Board of Trustees Report
Valley College
February 27, 2008
Legislative Affairs Committee
Patrick McCallum gave an extensive update on the state budget and other Sacramento issues.
He anticipates a rough two years ahead, and he compared our situation to 1992, when we dealt
with a severe recession, and even to 1978, when Prop 13 was adopted. He suggested the total
deficit will hit $17-18 billion by May. The main goals of the CCC’s are to prevent a suspension or
a rebenching of Prop 98 and to prevent cuts to categorical programs, since they have a greater
impact on poor students. He said we have to show the need for a “dual pot” of Prop 98 monies,
and that we somehow must be able to meet the needs of the surge of potential students in Tidal
Wave 2. He said there were currently three proposals for CCC funding: the System’s, the
Legislative Analyst’s, and the Governor’s (in declining order of appeal).
McCallum also gave a postmortem on Prop 92, citing four pros from the campaign: greater
visibility and organization for the CCC’s, a clarification of the issues, and new opportunities for
legislation. The three cons identified were the inability of other districts to raise their share of the
money, the reinforcement of CTA control in Sacramento, and the stigma of the loss.
Five bills are in the process of being advanced in Sacramento, sponsored by new Assemblyman
Warren Furutani, and likely to be endorsed by the Board at their next meeting. All deal with
Facilities construction issues and are of a technical nature.
Planning and Student Success Committee
The committee heard progress reports from the three Seaside colleges, as well as the three
Valley colleges. It was a very upbeat session, with all schools reporting success on addressing
the recommendations of the ACCJC visiting teams. The three trustees on the committee and
Gary Colombo seemed very pleased with what was presented.
Open Session
Valley College has won three impressive awards in recent weeks. The Early Childhood Workforce
Development Program was given the State Academic Senate’s Exemplary Program Award. They
were one of only two workforce programs in the state to receive this honor. The Athletic
Department was honored by the American Sports Builders Association with the Distinguished
Outdoor Facility Award for its new track. And the Association of California Community College
Administrators honored Valley for its Early Start Program and its promotion of diversity
enrollment.
It was announced that one administrator from Trade and one from West were not having their
contracts renewed. No further details were provided.
The Accreditation reports were approved, after a short summary of the morning presentations.
The colleges were commended for their “well organized progress” in addressing the visiting
teams’ recommendations.
Patrick McCallum gave one of his periodic reports to the Board, recapping points made in the
Legislative Affairs Committee during the morning (see above).
During the Consent Calendar consideration, Georgia Mercer asked as to how well prepared we
are for an emergency. Larry Eisenberg said that we had made a lot of progress, though there was
still room for improvement.
There was a long discussion about public/private partnerships, which have been tentatively
proposed at Trade, West, and City. Though the presidents of the first two colleges spoke very
strongly in support of pursuing such partnerships, and defended the need for consultant
expertise, the Board voted to postpone approval of a new consultant contract for this purpose for
60 days, pending a further meeting at which more details could be provided. Their concern is that
the consultant fees are excessive.
Georgia Mercer referred to the recent construction bidding for the Performing and Visual Arts
Center at East. I pointed out that while faculty at East are glad the bid came in $10 million below
the estimate, the Senate was still very unhappy over the years-long delay in getting to this point,
and that they were still asking that Jacobs, the program managers, be required to rebid for the
management contract when it comes up for renewal this June.
Finally, there was an extended discussion about applying for tax credits under a complicated
financing mechanism (one somewhat analogous to a carbon trading system). Some Board
members objected to taking even the preliminary, no cost steps that Larry Eisenberg was
proposing. They were uncomfortable starting down a path that could involve considerable
expenses (several hundred thousands of dollars), though there is the possibility of gaining several
million dollars in tax credits. The lack of details provided, given the unusual complexity of the
process, and the lack of precedent by other educational institutions were their main objections. In
the end, they approved only one of the two steps proposed, one which will allow outside agencies
to use our name as they explore possibilities in this area. A disinterested outside expert will be
sought out to guide the Board.
Comment
There was also a Sheriff Task Force meeting, at which we discussed a survey to be taken of
students, faculty, and staff about the sheriffs and security concerns. It will be done as soon as
possible.
The Board’s wariness regarding consultants and complicated financing was striking, though a
majority is willing to pursue these ventures, I believe.
At the next Planning and Student Success Committee meeting, we will be reporting on our
Sustainability Project, our Financial Aid Initiative, and, of course, the Student Success Initiative.
Valley was a gracious host, as always. And its trees are more beautiful than ever!
David