Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
We will have the meeting come to order. Good morning and
Happy New Year, good afternoon as it be. Roll call please.
>> Baca. >> Here.
>> Jena Barrera. Geoffrey Baum. >> Here.
>> Natalie Berg. >> Here.
>> Joseph Bielanski. >> Here.
>> Danny Hawkins. >> Here.
>> Lance Izumi. >> Here.
>> Deborah Malumed. Henry Ramos.
>> Here. >> And Gary Reed.
>> Here. >> Thank you. Vice President
Baum could you please read us in the pledge.
>> I am so glad you asked me and my fourth grade daughter and she
was the pledge leader in her class and she taught me. Please
stand and put your hand over your heart and turn and face the
flag. Ready begin. I pledge allegiance to the flag to the
United States of America and to the Republic for which it
stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. >> You did great. She will be
proud of you. Okay. Again Happy New Year. It's good to
have all of you here today. Let me just cover just a few things
before I turn it over to your Chancellor. I want to
especially thank all of the folks that worked on the Vet 2
Summit in December. It was a great, great event. Vice
Chancellor Michalowski and her staff and all the other folks
and the foundation very much a part of that and the mills and
the association and I see Jonathan and Sylvia's work on
that also putting that together and helping out and so many
people that attended. I would like to extend appreciation to
JP Morgan Chase of the sponsorship and Majestic
Reality and the owners and who are strong veteran supporters
and nice to have them involved in our Vet Summit and we will
hear more about that that tomorrow in a report and I would
like to thank the Chancellor for putting that together and the
league and the turnout was great. It was good to engage in
CEO's and Trustees throughout the state and I am appreciative
of that and we're looking forward to the LCCC conference
later this month. I hope at least a couple of us can attend
that legislative effort, and so we will be engaged in that and
upcoming next month is a legislative conference
February 9-12 in Washington DC and make sure that the
community colleges are engaged in the country with issues
affecting us and I know the Vice Chancellor is working on some of
that and we will look forward to Vice Chancellor Stewart's work
on that and the Chancellor involvement and meetings with
legislative representatives. Very pleased I think we all are
with the Governor's proposed budget affecting the community
colleges. It's a sign of his confidence in our work and a 3
sign that we need to continue to work on the Student Success
Initiatives even more so because of that support, so a special
thanks to the Governor for again his support on that and I would
like to congratulate and thank Steve Bruckman for his work here
with the Chancellor and wish him the best of luck at City College
of San Francisco. I know you will be a great asset to that
organization so thank you very much and I would like to welcome
Clarisa and thank her for joining us and Gerrie for her
work over the years. Please if you could stand up again.
[Applause] We look forward to working with
you. All right Chancellor Harris.
>> Thank you President Baca, members of the board, it is a
pleasure to welcome the board back to Sacramento and Happy New
Year to all of you. I want to just report on a couple of
things that have taken place that coincide with President
Baca's comments. As he said we will get more details on the
budget later today but it is certainly an endorsement of the
wonderful work being done at 112 colleges up and down the state.
The administration has proposed and Vice Chancellor Troy will
provide information on that budget later today. Earlier
this month new UC President Napolitano and Chancellor Tim
White and I had the opportunity to copresent on a panel over in
San Francisco with the Governmental Relations
Associations Board, UC higher education institutions and the
subject matter was less important than the fact that the 4
three of us were for the first time since the new UC's
President's appointment to have an opportunity to sit together.
We had a brief meeting before the panel. I had report that
President Napolitano is going to be a wonderful addition to
California higher education and she and Chancellor White.
And I are now having calls on a regular basis as I am sure many
of you know Chancellor White and I are going to co-host a
reception in her honor here in Sacramento to which I think all
of you have been invited. In addition to that on Thursday of
this week I am pleased to going back to Washington DC for a
summit meeting called by President Obama designed to
encourage community colleges to strengthen remedial education on
campuses across the country and enhanced Student Success. I am
looking forward to that. There are colleagues across the
country invited to that. It was scheduled last year but postpone
of a trip that the president and the first lady had to make of
the funeral of Nelson Mandela and scheduled to later in the
week and I am looking forward to that. In addition we will be
participating in a new bipartisan fiscal year and two
Republican and two Democrats senators that is designed to
look at the burdens of reporting on institutions of higher
education. This group will meet in February and again its
representation includes leaders from across all the segments of
higher education and the goal here is to provide specific
recommendations to consolidate and streamline and hopefully 5
eliminate some of the burdensome and costly and confusing
regulations that we face and also to review the extent of all
federal reporting and regulatory requirements that our
institutions must comply with and many of us for some time
have been concerned about the increasing amount of regulation.
I can tell you as an example of one district that I previously
was involved in that there were more 600 different
accountability reports that the colleges in that district had to
complete annually from everything of the content of the
water in the boilers of the institutions to obviously things
like accreditation and the a cumulative amount of work with
that is quite surround some, onerous and expensive and in
many cases duplicative and I am excited to working with this
group. I also think we should all acknowledge today in many of
our colleges up and down the state and if not today next week
our colleges begin the spring semester so again it's a robust
time in all of our institutions. It's difficult to tell at this
point what the enrollment of the colleges will look like but the
Email has been flying back and forth on colleges that are
experiencing growth and also those that are seeing their
enrollment soften a bit, so it would be -- we would be remiss
if we didn't acknowledge while we're here looking at the
policies governing our colleges that folks in the field doing
the work that all of us are in support of and that is teaching
and learning and the beginning of the spring term so that 6
concludes my report. >> Thank you Chancellor. We
will move on to the Consent Calendar unless there is an item
that someone wishes to pull I will entertain a motion to
approve the Consent Calendar. >> So moved.
>> Second. >> Okay. Moved and seconded.
Any discussion in yes? >> May I ask a couple of
questions about the grants. I noticed that three of the grants
make a statement something like "professional opportunities for
college faculty and Deans or professional opportunities in
agriculture and manufacturing or -- how does that get out there
to folks to know that these professional opportunities are
available and you can come and participate, or how does that
work? >> Well, it's different for
each grant but normally once they're approved they're widely
disseminated -- if they have something to do for example with
student services with the CCO's up and down the state or
teaching or learning through the Academic Senate, so there is
really no identical way that -- >> I think just to say it's
important to get that widely disseminated so people aren't
left out who might actually choose to go and participate in
that, and I have one other one on grant six interagency
agreement because I'm not sure I totally understand, but it says
"The purpose of the funding is develop a portal for
registration and tracking of California Community College
certificate recipients and energy related -- is that to 7
track the certificates that the student achieves and is it
specific colleges? >>I will let you answer that
one. >> Yes. That has to do with
Prop 39 and we have a strategic relationship with a sister
agency called the EDD which the Economic Development Division of
the labor agency so they have a portal that centralizes the
posting of jobs so as part of the integration between the two
agencies we're cross listing jobs there for and marketing
that portal to our students. >> Marketing the portal to our
students? >> Right.
>> So how will that information get out to the colleges again?
Again I always fear that not enough communication happens to
let that be widely known so students can make use of it.
>> Absolutely. And to your prior point there is always a
need for more communication, the more the better, but these
grants have networks set up, so for example the network set up
to deal with agriculture curriculum and so the faculty
involved in the networks are the ones targeted for that
professional development. >> Yeah, just to say it again I
always worry about the fact that we have a lot of adjunct faculty
working in the areas and they need to know too in addition to
the full timers who may stepped up do the work and get the
curriculum together, or get the programs together that it's
widely disseminated so everybody can make use of it.
>> Any other discussion? Okay. We have a motion by Member Izumi 8
and second by Member Hawkins. All in favor say aye.
>> Aye. >> Okay. We will move to action
item 2.1. Financial assistance award. This is a second reading
and request requires approval to implement the fee waiver
provision of Senate Bill 1456 and for Student Success and
Support Act of 2012 and through the proposed changes to
California code of regulation Title 5 section 58601, et seq..
May I have a motion. >> Moved.
>> Second. >> Vice President Baum. Okay.
We have a number of speakers on this and I think we will just
begin with -- before we have speakers up have a presentation.
Chancellor. >> Thank you President Baca,
members of the board. This is the request for approval of this
item. You have seen it previously for first reading so
with that I'm going to ask Linda Michalowski and her colleague to
give you a quick overview. Linda.
>> Thank you Chancellor Harris. President Baca, members of the
board this item is brought to you today for action. You
discussed it at your November meeting which I unfortunately
was not able to join you for, but there was discussion and
significant testimony at that time. This is the third set of
regulations that have come to you to implement the
recommendations of the Student Success task force and it's not
accidental that this is the third set. We tried to approve
the 22 recommendations of the task force in a manner that 9
would have them work together; that would coordinate the
implementation, and so this follows regulations on
enrollment priorities and regulations to strengthen the
support services that we provide to students through the Student
Success and support program. There was an extensive formal
review process for these regulations. There was a 45 day
comment period and public hearing in conjunction with your
last meeting, and we have provided for you in your agenda
proposed responses to each of the comments and concerns that
were raised in that formal process. Prior to that formal
process was probably two years of informal discussion of this
particular set of regulations, both as the Student Success Task
Force was discussing putting academic criteria on Bog Fee
Waiver eligibility as the language in SB 1456 was
discussed and adopted and as the regulations were put together by
a broad based task force they were brought to the consultation
task force three times for discussion. They were modified
in the course of those discussions. We then had
consultation individually with a number of groups reporting
specific sub sets of students, and what we believe -- what we
brought to you for adoption was thoughtfully conceived to
support the goals of the Student Success Task Force, to support
Student Success, and to respond to many of those concerns that
were brought to us. The ground work has been laid for us to
implement these regulations. I think successful implementation 10
will result in not a single student losing Bog Fee Waiver
eligibility because of the work being done now to promote the
concept that students have a right to receive support
services to be successful and they have an obligation to take
their opportunity to attend community college classes
seriously, and endeavor to achieve academic success. With
this spring term students will be receiving notice if they're
on academic or progress probation that they're at risk
of losing enrollment priority if they have a second term in that
status, and the colleges are busily putting in place both the
process of notifying students and the appeal process for
students to access to address a problem with their academic
performance and prepare to be successful, and so these
regulations related specifically to the Bog Fee Waiver that
platform to build upon should you in fact send them forward.
I want to briefly acknowledge and address the concerns that
have been brought in the comments on these regulations,
and so the first is there were a couple of comments that
indicated that we should have taken an approach of conforming
the Bog Fee Waiver academic requirements to those of the
federal financial aid programs. That issue has been discussed
extensively and by the Student Success Task Force and took it
to the financial aid community and the conclusion was that we
should in fact not take that course for a couple of reasons.
One is because the federal requirements are out of our 11
control. They're constantly changing and they require an
investment in an individual appeal process that's very labor
intensive because they're so restrictive and so -- they
follow each student's classes and classes completed each
semester very closely and we simply don't have the resources
to do that for all of the Bog Fee Waiver recipients. In
addition we adopted an approach that will allow Bog Fee Waiver
eligibility to be consistent with eligibility for continued
enrollment priority, so there can be one process of letting
students know that they're at risk; that they're subject to
loss of eligibility and one single appeal process to get
students back on track for enrollment priority and for
their Bog Fee Waiver. A second concern that we have heard from
numerous groups, and I suspect you will hear again in testimony
today is that all disadvantaged student groups should be
exempted from these regulations, and we have confidence -- I
believe you have confidence that this approach to consistently
encouraging students and supporting students to be
successful is the way to improve our success rates. Third -- a
third concern that we've addressed and that you may hear
again is that we should have a consistent uniform state wide
appeal process for state wide criteria for appeals for
students who face extenuating circumstances as a result of
them being in one of the groups that has statutory entitlement
to enrollment priority so that would include veterans, EOPS 12
students and CalWork students and the one group exempted in
the regulations from any penalty is foster youth. That is an
exemption provided for the next three years which is the period
in which the foster youth enrollment priority statute is
in place and during that time we intend to look at the data how
the students are performing compared to other students and
be prepared to address what happens in subsequent years as
the enrollment priority legislation is reauthorized.
Foster youth unlike other groups do not have statutory language
that ties them to the Student Success and Support Program
requirements, and that's why they have been treated
differently in these regulations. For the other
groups as I said we have included specific language that
districts are to take into consideration the disadvantages
associated with them being in those populations and the
appeals process and we have confidence that will allow
colleges to closely monitor the progress of these students.
Should the students demonstrate that they need support services
that they were unable to get in a timely manner that is also a
basis for appeal, so we believe that we have protected these
students from undue consequences. So in conclusion
these regulations are consistent with the intent of the Student
Success Task Force and I believe with your intent and adopting
the regulations of the Student Success Task Force they lay the
basis for students to be more successful for the colleges to 13
support students to be successful, and I think that
this is has been -- of the regulations you have heard so
far this is the most controversial from the very
beginning and I think that's because it is -- it goes to the
heart of our commitment to access for disadvantaged
students. If a student can't pay for classes, a student can't
attend classes so I think that we need to reassert it's our
intent that students will have the support that they need to be
successful in the classroom and in their educational career, and
it's only in that context that I ask you to adopt these
regulations, and we all have a responsibility to continue to
work with all constituencies and students to make sure that
promise is fulfilled. With me is specialists Rhonda Moore and
can help me answer questions that you may have.
>> Thank you Vice Chancellor Michalowski for your work on
this and thank you both for being here. Before we have
board member comments and questions we have a number of
presenters. Vice President Baum could you please --
>> The first speaker is Jonathan Lightman from the Faculty
Association for the California Community College and following
is Jessie Ryan for the Campaign for Opportunity. And each
speaker has three minutes -- up to three minutes.
>> Thank you Mr. Chairman and members Chancellor Harris.
Jonathan Lightman on behalf of the Faculty Association of the
California Community College. We have provided written 14
comments which I understand have been circulated to all of you so
you have an opportunity to review our concerns. I want to
outline there are two categories of concerns. The first one
involve the exemptions so in the proposed regulation there is
potential to exempt foster youth with other groups identified as
being in part of the appeals process as having extenuating
circumstances. I suggest to you that is problematic from three
levels. First there policy problem and as we discuss this,
not just within the system but the legislature and the public
at large, that we have to do a concern that was repeatedly
discussed during the task force as well as the legislative
deliberations protecting at risk youth in this process. There is
no one single definition of at risk but the community college
itself and through the system and the state has developed
programs to serve students that we know are at risk and all of
these various programs and foster youth and military. We
just had in fact our veteran summit and look forward to the
conversation tomorrow and we're proud of and we recognize as a
system the special concerns of military students and we
recognize their status as having specific considerations at risk
and we can say the same with the other programs. To suggest that
because foster youth are exempted from the registration
priority does not suggest that these others are not at the same
level of being at risk so that leads into the second problem
which is we have a legal program and we have similarly situated 15
students being treated differently. We have a problem
also of vagueness so if we suggest to the local colleges
it's their job to interpret and extenuating circumstances
applied to all of these programs and groups that's in the appeal
process but how is one to determine how much of an
extenuating circumstance that is? Frankly I read it -- I
cannot determine it. I haven't in conversation with the folks
that say welfare rights lawyers are looking at this which means
we're not only adding to the complexity of the appeals
process we're also adding to the cost and we're adding to
potential litigation which means we're adding to division and
cost which leads to the third problem which is to say that as
we move forward in the development of the Student
Success Initiative and we have the tremendous opportunity with
the Governor's very generous proposed budget that we should
be doing so in the spirit of unity and this divides that
unity. Our other concerns were mentioned in writing. Thank
you. >> Jessie Ryan followed by
Jeannette [INAUDIBLE] from [INAUDIBLE]
>> Good afternoon. Jessie Ryan Associate Director for the
College of Opportunity. I would like to begin by thanking the
staff for their commitment to address the concerns raised for
the campaign of college opportunity and others at the
last Board of Governors meeting. I have to say that we do remain
concerned by the lack of a state wide and uniform process for 16
implementing the appeals process. We also think that
there needs to be strong oversight by the Chancellor's
Office with consistency around the guidelines for implementing
the appeals process. I would like to note that the
regulations state that the district shall adopt and display
policies to ensure students are aware about the services to
assist them and maintaining and establishing Bog Fee Waiver
eligibility but we haven't seen information around the appeals
process nor requirements for publishing the procedures and
the forms that the students need to see and who the appropriate
liaison is at the campus and how to define extenuating
circumstances, et cetera. We respectfully ask that Chancellor
Harris and the Board of Governors issue strong
guidelines with a few key elements moving this policy
forward. One is looking at recognizing that a one size fits
all approach might not necessarily work for the 112
colleges but without clarity there is real issue here for why
variance how the policies are implemented campus to campus and
as others have said this will negatively impact some of the
most vulnerable students. We would like to see the
Chancellor's Office and support from stakeholder groups develop
guiding principles and policies around this and stating for
students and campus administrators what the best
practices are for implementing these policies holding up models
could work and should be implemented at the 112 colleges 17
and we ask as the conversations move forward and stakeholders
are brought together to develop the principles a student
centered approach is kept first and foremost and you bring in
some of the partners to bring in this act. We believe that the
-- test test test. >> We are definitely in support
of those statements. We strongly believe that some state
wide guidance is needed and some oversight in terms of the Bog
Fee Waiver. We worked really hard to ensure that appeals
process was drafted in the bill to ensure those at risk would
not lose this critical access to financial aid. As you know
without this BOG Waiver many students can't continue with
their education and we believe any state wide uniformity should
be done and oversight by the Chancellor's Office and there is
another provision that requires data collection and reported to
the legislature. We would like to see that in terms of the
appeals process and in particular to note how many
students are appealing, data in regard to the socioeconomic
status, any other information that we think is critical
because we think we really need to keep our eyes how this plays
out and impacts students and especially those most vulnerable
and we encourage that and secondly we agree there should
be a stakeholder process with other civil rights and equity
partners that worked on this legislation to ensure that this
process has the criteria that's needed to ensure that students
and those that are the most vulnerable do not lose this 18
access to the BOG Fee Waiver. Thank you.
>> Will Bruce from the California Community College
Extended Opportunities and Services Association followed by
Cesar Flores from the same association.
>> Thank you Chancellor Harris, President Baca, members of the
board. I am happy again to be speaking in front of the board
behalf of the association. The success of all students at the
community college is matched by our dedication that all students
maintain their place in the system and fully utilize all
resources to succeed. We applaud the special exemption
for the foster youth for the program. The program serves the
foster care community we understand the barriers that
this population faces and believe their issues warrant
this exemption. We hope to convince you that our students
and veterans and CalWork students and others face the
barriers in the California Community College system and
need the exemption and we provide services to our students
and held to a significant academic standard to receive the
services. We believe the penalties our students would
possibly face under the new standards would impact them to
devastating affects for the foster youth and I respectfully
request the same provision. Thank you very much, and I have
our stuff in writing. [INAUDIBLE]
>> Thank you. If you could hand it over to Clarisa she will take
care of it. >> Cesar Flores followed by 19
Georgina Guy. >>I am Cesar Flores. I'm the
OEPS coordinator at Oxnard College and serve as a
representative for the association, and to share the
same sentiments as my colleague Will Bruce, I am here to
respectfully request that EOPS students be added to the
exemption population in regard to the waiver for the BOG. One
of my main concerns to address is the aspect of retention. Our
students will face significant barriers with retention if in
fact they're not given access to the bog. There are mechanisms
already in place state wide through the EOPS program which
our program works collaboratively and not just a
financial aid and other services to make sure the students are at
satisfactory academic performance levels and this will
hinder our ability to improve retention and allow students to
progress considering the fact they already come in with
significant barriers, so that's something I really wanted to
touch on and hopefully the board takes into consideration. Thank
you. >> Thank you very much.
Georgina Guy followed by Nancy Reyes.
>> Members of the board, Chancellor Harris who is out
right now and President Baca, I want to thank you for allowing
me to express my support and allowing EOPS and the other at
risk student groups and CalWORKs and DSPS and the military to be
exempt from the BOG Fee Waiver and regulations. As stated
before by my colleagues our programs have measurements that 20
will assure our students are successful so we would like your
support in terms of making the exemption for them too. Thank
you. >> Thank you. Nancy from Butte
College [INAUDIBLE] EOPS followed by Joan Thompson.
>> Thank you. I'm not going to repeat what's already been said
but I just want to say it's about social justice, and I
think it's about not only access but retention, and everything
that's already been said. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Joan Thompson followed by
Maria Roman. >> Thank you all for -- thank
you for all of the work that you do behalf of the students. As a
representative from the college I am asking that the vulnerable
and promising students of EOPS and Cal Works and the other
students are exempted from the appeal process along with the
foster youth. Many of the students are very high risk.
They're the working poor who the community colleges are committed
to serve. >> Thank you. Maria Roman
followed by Richard Hansen from the California Community College
[INAUDIBLE] >> Good afternoon everyone. I
am the Director of EOPS and CalWORKs at [INAUDIBLE] college
and the foster youth counselor and Mr. Reed thank you for being
here. He's in my area. You know me with my background I'm
not supposed to be here. My goal was to be working in the
fields which I am an immigrant. I came from Mexico. I work in
the fields. I'm an English learner. English was very 21
difficult for me and I was not supposed to succeed. My father
had a plan for me and go into the fields to assist my brothers
and sisters. I'm one of the oldest and my job was to assist
them in the fields and helping them out and I did that for
years. Thanks to Mencha I found out about community colleges and
universities and I followed the path and here I am today. If
the SSSP fee waiver restrictions were in place by the time I
graduated high school I wouldn't have gotten my AA degree, or my
Bachelor's Degree and masters as well. Like I said I had a
difficult time learning English. I had to start from the bottom
when I entered college. I went up. I am successful now so I
ask to you please exempt the programs already said in the
speech earlier behind me. I now have two adult children.
They're both educated. My son is a business analyst for a
beverage company and my daughter is a First Lieutenant in the
Army. She served two terms in Afghanistan and now going to be
going to the captain school in Arizona so please consider
somebody like me who I would have been a failure instead a
taxpayer and being able to vote and elect all of you in the
position that you serve now. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Richard Hansen from the California Community
College Independence Association followed by [INAUDIBLE].
>> Good afternoon Chancellor and board members. My organization
the California Community College independence opposed this
particular portion and other portions too of the Student 22
Success Task Force recommendations and the
resulting SB 1456. But on this one in particular we carried
that opposition trying to improve this portion of the
measure right up to the end when it went to the Governor for
signing. It came back in a way that we thought we actually made
some headway so at this point we are trying to make this all work
as best as we can for the system and our students, and at this
point I would like to argue basically for consistency. If
you're going to go down the exemption route it should be for
all of the groups in the risk identified at risk. Frankly the
vast majority of our students are at risk . Consistency also
to say that the districts are going to need more guidance.
There is the issue of lawsuits. If every district is doing
something even slightly different it will lead to
inconsistencies that will lead to a number of lawsuits as the
claims are looked at in term it is what is being done at the
different districts so consistency is what we're after
here to make it work for everyone. Please consider
making it more consistent than at present. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> [INAUDIBLE] from the EOPS
association. >> Thank you for the opportunity
to speak in front of you with regards to -- and as I request
that you -- that I respectfully request that you put the EOPS,
[INAUDIBLE] and Cal Works and veterans students exemption
category and we don't need the students to jump through more 23
hoops. Thank you. >> The last speaker card.
[INAUDIBLE] >> It's a pleasure to speak in
front of you and to -- I wanted to let you know that the
Community College Association with is a part of the California
Teachers Association has a policy to uphold student rights
and to eliminate as many barriers as possible to
students' success and since we are all devoted to Student
Success I would ask that you make a consistent policy about
at risk students to include all these groups. Thank you.
>> If there are no other speaker cards -- okay. Very well.
Thank you very much for your input. Members, questions?
Vice President Baum. >> I had a couple of questions.
This has been on the agenda for a while now and what changes
have emerged since we began the process on considering the
ratings? >> There has been two changes in
the process. The first is that the exemption for foster youth
was inserted and the second was that the specific appeal
criteria based on a student's being part of one of the
identified at risk groups was written into the law, so for all
of the other groups that are designated for enrollment
priority which now includes veterans, EOPS students, DSPS
students and CalWork students all of those are signaled out as
entitled to an extenuating circumstances review should they
request it, so that they will not -- their loss of eligibility
would not be taken lightly and to me that appeal is an 24
opportunity for a college counselor to sit down with the
student and have a frank conversation with them about the
circumstances that have caused them to be in this situation of
having two terms of GPS -- cumulative GPA below a 2.0 and
failing to pass half of the classes. It's an opportunity
working with the student to make sure the student is matched with
available services to improve their academic performance.
It's an opportunity, not a penalty.
>> Does that happen after they have lost it or before they are
put on? >> Both. I mean the appeal is
after the student is told that they have got two terms on
probation and therefore their eligibility is lost. At this
point they can lodge an appeal and each college is required to
provide an appeal process, and to notify students of the appeal
process so that they can access it, but there are requirements
both in these regulations and in the Student Success program
regulations that you adopted it is required that colleges
provide services for these students, and that colleges do
follow up with at risk students and the definition of at risk
students in the Student Success support program regulations is
includes students who are subject to potential loss of
eligibility for enrollment priority or the BOG Fee Waiver
so you have been very clear with the colleges of your expectation
that these students will not just be left to fail, but they
will receive the support they need to succeed. 25
>> Let me ask you something related to this. One of the
concerns is the lack of consistency or uniformity at the
state level. Can you describe the process to ensure that the
Chancellor's Office has guidelines that will work with
the field? >> Yes. We are absolutely
committed to providing guidance to the colleges on
implementations of the appeals. Although an appeal by definition
is an individual matter. It's a matter of looking at the
students, not just by college but looking at each student's
individual circumstances and making a determination that you
can find a way to make that student successful, but we
routinely issue guidelines whenever regulations are
adopted and we will absolutely pull together the affected
constituencies and talk with them about the best way to
approach this so your expectations are clear to the
colleges as they develop the procedures and while there is
appropriate level of local variance based on the resources
and the processes they have already have in place that
they're clear of your intent by including --
>> So we can do the best we can to ensure that those guidelines
are not -- I don't want to say convoluted but clear enough so
in between campuses a broad range of decisions with regard
to what at risk is, and what it is extenuating circumstances
might be. >> We will provide clear
guidelines on what our interpretation is of those 26
terms. >> Member Ramos.
>> I have one last question. >> Okay. Vice President Baum
and then Member Ramos. >> It's probably for the
Chancellor. If we approve the recommendation and the
regulation goes into effect what will we do to track the impact
of the new regulation and how are we able to assess whether it
actually relate resulted in a loss of students or success in
certain categories? >> We will do exactly that. As
one of the speakers suggested we will certainly look at the
number of students who are losing eligibility and those
that are appealing and what the statistics look like as we try
to do on most of our educational processes so we can inform any
changes in the future, not only in these policies but those that
are related. >> Okay. My hope as Member
Ramos as said on occasion when we approve a regulation or
approve a contract it's important to hear the impact of
that once it's put into problem. >> Member Ramos.
>> [INAUDIBLE] >> Yeah. I just want to make a
comment and then I have a couple of questions that have valid. I
am very compelled by the case made by multiple speakers I
think from a standpoint of practicality, legality and
justice it is imperative that we have some kind of a mechanism,
seriously entertain a mechanism that provides beyond guidance
and that is 1/2 of the question but the other half is how things
play out on the ground and assure there is a degree of 27
fairness and uniformity in the system even with the
acknowledgment that local leadership should have the
prerogative to make decisions based on those circumstances so
I am very, very compelled by the case that's been made that we
should fine every reason way we can to do more than just issue
guidance but have assessment or oversight system, albeit one
that is efficient and economical and not a cost hit to the
system. Having said that what I wonder about is what degree of
flexibility would we have under the current legislative regime
to consider for example in the case of these identified
additional cohorts of student populations the possibility of
three additional cycles and instead of two strikes and not
in every case but leeway to go to a fourth pass. Is that
something that could be considered? Do we need
legislation to did that? That's a question I have. Secondly
although I think it has been stated most of the students in
the system would be impacted I don't know what the raw numbers
tell us who is affected even if we do what is suggested by most
which is to extend the exoneration to the other groups
and what population in numbers head count are we talking about?
What are the cost implications for that? I'm not sure I have
the data to make an educated decision for that request.
>> Do you want to take each one? I think he asked three
questions. >> To the first question I
believe the board has the authority to expand the 28
exemptions without having to seek a change in law. However,
I believe there's a certain expectation on the part of
legislators and the Governor's Office that there's definite
support for the policy as currently before you, and so I
think that there would need to be conversations if we were to
exempt larger numbers of students from the policy. We
have argued that the purpose of this policy is to ensure that
students understand what their obligations are as we provide
them the opportunity to succeed, and also to ensure that we are
identifying students that we have at the colleges and will
focus on with support, so that they can succeed, and so I think
we would need to explain carefully why we're not
confident that our policy is going to accomplish that, and
you know seek concurrence but I believe it's within your legal
authority to do it. On the other question regarding the
numbers we have actually done a simulation of what the impact
would have been had this policy been in effect over the last
couple years and SB 1456 required us to provide that
information to the legislate and you are we have sent it over.
The numbers -- do you want to describe what we found?
>> Sure. We started by developing a cohort of students,
and we did that at the end of spring '11 because it was
necessary to look over several terms so students at end of
spring '11 who had achieved at least 12 units. That's when we
start measuring academic and progress standards in the 29
regulation. We followed that same cohort of students. The
original amount in the cohort was 615,000 students were in the
spring '11 cohort. BOG Fee Waiver recipients who had
achieved 12 units who persisted then to fall of '11 and were at
probation at the end of fall of '11 or met probation criteria
and then persisted to spring of '12, again received the BOG Fee
Waiver, and achieved or gained -- achieved probation -- fell
into probation by the end of spring. There were about 42,000
students who would have been at risk of losing the waiver.
That's the percentage of the student body at the end of
spring of '12. We think the number who would have lost the
BOG Fee Waiver would have been less. First of all not all of
the students would have persisted to the '12 term which
we have data for that term. Also we would hope that with the
implementation of the regulations and all of the
services and processes that a lot of those students who had
been on probation the first term got the notice upon 30 days were
able to turn around and not hit a second term of probation and
students who did hit two terms of probation would also the
services and appeal processes available so we're looking at
the highest number of students who would have been affected
would be 5.4% and probably much less than that.
>> That's not just foster care? >> No. That's all students.
>> [INAUDIBLE] >> That's all students.
Okay. What about the matter of the oversight? What would you 30
say with any kind of regime or protocol and cost effective,
smart, quick and responsive and help us course correct if needed
based on patterns that we're seeing that are disturbing in
implementation. >> We will absolutely monitor
the data on this. We will look to see not only the number of
students affected but who they are and look for any
disproportionate impact and on a state wide basis and what is
happening at individual colleges. When you receive your
budget update you will learn about potential funding that we
may have to actually interact more closely with the colleges
around all of the Student Success work, and this is -- we
don't take this lightly at all. We will look at the data. We
will look at student out comes and reevaluate this if
necessary. >> We're going to do that
anyway. >> We're going to do that
anyway. >> So the final thing I will say
and I apologize for the length, but to the extent that we
continue that we have aptly done so to this point to engage some
of the outsider stakeholder groups that have issue in --
interest in the issues -- (LOW AUDIO) and seems like it's wise
and reflect the good faith we have carried forward to this
point and make sure everyone will feel good about this.
>> I can't agree more. We have made that commitment in writing
and your response to that. >> Member Izumi.
>> Thank you for the presentation Linda Michalowski 31
and I want to thank the groups that come and testified before
us. I know it's an important issue and I know myself and the
Colleagues on the board really appreciate everything you had to
add to the discussion before us. Just a question about the
simulation numbers so you had 42,000 students that may have
been affected by this policy. Out of that 42,000 -- since it's
all students, did you tease out the students in EOPS, military,
the various other groups that were discussed he?
>> No, I didn't bring all of those numbers.
>> Okay. >> Yes, we teased out some of
those. We teased out and I have numbers today on ethnicity.
>> Okay. >> In our letter that we sent
over to the legislature we highlighted some of these so let
me highlight those for you. Pacific Islanders at 7.5%.
African-Americans at 7.3% and Hispanic at 7% show a higher
risk under the fee waiver provisions than do Asians at
4.9% and whites at 3.5% so we had the baseline of all students
5.4 and the highest Pacific Islanders, small population, but
highest percentage and African-Americans and Hispanics
coming in the low seven's. Students age 18 to 19 were 8.8%
so they were a lot higher than older students. Older students
over the age of 50 were 2.4%. Rates declined from 6.3% at age
20-24 and up down to 2.4% for over 50. There were no big
differences between males and female. We reported to the
legislature on students with disabilities 8% compared with 32
students without disabilities 5.6%. We had -- we were able to
run the data against foster youth and they showed a little
bit higher risk of losing the fee waiver. We ran it against
-- >> What was the --
>> CalWorks. >> Okay. EOPS and CalWorks?
>> We did. I didn't bring the data but cal worked showed at
about 9%, 9 or 10%. EOPS was between 8 and 9% so they were
higher at risk than the general population.
>> So you're saying out of the 100% of EOPS students about 8 or
9% -- >> Eight or nine. I can't
remember the exact figure. >> Could have been affected by
this. >> Could have been affected by
this, right. >> And because I think that's
important because just in terms of general discussion about
this, and I understand everybody's concern, but unless
the decision making body, us, is able to put these concerns into
some kind of perspective in terms of how many students might
be affected that are discussed by members of the various groups
it's harder for us to make that ultimate decision because if it
were 50% or something like that that would be a very big concern
for us I am sure members of the board. If we're talking about
numbers like 8, 9% given the fact that the average -- even
for those groups that may not be as affected maybe 5% that's
something for us to -- it helps us make that decision.
>> We ran the modeling during our discussions with our work 33
group, so the stakeholders that we had around the table got a
peak at the data and the numbers we re-ran it last fall and more
current numbered and fine tuned it. When we and the work group
saw the numbers and saw that they weren't -- there are some
abnormalities and higher risk of students but it wasn't 15 or
20%, so I think we felt it was -- that the protections we had
for those groups were going to help a lot.
>> I think that is important for us to know, so none of the
different groups really went above 10%?
>> CalWORKs I think was above 10%, 10.2, something along that
order. >> We will share the information
that was sent over to the legislature with you so that you
can see that data. I also want to point out that we did a
similar analysis of the -- when we were bringing to you the
enrollment priority regulations and these numbers are not
appreciably different. At least in percentage terms they're
quite similar, and finally all of these numbers are reflecting
student behavior before the discussion of Student Success
began and before the discussion of the requirements for
enrollment priority began so I fully expect that these numbers
will come down, and then again I would point out in the Student
Success and Support Program regulations you specifically
require colleges to provide follow up services on students
who are at risk, so you know I believe that we can do much
better with our students. >> Actually that's the point I 34
was going to make that these numbers don't take into
consideration the incentivizing effect of these recommendations,
and even though once people are counseled as to what they need
to do that those numbers may not be as dire as these.
>> That's correct. >> Member Bielanski.
>> I think part of the struggle obviously is that the BOG Fee
Waiver has been around for years, a long time, and that the
only criteria for getting the BOG Fee Waiver was income and if
you met those requirements you had the waiver, and so to begin
now to make changes we're changing the culture, and we're
changing the way we think about things, and that takes some time
and that takes some effort that we're going to have to really
think about how to do that and how to work with that, so as to
also duly inform students up front of the conditions are now
changing. Which raises a question for me and you ran the
numbers. Was that a a combination of students on
academic probation and progress probation?
>> Yes. Either and/or. >> Because it would be
interesting to know how many students were on progress
probation to be honest? Even to see if that had direct impact on
the numbers because I know as somebody that worked in that
area we had students take classes and drop out and
withdraw, so they didn't get low grades and wanted to go to
school and didn't want grades and used fee waiver so I think
-- so I think there are a lot of conditions that have to be 35
considered, but I have a couple of questions. In these proposed
responses and you used some of this already. It says there
will be strong guidance and training about the appeals
process, and expectations. How might that happen in the sense
of like what would look like to provide that guidance or provide
training? >> We have a couple of other
questions. >> I think that we would -- you
know we would express to community colleges the intent of
the provisions and that they put in place a process and make
students aware of a process whereby they will look at the
student's individual circumstances and look for ways
to make the students successful. That's the purpose of the appeal
process is not to be punitive but to determine how to make the
student successful in order to continue the education.
>> Okay. And like when you do the training for DSPS
coordinators and other coordinators and those kinds of
things that happen on an annual basis this will get incorporated
somehow into that also? >> Absolutely. Absolutely it
would. I mean I am assuming in many cases it would not be those
individuals who would actually hear this appeal so we would
need to also bring it to student services administrators and
counselors to make sure that -- this needs to be an
institutional process. >> You might have to explain it
to the student up front. I need you to understand as you -- is
there any work group that might provide sample language? I mean 36
because this requires the districts will in fact have to
come up with procedural language that's in print and in the
catalogs probably and available to students, and always another
struggle is how are we going to get that language together?
What's that language going to look like? How do we see our
language is consistent and not saying something we're not
supposed to? And I ask the same thing about the boards and forms
and there might be a work group to put the forms together to
help colleges. I put a question out about different list
services and forms for enrollment priority and I didn't
get one response, not one, and there's lots of people on those
Email list serves reading that and at the same time I would
pick up that we all struggle how do you write that language? How
do you put those forms? Or if I say at my college I'm going to
have a form for the general student population but EOPS form
and a DSPS form and a CalWORKs form.
>> Well, typically I'm not aware of a single existing work group
that would be able to adequately inform that discussion, but we
would go to all of our work groups, so my staff worked
directly with the EOPS Directors and the coordinators. We have a
Student Success program and advisory committee. We have a
advisory group on counseling. We will go to all of the groups
and ask for input and suggestions as well as ask them
for their existing processes. Some student service
administrators have sent me examples of their appeal forms 37
so we will work broadly to identify best practices, and
approaches and then make that information available state
wide. >> Yeah, because it's one thing
as you know to pass Title 5 regulation. It's a much more
difficult thing in my mind to implement them and implement
them effectively so you're not disservicing students but
helping students. >> Member Hawkins.
>> Thank you. I appreciate all of the presentation and
testimony from everybody, so I'm going to try to do this and see
if we can get through it. I would like to propose an
amendment to the regulations as stated and include veterans and
EOPS and DSPS and CalWorks in the exemption portion of the
regulation. >> Is there a second to that?
>> I will second it -- do we have a vote on it?
>> Well, we have a motion on the table and that's the
recommendation as is. >>I would like to second this --
>> Vice Chancellor. >> And maybe Steve can provide
some guidance. >> Well, the board can adopt a
motion to amend the regulation. It would not take affect today
as a second reading of the regulation. It would need to be
renoticed and opportunity for further community and so on, so
the board has discretion. The board doesn't have to vote up or
down on the regulation before it. The board has the right to
amend the regulations and adopt regulations it feels are most
appropriate, but an amended regulation is not ripe for 38
adoption here today. >> Can I ask another question?
>> Yeah, just procedurally. I have Vice President Baum wanted
to make a comment -- >> That's okay.
>> Well, what I would like to suggest as a friendly amendment.
I think we need more time and discussion and maybe in the
nature of your proposal you will have that.
>> It's comes as my understanding of the policy and
has to go back out to the field. Right Steve?
>> In this case that I will second the motion on the floor.
>> Okay. Vice Chancellor Bruckman can you help me out
with this procedural? We have a motion and requested amendment.
>> There are two motions before the board at this time so the
board would properly vote on the motion that was first made
before voting on the motion that was second made, so I think that
would be the procedural course. >> Okay. So we am vote on the
motion as -- Member Izumi and second with Member Baum and
before we have that we do have a couple of comments. First of
all Vice President Baum. >> I just wanted to talk about
the original motion, and I would oppose the second motion right
now too. I started college during Governor Brown's first
term and was able to go to college because of Cal Grant
proposal and I didn't do see well my sophomore year and I
realized if I didn't keep my grades up I would lose the Cal
Grant and imperil my opportunity to continue college and a
powerful incentive for me to get my act together and do better in 39
the following years so I come to that with understanding that
that personally, and then I also assess the fact that we're here
about improving and increasing levels of success, so we want to
bring that 10% of CalWORKs who would be vulnerable down a much
lower rate as well as the minority groups that you
mentioned and I start with the California Community College
fees are the lowest in the nation, and so yet over half of
the students at my district, Pasadena City district are
receiving the fee waivers. To lose that fee waiver would
actually not prohibit a student from continuing. They would
have to get back into good standing academically but
they're able to continue the studies. They wouldn't have it
free instead of having to -- they would have to pay for it.
They would have to pay for the resources and they're entitled
to other resources and they're subject to other incentive s.
the Cal Grants still require a minimum grade requirement, so I
feel very strongly that there should be a performance based
incentive for students to pursue in order to receive a fee waiver
and already with the lowest fees in the country so I think we
should adopt the regulation. I think it will enhance Student
Success and we will get more of the students facing
disadvantages to actually graduate -- to be successful and
achieve their goals and so I think it harm Student Success
for us and actually harm CalWork students, harm EOPS
students, harm DSPS students and Veterans with this regulation. 40
>> Member Bielanski. >> Because I'm not sure how were
the foster youth given this distinction?
>> There was a broad based call for an exemption from the foster
youth support community. It included the department of
social services. It included some legislative members, and
they pointed out that -- they questioned our legal basis for
restricting what they saw as a statutory entitlement to
enrollment priority for foster youth, and there's actually a
legal challenge that has been filed that we're in the process
of responding to now, and when we looked at it we were not
report that under current law that we would prevail if we did
not make a change, so that was the challenge concerning the
enrollment priority regulations that had been adopted, but we
hoped that by addressing their concerns in the BOG Fee Waiver
regulations that were in process, and then insuring them
that at such time that we come back to you with amendments to
the enrollment priority regulations. We would bring
that issue to you in that context as well that it would
enable us to move forward with some confidence from the foster
youth advocates that we are sensitive to their concerns.
>> Any further discussion? >> I would like to make an
additional point. I feel -- I have expressed this frustration
at past meetings in the choices we're called to make and slide
two and frustrating to decisions that are either or and while the
proposals on the take are fine but don't get to where I would 41
like us to get. I think we need more time for reflection and
discussion on this topic. I think leaving it as it is or
going to a wholesale expansion in the other groups I think
there is somewhere isn't middle that is the best place to land
and I don't know if the process allows us to get to that point
as I see it but I prefer to have that option rather than voting
on two options -- extremes that I think really miss the mark so
I don't want to over complicate it and propose a third choice
and I think we have two on the table and let's see where we end
up. >> Okay. We have two motions
and we will take a vote on the first which the motion to
approve the item, item 2.1 -- >> Point of order Mr. President.
We have a roll call vote on both?
>> Yes we will have a roll call vote, so we have on the table a
motion by Member Izumi and second by Vice President Baum to
accept the recommendation of 2.1.
>> Just a clarification because of the reduced numbers how many
votes are required for action by the board?
>> A majority of the members present.
>> Fine. >> [INAUDIBLE]
>> Okay. So we will take a roll call vote.
>> [INAUDIBLE] >> This is the first motion.
>> On the first motion Manuel Baca.
>> Aye. >> Geoffrey Baum.
>> Aye. >> Natalie Berg. 42
>> Aye. >> Joseph Bielanski.
>> I'm going to abstain. >> Danny Hawkins.
>> No. >> Lance Izumi.
>> Aye. >> [INAUDIBLE]
>> I'm going to abstain. >> Gary Reed.
>> Aye. >> Okay. Recommendation is
approved. >> What was the vote?
>> Five yes', one no, two [INAUDIBLE]
>> And we will now take the second motion.
>> Well, the second -- the second motion -- I suppose would
need to be amended if the makers of the motion would like to
proceed, but the first motion has been adopted. The
regulations have been adopted by the Board of Governors. If the
Board of Governors members who made that motion feel that the
regulation should be changed the board could adopt such a motion
and begin the process to do so. >> I so move.
>> And I would second. >> Okay. Motion by Member
Hawkins and second by Member Ramos to amend the financial aid
awards recommendation -- >> To include --
>> To include the additional entities including the vets,
EOPS, DSPS and CalWORKs as amended motion, so do we have
any discussion? >> Can we just add just to
clarify at least what I am looking for is additional study
time and opportunity to assess ways to refine the protocol so
it can best meet system and individual needs. I don't know 43
a better way to say it but I think what I am looking for --
>> I will accept that as a friendly amendment.
>>I am looking for time with the Chancellor and the board to
entertain the new information that we received and see if
there are better ways to implement this than the generic
policy. >> So to be clear your motion is
not to necessarily amend the previously approved
recommendation, but to look at exemptions further with regard
to EOPS, vets and DSPS and CalWORKs.
>> That's what I am looking at and look at the information to
entertain that. >> [INAUDIBLE] I think there's
more time needed. I was surprised that a legislative
report went across the street and that's a very worth while
piece of information that the Board of Governors didn't see in
the background of two previous readings to this, so I would
like to see that pulled data. >> Okay. So what you would like
in your motion if I am reading it correctly is to have
consideration for these four groups as additional exemptions
but not necessarily at this point changing the previously
approved recommendation but to look at it more closely based on
envelope that might be provided by the Chancellor's Office and
the field with regard to the impact?
>> Yes. >> Yes [INAUDIBLE]
>> Okay. So we do have a motion by Member Hawkins and a second
by Member Ramos and if there are no further questions. Member 44
Izumi. >> I'm sorry. Just for
clarification. So under this amendment -- proposed amendment
-- >> It wouldn't be an amendment.
>> It would not? >> No.
>> Okay. So what we just voted on will stand right now. This
is just -- this is a further motion for study for these other
groups? >> Correct.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Any further
clarification or discussion? Okay. We will do another roll
call vote. >> I will make sure that we have
it right. For consideration of additional [INAUDIBLE] and allow
more time to discuss [INAUDIBLE] >> Yeah. Additional input from
the field of the Chancellor's Office in regard to the
exemptions -- four additional exemptions and include vets,
EOPS, financial aid and CalWORKs as to impact and possible
consideration for an amendment in the future but not at this
point. >> Vice President Baum.
>> I just had a question. We did receive assurances from
Chancellor Harris and Vice Chancellor Michalowski that we
would continue to study the impacts of this proposed
regulation on these groups. How does this motion differ from
what would already be in place and possibly come back to us for
modification if so? >> I don't want to read into
that but Member Hawkins I am assuming you want emphasis
placed? >> That is true. But we 45
approved regulation I believe this has to go to the Department
of Finance for approval. Isn't that the next step for this?
And what is the timeline for that and maybe in that process
there is more time built in but what I was really getting at is
not implement this tomorrow which I know doesn't happen but
still we did approve this item 2.1 as stated, but I still think
there's more that needs to happen and as Member Ramos
stated and maybe a happy medium we could fine and isn't that
true Steve? >> Regulations are presented to
the Department of Finance. How long that process will take
varies. It could be within the next month or so that process is
completed or take longer. >> Member Bielanski you had a
question or a comment? >> A question and a comment. If
I read this correctly the implementation isn't until fall
of 2016 anyway. >> The ultimate implementation,
correct and the impact on students wouldn't occur until
then. >> This implementation and what
I hear the recommendation asking for additional research,
additional whatever was stated is there a timeline in which
that is to be accomplished or like is it within the next 25
years? >> I hope -- I think -- we do
have a built in timeline in terms of entertaining these
proposals if approved, correct, as part of the approval process?
>> Well, no, I think it's a valid question. If the board
would like to direct staff with a timeline for feedback on this 46
I think that would clarify that motion.
>> What we're talking about is your interest.
>> I would expect that we could -- should be get something by
the next board meeting, next regular board meeting.
>> 90 days. That is a good timeline. Good with that?
>> Okay. >> Yeah, take us beyond that but
it's fine. >> Gerrie, do you have --
>> [INAUDIBLE] >> Let's go to March. Sooner
than later. >> Okay. Do we have the motion
appropriately stated? >> Can I just say --
complicated. >> Vice President Baum.
>> Whether you vote for or against the motion I think we're
all trying to help the disadvantaged students of our
system, and a no vote doesn't mean a vote against these
groups, support or acknowledgment of the unique
disadvantages those students face as well as my colleagues on
the board are also looking for ways to make sure and insure
absolutely that we don't lose focus and try to find a way that
continues to meet the needs of these classes of students.
>> Okay. Member Izumi. Also too I mean -- because as
the Chancellor mentioned and Chancellor Michalowski talked
about and it turns out the case that the simulation projections
were hugely askew and we're talking now 25% or larger than
expected it's always possible for the board to return to that
based upon those numbers and then address those. Correct? 47
>> Absolutely. >> Vice President Baum.
>> Is it possible as President of the Board to ensure that
perhaps at the next board meeting that we get that report
referenced and have an opportunity to review and
discuss it? >>I think that's Member Hawkins'
interest. >> Do we even need a motion to
put that on the agenda for next meeting?
>> Yes. From my point of view, yes we do.
>> Okay. We have a motion on the table. And Gerrie could you
read what you have. >> I just have the notice --
four groups -- [INAUDIBLE] at the March 2014 --
>> We will seek additional information to possibly amend
this. >> Amend the motion.
>> Amend the motion that just passed. Additional information
not to necessarily amend but
to address the issues and consider
at this point that. All right. I think
we
have sufficient clarification on the motion and
so if there's no further discussion
we will do a roll call vote.
>> Manuel Baca. >> Aye.
>> Geoffrey Baum. >> No.
>> Natalie Berg. >> Abstain.
>> Joseph Bielanski. >> Aye.
>> Danny Hawkins. >> Aye.
>> Lance Izumi. >> Aye.
>> Henry Ramos. >> Aye. 48
>> Gary Reed. >> No.
>> That
motion passes. >> Okay. Thank you
all
very much. We will now take
about
a 15 minute break and reconvene.