The January board meeting: live and direct!

Rambunctious whippersnappers

     Jan 20 - [For a somewhat chirpy account of the meeting, read Tere's Board Meeting Highlights.]
     6:05 - Well, I'm here in the SOCCCD Ronnie Reagan Room, as usual, and the board is running late, as usual.
     Evidently, one or two student groups are excited about I-know-not-what. A student sitting behind me just caught my attention and then reached out his hand to me, announcing that he "reads the blog" as his eyes danced.

That dang basket

The tutoring referral protocol issue:
     Earlier today, I attended the Irvine Valley College Academic Senate meeting, and its agenda included the notorious "tutoring referral protocol" issue. Exactly two weeks ago, faculty learned that, henceforth, when they open up their class rosters (online) at the start of the semester, they thereby refer all students (on said roster) to the Learning Center for tutoring. If an instructor does not want to "do" that, then he or she must uncheck a pre-checked box appearing immediately underneath the roster.
     That's pretty hinky. I did some checking, and (as we reported nearly two weeks ago!) the scheme seems clearly to violate Title 5, which says that tutoring must be instigated by an instructor or counselor referral, based on some specific need identified in the student. According to this new protocol, however, faculty are "referring" students sight unseen (before the first day of class)!
     Evidently, the new protocol is designed to "streamline" the cumbersome/annoying process whereby a student is referred. And what could be slicker than automatic referrals for everybody? Yeah, but Title 5 specifically says that students may not refer themselves to counseling; and that seems to be what this scheme boils down to: students who seek tutoring are automatically "referred" by an instructor (if, that is, the instructor "decided" not to uncheck that box--or, more likely, never noticed that it was checked).
     As usual, Vice President of Instruction Craig Justice attended today's meeting, and, to my surprise, when the "protocol" issue came up, he stated clearly that, in his judgment, the new protocol is in violation of Title 5. (I guess he reads Dissent!)
     We've been told that the protocol was developed and approved at Saddleback College and that IVC was informally brought into the scheme at the last minute. This was an error, of course, for no approval process had occurred at IVC. Evidently, some sort of misunderstanding (and who knows what else) explains IVC's sudden "participation" in the protocol.
     This is a pretty big f*ck-up. It'll be interesting to see how it shakes out.

IVC Women's Golf champs

     7:07 - Suddenly, it's as silent as a tomb. Nancy hasn't received her cue yet from the camera guy. No, she's starting.
     Read out (closed session actions): (Nothing of importance.)
     Invocation: Nancy: a brief moment of silence for victims of the Arizona massacre. Then a prayer: "Our Father," etc. "Amen."
     Resolutions: IVC Women's Golf team.

Public comments:

     Four (Saddleback College) students came up to make a case for "two" student trustees—one per college (presently, there is only one student trustee). They did a pretty good job, made the obvious case. It won't fly, of course. 

     Tony Huntley: bio faculty. New science bldg. Discussed the latest leak in the building. Inside, it's too hot, or too cold, or leaking. Plus it's sinking into a hole or tarn or something. Must have a new building "at the front of the list," he said. (More on this later.)

Board reports:
     Bill Jay: welcomes new trustee Frank "Mike" Meldau.
     Frank M. Meldau: no report.
     Marcia Milchiker: welcome.
     T.J. Prendergast: welcome.
     Nancy Padberg: welcome.
     Tom Fuentes: presents his "bride," who is in the audience. She looked pretty normal, considering. Blah, blah, blah.
     Dave Lang: Congrats, good wishes, to Meldau. No further report.

Chancellor's report:
     Legislation for the new budget is beginning to unfold. Shaping up as: ranging from serious to extremely serious (depending on what happens, June election). If the June tax measure passes, which is unlikely, community colleges will be cut by $400 million. If it fails, things will be "more dire." $621 million cut? $900 million cut? (The latter—more than 14 percent.)
     It is unknown how all this will affect "basic aid" districts, such as our own.
     Grim.

Discussion item: project planning
     Brandye D’Lena makes the presentation. It's very good, I think.
     ...Do we need to rethink our funding redistribution (for various projects)? The Saddleback science bldg.: built 37 years ago. Big problems. Will cost nearly $60 million to fix.
     Staff strongly recommends fixing this, putting it ahead of other projects. In Feb., we'll bring forward a proposal to go forward with Science bldg project. (I gather that we can wait for state money, but we've already waited for years, and nada. By moving forward, we forgo the state money.)
     Funding advantage: ATEP new market tax credit. (See below.)
     Stadium at Saddleback. Low on priority list, but that may change.
     Chancellor: Great report, Brandye. We're not asking that the board make any decisions tonight. Just info. But we need to get moving. As soon as we go forward with spending, we don't get state money. Will need to go to basic aid money. With the tax credit, we're close to the funding we need for the ATEP project. (50,000 sf building.)
     Board questions:... Lang: the problems with the Science Building are an embarrassment. Need to move forward. This is a wonderful time to be doing these projects (much less expensive in this economy, all agree). How do we expedite these projects? On the other hand, don't want to circumvent the existing process, which is very collaborative. Also, we've not spent enough on maintenance in past. Need to address that.
     (Lengthy discussion. Friendly, useful.)
     Fuentes: matching state funds less now? (yes, says Brandye). Can the Foundation get this money for the stadium? Burnett: unrealistic to expect Foundation to raise all the money.
     ATEP: anywhere near funding for first building? No. F: I would be interested in having another presentation. I do not support immediate development of ATEP. I think we're being forced into developing it when that is not appropriate. We should take care of IVC and SC. Yet in this presentation, we see ATEP as a large chunk of the big picture. How does this picture look if we set ATEP aside? If we just concentrate on our students and existing colleges? (He seems to be asking for a report.)
     Nancy: the priorities are developed in a process. As Lang emphasized. Lang: we need to respect people in the college community and their judgment of what is important. Weren't you being "glib" when you talked of replacing projects as you did? (Asking Brandye.) B: good point. Yes, it's not a simple thing. She explains the process.
     Poertner: no, don't need another report (as F seemed to request). We can answer the question now. How would it help to dump ATEP? You'd have $12 million. ATEP would have to be abandoned.

Tere Fluegeman, Outstanding Manager of the Year, district

Consent calendar: nothing pulled

7.7: New Market Tax Credit
     Moved ahead to 7.7: new market tax credit report. (Fuentes had expressed skepticism about this earlier.) A pilot program.
     Bugay: it would benefit district in the amount of $11.6 million (revised upward from 8 million). (The rest sounded like Greek to me.) SOCCCD sells land to a corporation that we own. Blah, blah, blah.
     Quizzical faces.
     (Nancy declares: no, can't do it. We won't own the property for 20 years.)
     Public Economics Inc. guy gets up (Dante Gumucio, the "consultant" on this deal). He explains the deal. Legality has been reviewed. It's kosher.  (Fuentes seems unhappy but disinclined to challenge.)
     Poertner: clarifies the deal a bit.
     Prendergast: I'm a little wary. Could this go very wrong? You say we might "double." But could we lose?
     Dante: blah, blah, blah. Seems to say reassuring things. (You know me and finances.)
     Lang: are there conditions on the money—what it can be spent on? "Vertical construction will begin 'soon'." That's the understanding upon closing.
     Fuentes: we've asked: why don't we sell the damned thing (ATEP)? We've always been told: you can't sell the ATEP property. The Navy and Tustin won't allow it. How do we overcome that?
     Dante: yes, there are prohibitions re transfer. But this transfer (from the district to itself) is permitted.
     F: we would need to know whether this is legal in the eyes of the Navy and the City of Tustin before going forward. Also: we take pride in having no debt. We campaign on that. If we go forward with this, can we still say we have no debt?
     Dante: the "loan" that the district would make to itself would continue to appear on the district's books as a loan--from 7 to 15 years. But the loan would have been in effect prepaid the day of closing. A technical situation. F: in truth, we can't say we have no debt. D: district would have debt to itself.
     Fuentes: who are these people we're getting in bed with? I want an opportunity to investigate who these people are. Dante: One investor has expressed willingness to do this,  represented by broker. Would rather not be divulged. A commercial bank. It acquired another commercial bank (on sweet terms). They have an excessive profit picture; looking for tax benefits. The other party: community development entity. Talking to 2 right now. Would be premature to divulge their names. Extremely reputable entities. We can make their names available to you. Then you can do your "due diligence."
     Jay: wants to see flowchart of all this stuff. D: we have one (not with him). J: we need to have one. It would really help.

Trustee Meldau's basket o' fruit

Five minute break imposed with great ruthlessness by Prez Nancy.

General Action Items:
     . . .
     6.5: Board Policy Revisions. Approved.
     6.6: Board Policy Revisions (accept for review and study)
     6.7: Poertner: we adopt non-resident tuition fees each year. We try to be competitive. No issues.
     6.8: Sabbatical recommendations. Poertner describes process. Approved.
     6.9: no changes. Approved.
     6.10: two changes. b4, b6 removed. Approved.

Information items:
     ...Boom, boom, boom....
     7.4: explain to new trustees how this works. An opportunity to request information. (Board request for reports)
     7.6: Fuentes: report on employees earning over $100K. Happy that report is now here, for public record. On website. Referred to "generosity" of the taxpayer. When I first brought this up, it was postponed. We discussed a policy for bringing this information back to us regularly. Is that ready? Bugay: yes, have draft of policy. [The report is available online. Click on "agenda" for Jan. meeting as you open district website. Look for item 7.6, way in the back. No names are given, just descriptions: "Philosophy instructor"--that sort of thing.]

Written reports, etc.
     Senate reports. Lisa Davis Allen invited Dr. Meldau to Rep Council meeting. Mentions IVC lecture series.
     Roquemore introduces new dean. "Astounding Inventions" coming up. Whoopee.
     Burnett: yabba-dabba-doo.
     Bugay: Human Resources going paperless. Very painful for them.
     Etc.

Jerilyn Chuman, Outstanding Administrator of the Year, SC

     End: 9:33