Prima facie, it's a pretty spare, and even grim, agenda. For instance, there are no "resolutions" or "commendations":
Golly.
There are two "discussion" items:
4.1 is the expected "completion agenda" blarney.
4.2 is curious. Is it a response to some "low performing" somewhere? If so, shouldn't we get clear about the problems before turning to improvements?
You'll recall that, at the last BOT meeting, confronted with data from the two foundations' reports and audits, trustee Dave Lang said:
“I do have a request … I understand that there will be a separate report on the foundations in January. ... The one thing that strikes me when I review the financial information, particular this statement of activities for both of the foundations, is the level of support that the colleges provide to each of the foundations in the form of donated services and donated professional fees. For Saddleback it was like 53.4% of the unrestricted total support. For Irvine Valley College it was 92.76% of that figure. And I’m hopeful that in the reports that you’ll come back with, there may be some information that gives us a way to benchmark that against perhaps some of our other peers and community college foundations that are also out there. So I’m gonna be interested to understand that a little bit better."
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I interpret Lang as worried about the above "levels of support," especially at IVC. Perhaps the foundation directors will attempt to assuage any trustee concerns about that on Tuesday.
Here's the full item:
Members of IVC's Schools of Humanities & Languages and Social & Behavioral Sciences will, I suppose, be glad to see this general action item:
U. of California Vows to Push Online Efforts Further (Inside Higher Ed)
