Ian, Diane, and Barbara vs. board micromanagement
In the following audio clip, Ian Walton (of the State Academic Senate) expresses pessimism. He refers to recent board remarks--no doubt he is thinking of Mr. Fuentes' defiant squawkings--as an indication that some in the room are not disposed to make the needed changes:
In this next audio clip, Diane Woodruff (of CCLC) notes that the board's draft of its "duties and responsibilities" comprises legal Ed Code language. She suggests that such language is inadequate, for it potentially implies that the board may take roles and responsibilities that are excessive. She urges the board to modify the draft so that it refers to Board Policy 2100.1, which defines those areas in which the board must rely primarily on the Academic Senates (i.e., on faculty):
In this next audio clip:
1. Ian Walton also comments on the Board's draft of its responsibilities. He, too, notes the draft's reliance on legal language, which really is not adequate, since it fails to indicate the importance of delegating to relevant experts (faculty), etc.
2. Barbara Beno (of ACCJC) explains that the "current" policies are inadequate in that they speak of the board's "supervising" the colleges. (She is responding to Trustee Wagner's suggestion that the current policy--as opposed to the draft--is unproblematical.)
3. Diane Woodruff (of CCLC) suggests that the draft of Board "duties and responsibilities" should be written so that it would guide a new trustee. She notes that the board should be accomplishing the tasks listed in the Ed Code "collegially"--i.e., with appropriate input from relevant faculty experts, etc.