendor Payments
The current vendor payment process was discussed briefly. Trustees are concerned that
vendors are timely paid.
Management Retreat Rights
Management retreat rights policy can proceed on the next meeting agenda.
Policy Implications of the IG Reports
The IG reported that she will bring to the policy review committee her reports in the
future, to receive stakeholder feedback, and to streamline moving her work through the
organization.
BP 1.02 Student Trustees
The students present shared their views on whether to extend the student trustee position
term limits or not. Speaker Nelson is in favor of term limits. He feels student trustees
have already served in the college associated students, and he wants others to have an
opportunity to serve. Speaker Williams concurs. Speaker Hutton feels that term limits
should be in place, but that perhaps the term should be extended. He feels that the first
year is a learning curve, if they serve a two year term. Speaker Storm feels that term
limits should remain, giving students the opportunity to gain skills to advocate and
educate for other students. Speaker Washburn agrees with the previous speaker. She
feels that the more time given to one person to serve is less time given to another person
to possible serve. Speaker Tanner-Watkins is against removing the existing term limits.
She feels that people won’t transition on with their educational goals if they are allowed
to remain seated on the Board as a student. She’d also like for the committee to focus on
Page 2 of 3
Board Policy Review and Standards Committee Minutes: February 25, 2010
adding policy language on replacement of student trustees, when needed. A two-year
term limit, with staggered terms between the two student trustees was also suggested.
This issue was discussed to varying degrees at student government meetings. No formal
endorsement of the policy change came from Laney College. Speaker Snell shared that a
petition came to their Berkeley City College student government meeting to extend the
term limits. Should the Board implement this policy, it would apply to both of the
student trustee positions. Speaker Hsieh is against not having term limits, sharing that we
are here to mentor students, have them gain leadership skills, and then move forward to
higher areas of responsibility in other walks of life. Student Trustee Thompson shared
that some other Districts do not have term limits for their student trustees, based upon her
survey. Trustee Withrow feels that this should be handled by the students at the college
level, and not by the Board. Each college government seems to value their individuality
and own culture. Speaker Hsieh agreed that there have been problems with past student
trustees serving their terms. A student government District coalition does not exist at this
time, but there is a draft resolution for one being circulated to the student governments.
This possible policy change could be included as a student ballot measure, with
appropriate opportunities for student debate. A requisite number of signatures on the
ballot would be needed, with the pros and cons listed in the student voters’ guide. This
process could be implemented next year, but not this year, as the deadline is very near.
There was a suggestion that all of the Colleges proceed with one voice to decide
whatever proceeds to the Board. It was reported that the Chancellor did suspend the 2008
student election timetable due to extraordinary circumstances at that time.
Trustee Gulassa summarized that the student mood shows this issue to be an extremely
important possible change, which should rest with the students themselves. He doesn’t
hear a compelling urgency to place this on a future Board meeting agenda for change at
this time. He feels that it is prudent to wait until the next student body election, to give
time for further student body discussion on the matter. He commends all of the students
who participated in today’s meeting, as well as those who make comments at the Board
meetings. There was a suggestion to have a Districtwide election committee for students,
which can also help the student trustees with their work. Trustee Gulassa will update the
full Board on today’s meeting. He recommended that this be handled by the college
student government to create a strategy to communicate the policy issues to students, to
then proceed to a future student ballot measure. He notes that the potential for student
leadership is fabulous, and he appreciates the students coming forward with such passion
and eloquence to the meeting.
The next meeting is tentatively scheduled for March 25th 2 – 5 p.m. in the District
Boardroom. The meeting materials will be posted on the Peralta website:
http://www.peralta.cc.ca.us/apps/docs.asp?Q=1713
Respectfully submitted,
Roxanne Epstein
466-7203
repstein@peralta.edu
Page 3 of 3