Sharon Van Etten - Don't Do It live in Paris at Le Point FMR

Clinton Goes Tuition-Free (Inside Higher Ed)
She proposes that public higher ed be available without tuition for all families with income of up to $125,000. She would also set three-month moratorium on repaying federal student loans.

… A Clinton campaign official said that the plan came out of Clinton's recent meeting with Sanders, and their discussion "about how best to promote the issue in the party’s platform and ensure it remains a core issue in the general election debate."….

Special Board meeting: Fitz as Acting Chance is rubber-stamped

     [Looking back, this post seems to me to be overly snarky toward Mr. BB. I like his playing. Like his musical choices. OK? Pace BB.]
     TUESDAY EVENING, 7:29 - Just got here. Only six people be lurkin' in Ronnie Reagan Hall—all administrators, ceptin' for me. We're just waiting for the board to emerge from closed session and announce—whatever. The Prez of Saddleback is on the agenda. So is the Chancellor gig.
     Obviously, there's no tellin' when the trustees will finish their deliberations and come out to announce their decisions. Back atcha after a while. (Administrators, left to right: BB, DB, DF, [and, over at the right] GR & LF, murmuring.)

* * *

     7:50 - Suddenly, board prez Tim Jemal emerges, stage left, and says, "Debra Fitzsimons, can I talk to you a minute?" She follows him through the door.
     8:00 - no sign of Fitz. They got her!
     Just now, BB went out to his car to get his ax. He's playin' it, unplugged, with LF & DB in his apparent thrall. Little Wing, eh? —Meanwhile, GR is way off to the right, playin' his Rickenbacker iPhone.
     8:18 - Just as things and shapes slowly become visible in the darkness, BB's unplugged guitar noodlings have slowly become a racket in my head in this empty hall. His watery strumming almost prevents my reading—about Pythagoras, Descartes, Heraclitus, and about similar such (in Nicholas Rescher's "Anecdotes").

* * *

     8:23 - All beings, it seems, either are or are very close to being, some version of Gregor Samsa—a cockroach, or a double clutch transmission, or something even more horrible.

     Me, I seem to myself at times to have become a hideous, subhuman, memoryless biped, i.e., one who can be told, very clearly, "X, Y, & Z"—only to find oneself, seconds later, unsure whether Y was included in this telling, or whether X was denied or affirmed. —Whether, indeed, anything was said by anyone at all.
     Dang! I'd rather be a cockroach.
     Yesterday, a friend called me, and we discussed district issues. As he spoke, I thought of an important question. It was damned important. When he at long last ceased speaking, I started to raise my question, but it was already gone. Huh? It was no use tryin' to fish it back neither.
     "My mind," I said to him, "is a sieve."

* * *

     That danged BB: he's off in his unplugged little musical world. Now he's singing! Meanwhile LF and DB ignore him, deep in conversation, but I ain't listening. Nope. Don't wanna know.
     I think BB's doing "Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom" (John Lee Hooker).
     8:42 - Suddenly, as if to counter BB's caterwauling, LF starts playing some pop song on her iPhone. I can't place it. It's odd somehow. Eventually, she turns it off, causing BB to launch into further solipsistic warble und strum. He's ignored by all—except me, I guess—but he's happy, like some little kid with his toy car.

     8:46 - Can't seem to read my book. I hear: "Soul Man" (Steve Cropper). Then "Listen to the Music" (Doobie Brothers?!). Now "El Paso" (Marty Robbins). Then "Over the Hills and Far Away" (Led Zep). Meanwhile LF murmurs and Glenn surfs.

     9:00 - It's 9:00 p.m., and we're useless. We have all turned into, not pumpkins, but drooling zombies or worse. No sign of Fitz. No sign of Jemal. No sign of life. What the hell are we doing here, anyway? It's some kinda hell, as usual. At least they aren't handing out prizes like they always do. That stuff is Rod Serling meets the well-meaning-yet-hideous Den Mothers and their hungry Weblos.
     9:10 - Nothing, really, is at stake for me tonight. I only wish to learn what will be. But, for these others, I think, it matters plenty. Are they vultures? Hopefuls? Dutiful underlings?...

     9:11 — AT LONG LAST, THE TRUSTEES EMERGE.
     Prendergast, Poertner, Jemal and Wright climb back into their seats. Kinsler, the lawyer, is leaving. He waves amiably, despite his lawyerosity. Some gal—another lawyer?—is also leaving. (I spotted her Merc out in the parking lot. Vroom.) Lang is on the phone with Jemal.
     OK, what next?
     9:13 - Whitt and Milchiker join the others, taking their seats. Lang is on his phone in Iowa, countin' beans in his head.
     JEMAL: reconvening from closed session. Wright will read out actions taken by the board:
     Wright: one action, 7-0 vote, approved appointment of Debra Fitzsimons as Acting Chancellor, subject to approval of mutually agreeable contract. 
     Nothing else to report.
     —Good grief! That's it? Could they have done less? I don't see how! Maybe they shoulda reaffirmed Gary's retirement while they were at it!
     Wait! Did this episode really happen?
     I'm so outta here.

Agenda for tonight's special meeting of the board (re Chancellor)

The meeting (July 5) starts at 7:00 p.m.
The board will meet in closed session but will
emerge and publicly announce its decisions, if any

Awkward: discussion of IVC's budget at the June 27 meeting

IVC's Davit Khachatryan

     At the board meeting, a budget crisis was announced/explained (—a crisis especially concerning future budgets; the current budget is OK, owing to various ad hoc fixes). It is caused, evidently, by increased costs plus increased spending on salaries/benefits. Trustee Lang was annoyed: did we understand that the salary/benefits upgrades that we approved would yield this situation? Why then did we take those actions? Here's the exchange, verbatim:

     Lang to Davit K: [Following up on one of Marcia’s points:] I’m also very concerned about the fact that you are basically reflecting a budget that shows no capital outlay, no reserve for economic uncertainty—and I’m just wondering how we got there.

     Davit: The reserve for economic uncertainty for IVC historically has been about $1 million dollars. That’s been our internal college’s approach and policy… This year, in order to balance the budget, we had to eliminate that reserve to be able to balance it. …The salaries and benefits and income [undecipherable] we got…We were able to balance it without the reserve for economic uncertainties. In addition to that, we had a smaller amount of capital outlay, which was about $160,000, that we needed to zero out as well to balance it. It’s been a struggle this year. It’s been kind of a difficult task to do that. If you look at the budget message, we had to take some steps, make some assumptions to be able to balance it. It’s probably been one of the most challenging budget times for me since I started in 2004, 2006 at IVC.

Lang

     Lang: are you anticipating that you are presenting to us, hopefully, a very conservative picture that will ultimately be better when we have final budget numbers?

     Davit: I would say that this is a realistic budget. There may be some things that do change between now and the final budget–we’ll have to see what the state … budget has for us—there may be hopefully some positive surprises. The information that we have right now makes me believe that this is the most realistic budget we have as of right now. And we had to, for example, make assumptions about some salary savings. It happens every year, year after year, so we built in about $300,000 in savings into the budget, which is kind of unusual for the district, but I know that the state, that is a regular practice….

Fitzsimmons 

     Lang: OK. I’m not trying to put you in the hot seat, Davit, because this also applies to Carol [Hilton] as well, I think, and that is, did we know this would be the result when we went into [contract] negotiations this year? Did we know that this was going to be what, where we are at now?

     Davit: we have a five-year budget projection model, every time there’s new information that comes up we do a projection for the next five years. We monitor the effects of, if different decisions or news coming from the state or locally and we discuss it locally and present it to the president, and I think that information has been communicated as well.

     Lang: OK, ‘cause, I don’t remember that conversation. Thank you.
     Fitzsimons: we provided fiscal team’s recommendations on financial trends and provided that to the board during negotiations. Multiple times. And I can provide those memos again if you like.

     (For streaming video of the June 27 board meeting, click here. Then scroll down to the "video" button for the June 27 meeting. Click that. Then, at left, you can "jump" to any place in the meeting, e.g., item 6.1 [Tentative budgets].)

Access to streaming video of the June 27 board meeting

El Toro a century ago

     Someone has emailed me to provide a LINK that works for streaming video of the June 27 board meeting. Click here. Then scroll down to the "video" button for the June 27 meeting. Click that. Then, at left, you can "jump" to any place in the meeting—e.g., the discussion of item 6.1 (tentative budgets) or 4.2 (proposed stadium project).

Slide used during presentation of item 4.2 (Stadium project)

Shite hits fan? Poertner's out

Roquemore: handin' out
promotions lately,
violating process

     I’m told that the shite really hit the fan at Monday’s board meeting—a meeting that lasted until way past 11:00 p.m. (In recent years, the meeting has seldom gone much past 9:00.)
     Things heated up in particular during the discussion of Irvine Valley College's tentative budget. (See summary report.) Evidently, there are structural factors pointing to a severe budget shortfall at IVC, a fact that has been known, at least to budget guy Davit K, for some time; but, somehow, nobody listened to, or heard from, the fellow, and the upshot seems to be that the board was sans clue about all this during the recent board deliberations concerning raises. (See transcript of actual exchange between Davit, Lang, and Fitzsimons.)

     Lang’s questions were especially pointed, I’m told. (I’ll be looking at the video. See transcript.)

     There’s other trouble afoot at the colleges and at the district, I’m told. I keep hearing that Saddleback's Tod Burnett is up shite creek, not sure why. And that certain administrators at one college have been badmouthing certain other administrators at the other college, and it's been nasty. 

    There’s a sense that something’s gonna break. Maybe there’ll be a shake up.

* * *

    And then, today, we got this message from the district:

Chancellor Poertner Retires
     Chancellor Gary Poertner has announced his retirement effective today, July 1, 2016. He joined South Orange County Community College District in 1999 as Deputy Chancellor and retired in June of 2010. In December 2010 he returned to the district to serve as Chancellor. Vice Chancellor Debra Fitzsimons will serve as Acting Chancellor until further notice. A special meeting of the board will be scheduled for next week and more information will follow.

     Sheesh. Why would Gary "retire" so suddenly? Is his exit related to the obvious tensions exhibited at the last board meeting? Is a shakeup afoot?
     What's it all mean?
     (Supposedly, one can access the "streaming video" for the June 27 board meeting here. The link doesn't work for me. Could be a Mac vs. Windows issue. But if you get to the streaming video page,  click on the video for June 27, and then jump to item 6.1. The agenda language can be found here.)

P.S.:
ON THE OTHER HAND...
     A good friend and member of the district community tells me that it's like this: Saddleback College gets to spend its money the way it wants to and IVC gets to spend its money the way it wants to. And if Saddlebackians decide that building a Stadium 2.0 is the thing to do, well, then that's swell. "Live and let live," says the friend.
     I guess that makes sense.
     I still say that certain trustees constantly exhibit Saddlebackcentrism. But I hereby no longer object to Saddlebackians seeking to build a Stadium 2.0. That's their business, I guess. None of my business.
     Live and let live.

Monday's SOCCCD Board Meeting: $62 million for proposed Saddleback Stadium project!

They've just gotta have it

     Below: from Tere’s Board Meeting Highlights for Monday’s meeting of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees, under the heading “presentations”:

• [WORKDAY] A current status report was provided on the Workday project and related software projects, following the board's request for report on the subject. Several managers and administrators provided a recap of reasoning behind the decision to move to the new enterprise resource planning system and the 3.5 year rigorous process which included contributions from all constituencies through business process analysis sessions. Moving from paper to online and toward ideal and transparent processes requires systematic change management to make a cultural shift in organizations. [My emphasis.] The group provided an overview…. Some of the challenges include getting used to new reporting and short-term increases in workload due to changes in processes. This will be examined to ensure that front line staff feel supported. ... Some items have been delayed for roll out to allow for adjustment to the current changes. The goal is to increase training and raise the comfort level during the initial two-year stabilization period. This [?] is to be expected in any major change management initiative. 

[See Workday doesn't work? (A serious district FUBAR?) (DtB, 7-3-15)]

• [STADIUM "RENOVATION"] An overview was presented about the Saddleback College Athletics Stadium renovation and site improvements project…. SC's current stadium was built in 1969 with maximum seating of 4,500 and restrooms located outside the stadium. Concession areas, press box, sidelines and safety zones are all substandard. Maintenance of natural turf is problematic. One of the biggest issues is ADA accessibility. College athletic staff propose that a new stadium would raise awareness in the community and provide a venue for SC to host regional athletic competitions and other community events. Vice Chancellor Fitzsimons provided a recap of forecasted project costs … over the past nine years. She explained how the scope of the project has grown significantly and is currently at $62 million for the total project, with the stadium itself at $49 million. The proposed future stadium would seat 8,000 and include a nine lane track, storage, concession stands, press box, adequate restrooms and team meeting rooms, synthetic turf and energy efficient lighting. Upon evaluation of the proposals, it was determined that the cost proposals exceeded the available combined budget of $39,525,000. College and district staff presented their strategies to address the project shortfall. Funding for the stadium and the site improvements were combined for planning purposes and an RFP was issued. ... The college and district have worked collaboratively on the project planning to develop the scope and identify cost efficiencies. A difference of $22 million is needed to fully fund the project and alternative funding strategies are being recommended from SC’s Promenade income and redevelopment funds.
. . . 

• [TENTATIVE BUDGETS] – The district-wide fiscal team provided a summary report on the tentative district budget including a review of the board’s budget philosophy, assumptions used for budgeting, funding categories…. They communicated concerns about certain budget trends and suggested that tightening of budgets may need to occur. COLA was 0% this year and that was a setback as it doesn’t help to offset increasing personnel costs. IVC and SC student government groups presented an overview of their budgets and highlighted accomplishments of the student leadership groups. Both colleges reported declining bookstore and associated [student] government revenues. Both student leadership groups propose moving to an opt-out funding model for 2016-2017ASG stickers/cards to increase revenues.

Slide used during presentation

The stadium dollar figure keeps changing, growing:

     Allow me to focus on the "new stadium for SC" issue. The topic of building a new ("long-promised") stadium for SC came up during a board meeting four months ago, amid the discussion of the “2018-2019 five-year construction plan.” Of course, that very topic had come up during several previous board discussions of construction plans.
     In my report of that meeting, I wrote this:

     Jemal: athletic stadium costs. They've doubled since last year. Brandye: last year, when we came to you with requests, it was $18 million for stadium. [See May 2015. See also December, 2014.] That concerned original design by consultant. Those numbers were used last year. We moved forward, met with "criteria architect." Ideas were taken to faculty, staff. Has doubled to a $36 million project. So what we do? Process we use: if over budget, we go to college and give options. She explains how other resources became available (I had a coughing fit amidst Brandye's explanation, so I dunno). Jemal expresses consternation with this change in cost. Brandye discusses realities of working with these figures, plans, contractors, etc. Jemal: please don't come to us with "back of envelope" figures again, you dig? Everybody is in agreement. about that, I guess. Pendergast: $36 million just for stadium itself? Or field, etc. also? Brandye: Don't have exact answer. She rifles through files. The $36 million is indeed specific to the stadium. Big money, man.
     Item is moved. Unanimously approved. We're approving priorities, not costs, at this point, reminds Jemal, who is peeved. Prendergast: when this first emerged, big push from foundation. It helps to have a vision to fundraise. Brandye passes question off to Burnett. Burnett says the foundation doesn't nearly have the money to cover this extra cost. Blah blah blah. They vote: unanimous.

     For the subsequent March board meeting, I reported the following (re Board Prez Jemal’s “board report”):

     Trustee Tim Jemal: thanked everyone for awards dinner. Wunnerful, wunnerful, wunnerful. Will attend something at IVC this weekend. Wanted to mention "the stadium." [Was he talkin' to me?] I'm personally very much in support of building a fancy schmancy stadium at SC. [Did someone suggest otherwise? Was it me?] But process is important, he said. I implore the college and the district to work together on this. But fiscal issues are important as well. We need to do this in a way that makes sense. "We need to do it the right way, you all know that."

     Perhaps [?] this remark was a corrective to my suggestion that Jemal had been "peeved" about the stadium issue in February. He didn't want to get tagged as "anti-stadium."
     During the May board meeting, Saddleback College President Burnett briefly discussed his college’s big needs; he then noted that he hoped the stadium would be built.

     No doubt about it. Saddlebackians have "big new stadium" on the brain, and they've had that conditions for many years. Several trustees have been likewise afflicted.
     But the notion that there's a crying need for a big new stadium at Saddleback College (never mind that IVC doesn't even have a stadium) is rank Saddlebackcentrism. Yep, I've been carpin' about Saddlebackcentrism, especially at the district (e.g., among trustees), for a while.
     Recently, too. In my UPDATE (6-17-2016) to DtB’s saga of socccd, I wrote:

Saddleback's [relative] shrinkage amidst continued Saddlebackcentrism

• Facts is facts: as Saddleback College slowly sinks into a secondary role in the district, population-wise (they’ll deny this, of course), many of its denizens continue to imagine that that college is the center of the universe; and they are determined to construct an enormous new stadium befitting such a grand entity. Expect much Sturm und Drang over this. Some of the trustees (including current Board Prez Tim Jemal) seem prepared to just say no to the pro-stadium crowd. [Well, not “no,” I guess. He's just concerned about cost and process. He's made it clear that he says "yes," despite the new and alarming cost figures.] 

• (We at DtB have long complained about the endless Saddlebackcentrism of the district, exhibited routinely by such board members as Mr. Wright, among others (see here). One manifestation: the board’s refusal to see the wisdom of moving district headquarters off of the SC campus to a more “neutral” location. See here.)

     Don't know what I mean by "Saddlebackcentrism"? Here's the, um, definition:

Saddlebackcentrism: regarding Saddleback College as the central or most important element of existence, especially as opposed to God or Irvine Valley College.

     A "for instance":

     Bill Jay: some of us went to the Foundation event recently [he reported]. People don't realize the tremendous job the Foundation does. (Annoyingly, when he refers to "the foundation," he seems to be referring to Saddleback College's Foundation.) We've won three national championships, but we have no stadium. The Foundation is working on that. We'll have a stadium. [Note the “we.”] 

–My description of Bill Jay’s board report, April 29, 2013

     Those people always talk that way. Pisses me off.

SEE ALSO

The February meeting of the SOCCCD Board of Trustees: Saddlebackians want a new stadium and it's all that matters! (February, 2014)