For their special eight-hour closed session of September 13, the SOCCCD Board of Trustees had but one agenda item: the evaluation of the Chancellor’s performance. But they did not evaluate the Chancellor’s performance at that session. Apparently, the trustees instead focused their attention on developing “goals.” During that session, the trustees were assisted in developing the “Chancellor’s goals”—and perhaps other goals—by a consultant, Fieldstone Consulting, Inc.
I’ve been told that Fieldstone was paid $6,000 for this work.
Aside from discussing “Chancellor’s goals,” just what the trustees did during that closed session is a bit hazy. You’ll recall that, at that session, the board violated the state’s “open meetings law” by failing to agendize their actual business—namely, the developing of goals—and discussing in closed session a topic (again, developing “goals”) that should be discussed in open session. On Monday night, the board supposedly corrected that mistake by adopting a series of goals in open session, as the law requires. The resolution that was adopted (on Monday) for the purpose of this correction refers to item 21, and item 21 concerns specifically “board of trustee” goals, not Chancellor’s goals or district goals. So this is all rather confusing.
Let’s move on to other problems. First, oddly, no one has yet seen the Chancellor’s goals. They remain a secret. They were not revealed on Monday night. They have not been revealed still.
During Monday’s board meeting, IVC Academic Senate President Wendy Gabriella inquired concerning them. Shouldn’t the public be allowed to see the Chancellor's goals?
Trustee Wagner was dismissive. He declared that the public had an opportunity to comment on those goals during the open session immediately prior to the Sept. 13 closed session. (All closed sessions begin with a brief open session in which the board formally adjourns to closed session.) When the senate president asked how the public could comment on goals it has not seen, Wagner looked miffed, but he didn’t seem to have anything to say. Maybe his lips moved, but nothing memorable came out. Or maybe I've forgotten what he said. Could be.
The “district goals” and “board of trustee” goals (again, their relationship to “Chancellor’s goals” is a bit unclear, at
least to me) were, however, revealed to the world on Monday night. At that time, someone (I’ve forgotten who) noted that several—indeed perhaps seven out of the twelve—of the "district goals” are things that the colleges are now doing or have already done. For instance, "goal" 6 is "Develop a public relations, marketing and outreach plan...."How, it was asked, can these be called the district's “goals,” if they are already achieved or are already being achieved?
Again, as I recall, if there was an answer to this question, it was at best very unclear. Several faces in the board room sported quizzical looks.
I’ve saved the best for last: the “Board of Trustee Goals.” They are remarkable. I will simply list them without commentary. I've highlighted my personal faves.
Do remember, though, that the BOT hired a pricey consultant to help write them:
BOARD OF TRUSTEE GOALS:
1. Establish a vision of the district.
2. Set District and Chancellor goals. Guide and support the Chancellor in accomplishing goals.
3. Adopt an effective instrument to evaluate the Chancellor.
4. Avoid micromanagement of the district and college administration.
5. Be a positive ambassador for the District showing respect for all.
6. Encourage and recognize staff, as appropriate.
7. Prepare for Board meetings in advance.
8. Embrace best practices.
9. Work with fellow Board members and the Chancellor as a team.
10. The Board will conduct annual self-evaluation.
--CW
