Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
07-08-13 Palomar BOG 1 >> All right. If we could have
this meeting come to order. Roll call please.
>> Manuel Baca. >> Present.
>> Geoffrey Baum. >> Here.
>> Natalie Berg. Joseph Bielanski.
>> Present. >> Danny Hawkins.
>> Present. >> Lance Izumi.
>> Here. >> Deborah Malumed. Henry
Ramos. >> Present.
>> Gary Reed. >> Here.
>> Okay. Member Izumi could you please lead us in the pledge.
>> Okay. 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.
>> Thank you and welcome everyone. I just have a few
comments before I turn things over to the Chancellor. This
past month I had the opportunity to travel with Chancellor Harris
to a couple of events. One was the Chancellor's circle down at
the Chino campus and I want to thank the board and the
Chancellor for hosting that. The Chancellor may or may not
speak about it, but individuals from the area well attended, and
had a very good time as well. The salary surfer announcement
down at Grossmont and I had the opportunity to go there as well
and thank the president and Sonny Cook for hosting that. We
had a very good event there. Grossmont has a cardiovascular
program we visited and state of 2 the art and unique and we got a
tour of that facility and we were joined there by others as
well and certainly want to thank the Chancellor and Vice
Chancellor Perry for presenting an effective update on the
salary surfer. I think we all received the Strategic Plan and
again it's a piece of work that dates back several years and
needed an update and certainly Chancellor Harris and the staff
have done great work of getting that up-to-date and current for
us, certainly one additional tool that can be used there. I
just want to kind of highlight maybe three things that I think
are particularly critical and not to set aside because we're
talking about the Student Success task force and other
things today, but we are aware of the situation at City College
of San Francisco and we will be having an agenda, a couple of
agenda items related to that today. I think it's extremely
important based on the accreditation announcement last
week to do everything in our effort to stay informed about
the issues there, and certainly the Chancellor with the
appointed Trustee and others if it comes to a vote today will be
working to resolve this. I have full confidence we are able to
work with the City College of San Francisco and certainly get
the accreditation on the right track. We've got a short time
to do it, but we fully dedicated to doing that because it's
vitally important for the students there and of course
just a couple of other areas quickly. Adult Ed, I think
deserve our attention. We're in 3 a period with the Chancellor and
working with the other constituents in the adult Ed
area are working to develop a long-term plan with adult
education state, and the last thing I wanted to bring up is
dealing with veteran's legislation. There are some
things happening both in the state and federally that I think
are critical to us being able to serve veterans. I think the
position of this board has been we do everything possible to
encourage veterans, and that may very well include such bills as
assemble bill 13 which deals with veterans from out of state.
I had a recent conversation with a member of Congress down in the
Palm Springs area, Congressman Reese and there is a bills
addressing these issues in the state. I'm not sure where we
end up resolving all of this, but there are some things
happening with regard to veterans and their ability to
fully participate in Higher Ed whether this state or other
states and I think it's important for us as board
members to stay in touch in particular with those three
critical areas as we support the Chancellor's work and the staff.
Just a couple other notes. I want to thank Jurena Storm and
Ning Yang for their tenure as representing students. They're
not here today and ended their term and we look forward to
replacements on the board soon. This is the last meeting for her
but I would like to thank Michelle for the work with the
Academic Senate. Is she here? Michelle thank you.
[Applause] 4 Anyway she has been working for
many years with the state Academic Senate for the last two
years as Senate President, done a fantastic job, and certainly
congratulations and welcome to Beth Smith who is replacing her.
Okay. With that Chancellor Harris I will turn over the mic
to you. >> Thank you President Baca,
members of the board. Just a couple of quick items. I
certainly want to reiterate our appreciation to all of the
colleges that hosted various activities over the last month
on our behalf. The Chancellor circle, Henry Shannon and his
team, the board at that fine institution hosted us, and it
was a great turnout. I also want to echo the President's
comments about the roll out of the salary surfer. It really
was two home runs two months in a row for the Chancellor's
Office. First the score card we rolled out in May and then the
salary surfer we rolled out in June, and again I want to thank
Patrick Perry and his team, Paul feast and his, for really
positioning the Chancellor's Office and all of us in
California Community Colleges to tell our story, both the good
and the bad news for a change, rather too often being defined
by outside forces, so it's wonderful to take control of our
message and things that are going on in our colleges out in
the media, and at the same time admit the challenges we're
facing and how we're going to roll up our sleeves and deal
with those. I want to also thank others for the work on the
budget. Scott Lay in the 5 audience, Dean, and there are a
number of constituent leaders. If you look at the way the state
budget will come out and Dan will give you a briefly later,
but clearly the legislature and the Governors were lined up
perfectly with the priorities of our system and that doesn't
happen often and certainly not the time I have been in
California and it's wonderful to see the priorities of the
legislature and especially the administration dovetailing with
what our own priorities are. Certainly the funding of Student
Success, restoration of access, the fact that the colleges have
been challenged on the operating budget and the COLA, the
restoration of some of our very, very important categorical
programs, and the EOPNS and CalWORKs just to mention three
that were highlighted. It was a very good budget cycle for us.
It's not to say there are a number of monumental challenges
ahead for us including potential for short falls in fees and
property taxes and RDA back fill that we're having to deal with,
but we certainly are in a much better position than we are than
we have been in the last four or five years and finally I not
only want to add my appreciation to Michelle over the work she
has done over the last year and acknowledge another one of our
colleagues for whom the transition is taken place, and
that's our Student Senate president rich Copenhagen. I
don't see rich in the room yet but we will acknowledge him as
well, but the truth is the governance process in California
Community Colleges is only as 6 good as the people that serve in
those roles and they are two fine examples month after month
of consultation of representing their constituents and all of
the colleges in what is a very important process which is
generating the advice and counsel of all of our leaders as
we prepare to ultimately come forward to the board for policy
changes and program implementation. Later today you
will be hearing some work from Patrick Perry, very early work
on state wide goal setting. The next important process over the
next two months is for that information to go to
consultation and people like Michelle and Rich and their
colleagues will look at that from every direction, give their
advice and counsel, so when we come back to the board and seek
ultimate approval of a set of goals it is a presentation to
the board that is informed fully by all of the players and
Michelle again thank you and thank you to Rich, and that at
this point President Baca will conclude my report.
>> Thank you. Okay. We will move on to the Consent Calendar
and I will entertain a motion to accept the Consent Calendar.
>> Let me ask the Board of Governors to pull one item on
page 18. There's a challenge that's been filed on item the
third item from the top of the page, Long Beach Community
College District. There is a challenge filed to that one, so
as always the case when we get a challenge we pull that until the
appeal is concluded and with that one exception I recommend
the Consent Calendar with your 7 approval.
>> Okay. I will accept that change.
>> Move. >> Second.
>> Thank you. Any further discussion? Yes, sir.
>> I just want to point out under the grants because of
being a facility member that works on the student services
side of the house two grants that I think are really
important to continue and I am glad to see they're on here.
The one being number seven, the Puente project and probably
could use more money than it gets but that we're continuing
it is helpful and number eight because I use it daily in my
work, the money for assist and transfer and articulation and
helpful for transfer centers for opportunities and I am
desperately waiting for 2.0 assist.
>> Thank you. Vice President. >> I have a question too. So
this also represents an important step of the roll out
of the program that Vice Chancellor Van Ton-Quinlivan is
overseeing with the work force development, and so that now the
process will go throughout the state, and we will see some of
the centers up and running through these grants.
>> [INAUDIBLE] >> Okay. And is this the first
time we have done it this way? Is this the first time we have
done it this way? >> [INAUDIBLE]
>> Okay. So this is the launch of that.
>> Okay. Any further discussion? Seeing none all in
favor please say aye. 8 >> Aye.
>> Okay. The Consent Calendar is approved. Chancellor
Bruckman. >> President Baca, members of
the board we have a couple items to add to the agenda. The --
[INAUDIBLE] our normal process is items posted on the agenda 10
days in advance of the meeting. [INAUDIBLE] (away from mic).
And add today. One is for the adoption of the emergency
regulation and the other is appointment of a Special
Trustee. The items to be added to the agenda [INAUDIBLE] on
notice if there is a need to take immediate action
[INAUDIBLE] of the state body subject to the agenda being
posted with the timing. The agenda was posted approximately
June 30 and the item you're talking about City College of
San Francisco accreditation and [INAUDIBLE] the other criteria
being the need -- [INAUDIBLE] considering the great
seriousness involved with the potential termination of the
college [INAUDIBLE]. We feel it meets the criteria and whether
to add the items to the agenda. There must be a 2/3 vote of the
board to add items to the agenda. With we have six
members present. You can accomplish that and I should
have given just a [INAUDIBLE] opportunity speak first.
>> One quick thing. Just a technical thing. I don't hear
amplification so it's hard to hear. Is there room
amplification for this Njeri? >> [INAUDIBLE]
>> Sorry about that.
>> Okay. >> My apologies. I will -- for
the benefit of the people who may not have heard me I will
briefly repeat what I said but I believe board member Bielanski
may wish to recuse himself. . Would you like me to explain
why? >> The reason to explain why is
by staff the fact that I am a Commissioner on the accrediting
commission does present a conflict of interest.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. As I was
saying earlier, and I apologize for the technical difficulty we
are requesting that the board add two items to the agenda.
Those items being adoption of emergency regulation and
appointment of a Special Trustee. The requirements for
adding item to the agenda is at the there be an immediate need
to take action and the need for action came to the attention of
the state body subsequent to the agenda being posted. We believe
those criteria have been met, but it is up to the board to
take action. A 2/3 of the board must vote in favor to add the
item to the agenda so it would require I a unanimous vote to
add the items to the agenda and 10 if the members of the board have
any questions I would be happy to answer them.
>> I move that we add the items to the agenda.
>> Okay. Vice President Baum motion. Second.
>> And just for formality sake I ask that -- if you wouldn't mind
reading the statement in the recommended action. Adopt the
motion as the Board of Governors find the exist need et cetera.
>> Should I make that part of the motion?
>> Please. >> I move that we add to the
agenda two items. Item one is the emergency adoption of a
California code of regulation and then item two is the
appointment of a Special Trustee for San Francisco Community
College District. >> And if I may add to the
district the need of action came to the board subsequent to the
post posting of the agenda and there is an immediate need.
>> As with the conditions stated by Mr. Bruckman we feel there
was an immediate need to add these to the agenda.
>> Okay. We have a motion and a second by member Reed. All in
favor please indicate by saying aye.
>> Aye. >> Okay. The amendment to the
agenda is approved. >> Okay. So now we have two new
items on the agenda. The first item to take up is the emergency
adoption of a California code of Title V regulation. That's
Regulation 58312 and this is the regulation dealing with
districts that have -- that are in fiscal and other distress.
>> One -- I just want to point 11 out. Should we have asked for
public comment before taking the vote of the addition of the
agenda? >> It's not required that you
ask for public comment. It's up to the board. If the board
would like to receive public comment you are free to do so.
>> Okay thank you. >> We will receive --
[INAUDIBLE] >> Okay.
>> Did you want to comment further on the first item?
Chancellor Bruckman before we have --
>> Yes, we did have two members of the public that wanted to
address the previous action that we voted on.
>> On putting things on the agenda?
>> Yes. Because they asked to speak to item AA.
>> Okay. I would say if there's a couple that want to comment I
would be more comfortable allowing them to do that.
>> So Mr. President if you don't mind I would like to recognize
the public comment who suggested the adding of the items to the
board agenda that they requested to address the board on that.
>> Okay. >> I have two -- I received two
comment cards for item AA which was the consideration of the
addition of the regulation and the appointment to the agenda.
One is from Monica Henistrosa from the California Federation
of Teachers. >> Hand Monica that microphone
Steve. >> Good afternoon. I am Monica.
I am appearing on behalf of the Federation of Teachers regarding
agenda item AA adding to the 12 agenda a creation of a Special
Trustee at San Francisco Community College District. I
ask that my written comments which will give to the board be
part of the proceeding. Local 2121 oppose the decision of the
accrediting commission for these colleges to deny accreditation
to San Francisco City College effective July 14. This
punitive action by the commission denying accreditation
to City College coming on the heels of protest by serious
conflicts of interest by the president and other
representatives and violations of state and federal law and
reflects that the commission is out of touch with working with
member colleges in assisting them meeting requirements for
the benefit of the students. The commission needs to be open
to a rigorous and thorough review of the accrediting
process by the elected leaders and the government bodies
responsible for overseeing the decision. The decision to
terminate the accreditation is its most appalling decision but
the entire California Community College system has been
victimized by the high handed arbitrary approach that is
characterized the work of the commission for the last decade.
While we applaud to take steps for this unjust decision we have
questions about the actions being taken today. Most notably
in the disaccreditation of Compton College District it was
determined that the college was in violation of standard one
because it did not have a functioning board of its own.
In affirming its 2005 13 disaccreditation of Compton the
commission specifically relied on the continued appointment of
a Special Trustee to discredit writing -- the commission notes
to extend the authority of the Special Trustee in 2005 rather
than returning the operations of Compton to the Board of
Trustees. Ultimately we have a tremendous level of skepticism
that the accreditation climate for California Community
Colleges can normalize or the future of the Bay Area students
can be restored as long as we continue operating with the
current leadership and no effective oversight. We have
turned ourselves upside down to achieve the demands. Much has
been achieved but we're still facing risk of a unnecessarily
closure. More than 80,000 students would be denied to the
education that is provided. We are concerned that the actions
today by the Board of Governors will contribute to significant
down war pressure to this. And without public outreach and a
plan to bolster enrollment and something the administration
failed at and decline and loss of funding and shrinking the
number of course offerings and fewer students, et cetera could
ensue. We hope that we will witness a new commitment to
openness and transparency and accountability that lead to a
inclusive process and allow for the people at the college and in
the area to lend their support and in the opportunity for
renewal of this important process. We believe that a
robust and thorough accrediting process conducted by qualified
and legitimate educators and 14 engages the entire community is
good for workable strategies to strengthen academic achievement.
We want City College of San Francisco to be a better
stronger college and we want a commission that follows law, its
own policies and procedures and works in partnership with the
member institutions. Thank you. >> The next card is from Dean
Miracami. >> Thank you President Baca and
Chancellor Harris and the other board members. With the faculty
association with community colleges we have concerns about
the appointment of the Special Trustee. The other precedent is
with Compton community college and I want to give you a quote
from the letter that Compton college received from ACJC. "if
Compton had come to the commission and applied for
initial accreditation under the circumstances where the board
was not functioning and all authority was exercised by a
state appointed Trustee that application would not have been
considered" so this is extremely important in terms of
your decision about the Special Trustee. We have to be assured
that this is not used against City College of San Francisco
that a Special Trustee is there, and the second point is at the
very least that one of the major goals of the Special Trustee
will be to have a fully functioning independent Board of
Trustees at the City College of San Francisco, so we want to
make sure you have all the information, are cautious about
the decision that you will make because the future of City
College of San Francisco is at 15 stake here. Thank you very
much. >> All right. Any other
testimony, anyone wishing to reconsider the vote of adding
emergency regulations and adoption of a Special Trustee to
this meeting? Okay. There being done we will proceed. Do
we have any comments as well on the other two items?
>> We do. >> We do. Okay. I will explain
a motion to move on emergency adoption of California code of
Title V regulations. >> [INAUDIBLE]
>> We are going to do the comments first -- we will take
the action and then we will do the motion.
>> And if you're ready to make a motion I ask that you refer to
the recommended action there on the first page, and recite from
that. >> Okay. It is recommended that
the Board of Governors in order to preserve the public peace
health and safety or general welfare due to the serious
crisis facing City College of San Francisco adopt this
resolution amending this section as emergency regulation a
pointing a Special Trustee and the college subject to fiscal
collapse and closure". >> I so move using that
recommended language. >> Okay. Member Izumi motion.
Second? Member Reed. All right. Can we have the public
comment please? >> We will start -- the first
card I received is from Raphael Mandelman.
>> Trustee with the City of San Francisco board.
>> Good afternoon. 16 >> I'm sorry. One second before
you go. As it states on the comment card public testimony
will be offered after discussion. Speakers are
limited to three minutes each and please keep within this
timeframe. >> Good afternoon President
Baca, Vice President Baum, Chancellor Harris and members of
the Board of Governors. I I'm an elected member of the Board
of Trustees of the City College of San Francisco elected in
November. I am frankly outraged today. City College of San
Francisco is a great institution that reaches and improves the
lives of tens of thousands of San Franciscans every year in a
myriad of ways. We are different from other community
colleges and the taxpayers of San Francisco have demonstrated
time and time again they love their City College and willing
to pay more money to do more than other community colleges
do. We have had a fair share of challenges and that's why over
the last months when people have raised questions about the
process I maintained that the role for the Trustees was to fix
the problems in the college and that not group. When others
argued the actions were unjustified and unfair I
maintain that the level of sanction was besides the points
if we dealt with the points responsibly they would recognize
the massive efforts of the faculty and staff and board and
students and clearly I was wrong. Nearly one year ago
prior to me joining the board the Trustees requested that a
Special Trustee would be 17 appointed and have the power to
overrule the board. He's exercised that power precisely
zero times. The board has shown restraint doing everything asked
of the Chancellor's team even as hotter heads denounced us and we
were ignoring a secret a agenda to down size the college. Two
weeks ago the board unanimously approved a budget for 2013-14
that included a surplus and cut to salaries. There was at least
a path forward for City College at this time. After today after
the punitive announcement the future of City College is in
doubt and the hot heads look to be [INAUDIBLE]. I am grateful
to the Chancellor and the Board of Governors for the commitment
to City College and with your help I hope that it can survive.
Some troubling questions have been raised about the action
you're about to take today will avert the terrible outcome that
we fear. Additional questions is whether the college that
remains in a year will look like the City College of San
Francisco that San Francisco loves and invested so much.
Thank you for your consideration.
>> Next up is Jim mauler from the California Federation of
Teachers. Following is Richard Hansen.
>> Good afternoon board members and Chancellor. I am Jim,
president of the community college council of the
Federation of Teachers. I am succeeding Carl Freelander and I
am pleased my first meeting is when there are no controversial
topics on the agenda. I wanted to speak against both options
and I think they're sort 18 sighted. We just received the
accreditation report Wednesday avenue prior to a long weekend
and I think there needs to be more time to look at all of the
elements involved here and get all of the stakeholders involved
and really think of the proper way forward we should be moving
from this point. My colleagues read to you some statements
before from a accreditation letter with Compton and that
pretty much sealed their fate when they were Trusteed -- the
accreditation commission used that as a way to further
discredit them and revoke their accreditation and I sure would
hate to see that happen in this case so I don't see why there is
a urgency to take this action today. I would like the board
to delay this and table the actions before we can have a
meeting with all stakeholders involved and what are the
repercussions if any and come back at a future date when we
have the facts so we're making a sound decision and not one
leading us down the wrong path. The City College of San
Francisco -- they have been given the death sentence and our
fear this is the execution and there is no way out after this
and I recommend put this forward to a future date after which
time all stakeholders can deliberate it fully.
>> Thank you. Good afternoon members of the board. I am here
for the California Community College independents. We're the
faculty union covering 13 of the districts in the state, and we
would like to support what our other faculty colleagues have
said and pretty much every 19 speaker pointed out some of the
concerns that we V the thing that I can attest to over the
years leading up up to this day when we first entered the
economic crisis we meet for the Bay Area association meetings
once a month and negotiators from the Bay Area unions and we
witnessed through that whole period efforts by the local
union of City College to address the problems we're still facing
today so it's not like these have been ignored by the union.
They worked hard to address them and I follow that through those
years. For my group, the community college independents,
I would like to be on the record supporting the concerns that you
have heard here today. Thank you.
>> There are no further cards. >> Discussion?
>> Yeah, obviously this is a very unhappy and unfortunate
circumstance for all of us to find ourselves in. One of the
great frustrations I feel as a voting member of this board is
that with all due respect to the speakers who expressed views I
am sympathetic for, I don't know what the alternative would be
frankly in a meaningful context. I don't think doing anything --
or doing nothing to see what happens is a wise course under
the circumstances and while I have reservations at looking
back of the history of Compton and the concerns from that
experience raised this morning I understand that this is an
imperfect decision that this board is entertaining but
somehow I would really wish there is a way for us to have
alternatives presented that 20 have, you know, not been
presented. Short of that I feel it's our responsibility to act,
and guess I am expressing frustration I guess about our
process, not that I am pointing the finger at any particular
actor in the process. It's a frustrating circumstance that
leads us to make imperfect decisions but I think action is
required and that's the reason I am inclined to be begrudingly to
support the measures just on account of that rational.
>> Vice President Baum. >> I have a question related to
the specific motion before us. We were able to appoint a
Special Trustee almost a year ago I believe without having to
change the regulation. Why is it necessary to change the
regulation in this case? >> The reason why we are
bringing this change to you is to provide the board with as
much authority you can possibly have to appoint the Special
Trustee. The regulation as it was previously written was
really designed for a conflict situation and the regulation has
not been amended since then, and although there are criteria in
the existing regulations that align the situation at City
College of San Francisco regarding fiscal challenges and
such, the termination of accreditation is not
specifically spelled out in the regulations, and we wanted to
make it perfectly clear that term of accreditation in of
itself is the basis for the appointment of the Special
Trustee, so there's the -- there are the fiscal management issues
as well as the termination of 21 accreditation, and termination
of accreditation was not listed. I didn't want that in there
frankly to protect the board as much as possible against a
challenge. >> So what this is doing is
adding accreditation, loss of accreditation to the categories
by which would justify the appointment.
>> That's correct. >> And it hasn't been there
before? >> Exactly right.
>> Are there any other instances that we hadn't thought of that a
Special Trustee might be -- physical is one, loss of
accreditation. Is there any other situations that should be
considered? >> None come to mind right at
the moment. We have careful about the appointment of a
Special Trustee. It's not something the Chancellor's
Office takes lightly, so we don't want the options to be
excessively broad. We want them focused on the most critical
cases. >> Good. I don't want to think
that the Chancellor's Office any district that offers a new
academic program that doesn't like could declare that a crisis
that a Special Trustee should be brought in, so it's trying to be
as prescriptive and limited as possible.
>> Correct. >> Tell me again just so we know
what are the situations fiscally that would require -- like at
what state does a district cross the threshold according to this
regulation, from being independent to being consider
for a fiscal Trustee -- a 22 Special Trustee intervention?
>> Well, there's a certain level of subjectivity involved. The
issue is how severe are the fiscal circumstances at a
district? And in most cases, and in this case there was a
detailed study conducted and we retained a company to do a
detailed study indicated in the report and they indicated there
were a number of problems in the City College of San Francisco
and didn't exist elsewhere and with reserves, the level of
fiscal controls, the level of -- the percentage of the budget
that went to personnel related expenses, a number of those
issues were unique to City College of San Francisco, so
those were the sorts of things they noted and that the
Chancellor's Office has taken note of.
>> Any additional discussion? I just have one quick one. Just
for further clarification. The decision to have a Special
Trustee will be construed by the accreditation commission as
another item at issue? >> Yes. I think it certainly
will be in the short term. I think part of the rescue plan
has to involve addressing all of the standards and the
eligibility requirements and I will detail some of this in the
presentation I will make prior to you considering the action,
but part of that is ongoing work with the Mayor's Office on steps
necessary to restore that board to authority at the appropriate
time. >> Okay. We have one more
public comment. >> And I have one more question
too. 23 >> Go ahead with your question.
>> One last clarification on the regulation. I just want to make
sure I'm clear. It says where if a college operated by the
district is in jeopardy of losing its accreditation in
order to maintain accredited status, so I want to be clear in
your mind and our system's mind it's any college on show cause
is that across the threshold or a college on probation -- could
the Board of Governors say "well, you're on probation and
in jeopardy of losing accreditation. We will consider
appointing a Special Trustee". >> I think read most broadly an
argument could be made a college on probation could be reaching
that point is that is a decision made by the Board of Governors
on a case by case basis because the Special Trustee with the
full powers that we're talking about here would only be
appointed if approved by the Board of Governors, so it does
provide authority to do so, but it would be a case by case
determination, and I can say that this -- it's not the intent
of this regulation to open the door that widely, but it could
be read that way. >> Right. So my hope is that we
work closely with the league. I see Scott is here or others to
kind of determine that every college under sanction should
not have also looming over their head a chance that a Special
Trustee is in the offering. You know I like the idea that
they're very clear benchmarks to pass before you get to that
point, before a governing board loses its jurisdiction over its
own so to me a show cause within 24 a subsequent kind of letter
saying "okay you're accreditation is being
terminated as of X date." That's pretty clear, but if it's
kind of "you're on probation" I don't think that is clear enough
and that's my concern and I hope it can be developed over time.
>> And this is a adopted on an emergency basis. It will come
back to the board for subsequent reading and action so the board
will have opportunities to work with this regulation. If you
would like it to be phrased differently that option will be
available to the board in the very near future.
>> Okay. That's good. All right. We have two additional
comment cards. >> Rich Copenhagen from the
Student Senate of California Community Colleges. Speakers
are limited to three minutes. >> All right. I will keep it
short. Thank you and thank you board members. Mr. President,
Mr. Chancellor. So this is a very monumental issue that we're
facing, a very big challenge, and the students have been
fairly involved at their college at CCSF. I actually represent
them on our state board, and there have been a lot of --
sorry about that. I touched the mouse. There have been a lot of
challenges with that involvement and figuring out an equitable
way to actually represent 85,000 students in an accreditation
process especially when students aren't involved on the
accrediting commission, and I think that it would be remiss of
this board to make this basic a decision so rapidly without
students sitting on the Board of 25 Governors and I understand that
is not in your control and we are working with the Governor's
Office to get the appointments done as quickly as possible, but
there aren't students now, and appointing one person to oversee
resolving issues at a school that serves what is that? 4%,
85,000 students in our system, the biggest institution in the
nation. That's a really big deal, and I think that without a
very well represented board we may not have the best result
possible and waiting until the next board meeting to consider
this might be a better avenue, at least we would be more
comfortable with and we can talk to you about this and the
Chancellor's Office. I know this is an emergency thing that
came up but thank you very much for taking the time.
>> And the last card from Scott lay from the California league
of community lieges. >> Thank you President Baca and
board members. I don't speak on the propriety of appointing the
Special Trustee. I believe the board may have more information
than we have at this time. I only speak as to the changes of
the regulation. I believe with the existing MOU, and we should
share copies of, the California Community College Trustees and
Board of Governors adopted a MOU a couple of decades ago at this
point and you will always act in the amount feasible in the
interest of local control. I believe this regulation change
does meet that criteria. It allows an emergency power. The
fact is we -- when accreditation loss is imminent and this will
be one of the items if we have 26 to test again we may have to
define that word, but the fiduciary of the state and they
speak on this and I work for both the institution and the
Trustees. >> Okay. Further comments? We
have a call for the question. All in favor --
>> No. Call for the question. >> All in favor please indicate
by saying aye. >> Aye.
>> Unanimous. The amendment is approved. The changes are
approved. >> Thank you President Baca,
members of the board. I am going to address item B, the
appointment of a Special Trustee, and in anticipation of
your consideration of that it's my goal in the next few minutes
to provide you an update on of the status of the institution in
light of what happened in the last few days. I will remind
the board this isn't the only institution facing show cause.
You are aware that college of the Redwoods and Cuesta College
were put on show cause and removed and they made adequate
process and one was proved to probation and one to warning and
the college of sequoias are on show cause and they will be
considered again in January of 2014. I would also remind the
board there are extremely important reasons for
accreditation of our institutions. Obviously
students need accredited institutions in order to
transfer a credit to receive both federal and state financial
aid and in terms of the institution itself it must be
accredited in order to receive 27 state financial support. The
levels of sanction that are typically used by the commission
are three. The least serious being that of warning. The
middle level of that of probation and the most severe
being that of show cause, and as you read those descriptions you
will see in the case of warning the institution deviates from
the standards. Probation deviates significantly from the
standards and in show cause substantial noncompliance and
that is where in this case City College of San Francisco finds
itself. I will remind the board as well this is a process that
has been of concern for some time. These concerns were first
leveled by the commission against the college in their
regular review in 2006. They subsequently made a mid-term
report on those and then when the commission -- that satisfied
the commission and when the commission came back in 2012
they found those concerns not to have been addressed and
consequently put the institution on show cause. The college then
made a report to the commission in March and by that time by its
own volition acknowledged it didn't live up to the standards
and in July, just last week, that's when the commission ruled
to terminate the accreditation of the college in July of next
year. The reasons for this run the gambit. They have to do
with finances and I will talk about that in a moment.
Government certainly, planning, certain outcomes, program
evaluation, all of these issues. In fact when you look at the
report of the commission, and I 28 provided you a copy of the
action letter that took place -- that the college received
recently they are out of compliance with four of the 21
eligibility requirements and those are all 21 of those must
be met for a college to be eligible for accreditation in
the first place and they are out of compliance with all parts of
the board and in terms of eligibility. As was mentioned
there have been two reviews of the institution back last year.
They suggested the college had no plans for financial revenues
and due to good fortune and prop 30 and that passed. They are
balance with the rest of the state. No enrollment
management. In fact at one point they weren't collecting
student enrollment fees. Way too much interim management in
the institution and to quote fit map they were facing financial
insolvency and operational and they went in to get controls of
the institution and that will be released later this month and
the draft report was released to the board of the college citing
a lack of skilled staff at all levels. Unauthorized wage wage
changes. Staff payroll over payments and no way to collect
those. 125 people with complete and unfettered access to the
payroll system which is virtually a lack of control.
Although the fit map suggested that vacation and sick leave
were reported accurately there is no verification of that.
Nobody assigned to position control within the institution.
Employee benefits are not reconfirm the annually and in
other words if there are folks 29 on the health benefit there is
is no way to know whether they still deserve them annually when
it comes up. Their data systems -- they're on data-tel and it's
over customized and hard to update the system and they
talked about the challenges faced by the institution. The
commission had three alternatives last week. They
could have moved the institution if it made adequate process and
leave them on show cause and that is rare and only if the
commission doesn't have some information and the alternative
the commission selected was to terminate accreditation
effective the pending appeal or in 2014. Now what that would
mean to the college ultimately if accreditation is ultimately
terminated it could no longer accept new students. It would
have to teach out all of the students in existence and I
think it's important to note that accreditation as long as
this appeal process and review process runs the institution is
accredited and accreditation and termination of accreditation is
designed at all cost to protect the students so if accreditation
is ultimately terminated the commission works with the
Chancellor's Office office so students are not left holding
the bag. If that is the case the college would not receive
state funding and no longer able to meet obligations and at some
point no longer a concern. What happens before accreditation?
The commission can file's review and subsequent file an appeal of
the commission. During that time the college can admit new
students until that process is 30 exhausted and that process is
likely to take a minimum of a year and likely longer than
that. What impact does intervention have on the
institution? Well, certainly it means that if we intervene the
accreditation pending the outcome of the appeals
continues. The Chancellor's Office through its Special
Trustee and the college staff work to continue to address the
concerns of the commission. The intervention would begin to
address commission concern concerns about the college board
and in the short term the Trustee would take over the
powers and the commission is dealing with the Special Trustee
rather than the board. What it does not mean -- what
intervention doesn't mean? It doesn't grant the institution
additional time to address the concerns of the commission. It
doesn't lessen the accreditation requirements of the college. It
doesn't void the collective bargaining agreements with
several of the unions which the college has a relationship and
it does not ensure a successive exit from termination and the
board needs to know this process doesn't guarantee saving the
institution. There is a lot of hard work left ahead, so why
then should the state intervene? Well simply put there are 85,000
plus current students and more who need in that institution who
will be denied access to higher education if that institution
ceases to exist. Yes, some could go to Marin or the East
Bay or south area but there is a large percentage of the students
that City College of San 31 Francisco is the only
alternative. It's the largest work force trainer in the Bay
Area and certainly the Bay Area's employment and work force
needs would be stress the out the college. It is a critical
public institution for a prominent California city. This
would mean a financial default of this institution and
thousands of employees would lose their job if the college
closes. What is effective intervention? The commission
approves the rescue and the Special Trustee and set aside
the existing board. They're elected officials but in the
short run they have no authority to run the commission. File for
review and ultimately appeal. We work to meet the standards
while the appeal is under way and in that process we would
seek for the commission to reverse their decision to
terminate the college, and obviously the standards the
commission would need to be convinced that the college had
made significant progress in order to at a minimum move them
back to probation or warning, or if at all possible off of
sanction. Would there be a need for special legislation or a
financial bailout as was the case in Compton? That cost the
State of California $30 million in terms of a loan and for El
Camino to operate. At this point we don't believe that is
necessary. However, as you heard one of the previous
speakers say enrollment and the maintenance of enrollment is
extremely important. This shows you the combined credit and non
credit enrollment of the 32 institution, and the change you
see between eight and 11 is tip of the colleges across the state
and the drop off is when the show cause was put into place.
Here you see the head count only and slight up tick in the
enrollment and dramatic drop off, so no need for state
financial support would be with the assumption that the college
could stabilize at some point its enrollment. Now we have
stabilization so the college has a year to stabilize the
enrollment but this is something that is certainly of great
concern. What help from the state would be needed?
Obviously the support of the this rescue effort and the
support of the Chancellor's Office in that activity.
Hopefully a expression of confidence to rescue the college
and need for finance if that become necessary. I want to
under score the importance of the concerns of the accrediting
commission versus City College of San Francisco. As the board
knows I appointed a task force to look at accreditation and
they have been doing good work and coming up with
recommendations for the commission and the colleges and
for the colleges and commissions together, but it's extremely
important that we separate the concerns of the City College of
San Francisco and we don't have the luxury of time to debate out
the first issue while standing on the side lines waiting for it
to be solved while the college ends up being sacrifices with
the loss of accreditation. Frankly the leadership in San
Francisco is in support of this 33 effort. The Mayor and area
legislators have expressed their support, and you have in front
of you a copy of the letter sent to me by Mayor Lee and you are
aware he's supportive of our intervention and solution to
these challenges facing CCCSF. Now the college doesn't have the
luxury of time to delay this decision or to look for some
other kind of solution. We are at the end of the rope so to
speak and need to act and act quickly. This is an extremely
difficult decision, one that none of us wants to make. One
that I don't want to recommend. I as a new Chancellor and agenda
of improved Student Success and access don't look forward to the
challenge that lays ahead. However, we have to save the
education for the 85,000 students in that college and the
many thousands more that need an education and won't have one in
City College ceases to exist and therefore it is my
recommendation that the Board of Governors find there exists a
need to take immediate action on an amendment California code
regulation five and appoint a Special Trustee for San
Francisco City College, and that the need for action came to the
attention of the board subsequent to the agenda being
posted and it is further recommended that the amendment
to Title V section 58312 appointment of a Special Trustee
be added to the July 8-nine agenda. Steve, which one am I
supposed to be reading? >> The last one.
>> The last one. Item B. It is recommended that the Board of
Governors adopt resolution 34 authorizing the appointment of a
Special Trustee for San Francisco Community College
District with the authority to assume management and control of
the district of the I so recommend for your
consideration. >> Okay. Motion. Member Izumi.
>> I move based on the Chancellor's recommendation and
the specific wording. >> okay. We have a motion.
Second? Member Hawkins. Discussion? Before we get to
board discussion we've got some public comment.
>> Okay. We have a number of cards. Speakers are limited to
three minutes each. We have Kristina Waylon from the City
College of San Francisco. >> Please pick up the mic.
>> Following we have Karen Sagdon.
>> Good afternoon. I am Christina and a faculty member
at City College of San Francisco. I am Chair of the
speech communication department and Chair of the speech and
debate program and work with the steering committee and the
recently student out comes learning coordinator. It is in
my last title they sit before you today. Even if we believe
that the recommendations are legitimately it's still possible
they have reached illegitimate conclusions. The case study I
bring before you today is the accreditation team's finding
that we didn't reach recommendation and come into
compliance with recommendation four concerning student
outcomes. A couple of bullet points. Before when we were put
on show cause we did have 35 excellent assessment in many
departments but it was unshared. There was no requirement for
program mapping. There was no assessment plan. There was no
program review, SRO report or college dialogue. It was clear
we had problems. In nine months time we reversed direction on
nearly every one of those points. We have comprehensive,
transparent accessible reporting. We have 100%
compliance in student core out comes and learning outcomes.
Our administrative unit outcomes before zero. Now 42.
Counseling outcomes. Before unknown. Now 22. All of this
shows that we are providing excellent instruction to our
students and our state wide score card also triangulates
that shows that and we do that in almost every category. The
team member reports different significantly -- dare I say
largely, from the decision letter on July 3 and I believe
given that we have a very strong case for appeal or review. Our
work for whatever leadership structure is shown will be given
full cooperation and to the best of our ability to argue, but the
disconnect between the evidence that we presented and the
conclusions that we reached should it is also bring strong
scrutiny from the Board of Governors. Thank you.
>> Karen Sagagone from the City College of San Francisco.
>> I am the past president of the Academic Senate at City
College and a librarian. This is a terrible occasion for all
of us. I think you are well acquainted with how much the
faculty and really the employees 36 of City College care about
providing the best possible education opportunity to
students. The folks who have been most critical of us have
always acknowledged the real passion for service that they
find at City College. We have been doing everything that we
can to meet the standards. We have -- as you heard in this
case with student learning outcomes, we had every reason to
believe we were being successful. The team that came
and visited with us literally cheered our success in that
area. The draft visiting team report I believe showed we were
meeting that. One of the pieces of information you don't have in
front of you yet is the visiting team reports. I don't know why
it's not published yet but it's not yet available to see what
that says. We believe that we -- that the folks of San
Francisco deserve to get educational quality, and we
believe that the purpose of accreditation is to verify that
a quality education is being offered, and we have done what
we can, and we will continue to do absolutely everything we can
both to continue to offer that quality of education, and to
document, verify, whatever it is that is needed. We appreciate
your sharing our deep concern for making sure that City
College continues. We hope that what you're doing is the action
that will in fact we have these concerns about -- well, by
putting aside our board we disqualified ourselves for
accreditation then this isn't a hopeful action. We hope that
you take all of that into 37 consideration, and in appointing
a Special Trustee you appoint someone who will in fact make
sure that we do -- that the whole institution matches that
level of dedication and of service to the students of San
Francisco, and that we do continue to provide this kind of
level of service. As I said we have additional concerns about
what are the -- what will the extraordinary powers be that
this person will have? What is their executive authority? Will
it match what is needed? Will it match what they demand?
Thank you very much for hearing our concerns for taking action,
and please take for us the best possible actions.
>> Dr. Edward Hansen from CCCSF followed by Anita Greer from the
board of trustees. >> I am faculty at the City
College and Chair of the Biology department. I want to preface
my comments going back to educational theory which we
came. If you're going to teach someone something the first good
practice is access the existing knowledge. From that it follows
if you have clear objectives then you partner with your
students to meet the objectives. With City College we suffered
from a feeling of the people who literally moved mountains on the
ground with the faculty getting together SLO's and everything
that needs to be done from a feeling that the goal post is
moving; that we have moved mountains only to find out those
mountains didn't quite reach the point they were supposed to be
at. I speak now to the effector arm of the board and you are
considering appointing a Special 38 Trustee. Again we had a Special
Trustee appointed voluntarily a year ago and now looking at
another action to happen. I am worried that the Special Trustee
is stepping into a catch 22 situation that they are destined
to fail as well because of the issues raised today. One of the
issues is the bylaws that say that in an appeal situation we
had one year of being on show cause where we could show our
action in that year. We have now dealt a hand of termination.
The assessment of termination from my understanding of the
bylaws does not allow to you progress new information, but to
look back at the decision that was already made which means
whoever is going to step in at this point is going to have to
get involved in this issue of conflict between the ACCJC and
the board and the standards of the decision. I understand
clearly that we cannot wait for City College to have an action
be taken until a resolution is coming against complaints or
issues against them but I have seen in this past year people
come into City College and come up with plans and agendas that
we have been told don't meet the standards. If the board
appoints another Trustee with another agenda we will jump to
meet it and once again we will find ourselves short. For that
reason on the effector arm of your decision I employ that you
use new eyes to look at the existing plan that has come
together and whether we did really fall short in what areas.
The partnership needed now with City College is a clear
objective and you have a faculty 39 and a student population that
will literally move mountains to get behind it because no where
in this do they believe that the educational quality is any less
than anyplace else. That we take pride in that and it's an
insult to tell someone "we're going to shut you down but
you're doing a good job" And that's step one and I understand
as a board you want to do something today because we're at
the 11th hour but it's needs to be thought out and look at the
role of them and the City College and the evaluation and
thus a water loo. >> Your time is expired.
>> Good afternoon Chancellor Harris, President Baca, and
members of the Board of Governors. I really appreciate
the opportunity to express my opposition to Chancellor Harris'
intent to appoint a Special Trustee who would have more
power than the Democratically elected members of the Board of
Trustees. I question the authoritarian implications of
that plan and I believe our collective judgment is
invariably superior to individual judgment. The Board
of Trustees not only have a mandate from the people who
elected us but also a moral and fiduciary responsibility and all
of the people of our progressive diverse city. The City College
of San Francisco community has worked extremely hard and in my
view effectively to rectify the programs that were pointed out
in the respective reviews and reports. City College has
always been recognized as having high quality instruction,
enlighten practices and 40 personnel. In the past year the
accreditation process and the future general performance of a
great college that the people of San Francisco need and respect
some specific points they believe are relevant to this
meeting and to any discussion of City College's performance in
future. Great efforts went into improving the students learning
outcomes and there have been positive assessments of that
progress. In fact one knowledgeable educator observed
that City College has done the best job in the state in
improving SLO's. The department chairs have helped to prevail
during the crisis. Those groups also worked with other
constituencies. There were organized labor, various
communities and religious organizations and different
allies in terms of fiscal stability . In my view the
problems at CCSF didn't warrant the extreme sanctions imposed.
It is also troubling to hear that ACCC, the visiting team had
a very different assessment of CCSF's performance than the
accreditation commission composed in the final report.
I'm firmly convinced that City College is on a firm path of
stability . We need a respite now from the destabilizing
influence of the past 15 months. We must choose a permanent
Chancellor who has the vision, intelligence, education skills
and long-term commitment and humanity to ensure that we
continue to serve the human and education needs of the people of
San Francisco. I think the best way to accomplish this is to
honor the Democratic process 41 that elected us, and not replace
the Board of Trustees or determine our authority by
granting extraordinary powers to one individual. CCSF has the
collective intelligence, will, and resources to solve our
problems. I have been a public teacher and administrator for
more than 35 years and I have been on the CC Board of
Trustees, City College of San Francisco Board of Trustees for
almost two decades. CCSF needs policy makers like me and my
colleagues in order to make the decisions for us. Thank you.
>> Okay. Members discussion? Vice President Baum.
>> I just have a member of questions. First off I want to
understand also how it would work, but on the prescribed path
has there been a situation where the accreditation commission has
announced a decision to terminate accreditation ? and
then upon appeal or review has changed that decision?
>> Yeah, I don't know about the rest of the country. There has
not been that decision in the west in the 23, 24 years I have
been involved. >> Right. So this is
unchartered territory. >> Yes it is.
>> You're recommending to the board that we authorize you to
appoint a Special Trustee with extraordinary powers. How does
a Special Trustee work? Because it's still a public agency. How
are decisions made? How are they -- how is the public
informed? Because the board -- does the board continue to meet?
And does the Special Trustee convene meetings and some ways?
How does that work? 42 >> Well, it's difficult to say
exactly how it would play out in this instance. In the beginning
-- although the board may decide it wants to meet, the Special
Trustee is the sole decision maker working with the groups in
the institution. I think any pathway forward has to involve
participation by the college community as well as the Special
Trustee. At some point the board needs to reengage the
institution because as pointed out whether you get the
commission to reverse its decision, and that requires
complete compliance with all of them, and therefore off sanction
completely, or if the commission is willing to put the college
back on probation or warning to allow it to finish whatever work
is left to be done, but in the beginning the Special Trustee
will be elevated to serve as the board, and it will be in that
capacity that he /she will make those recommendations.
>> For instance the Trustee needs to hire a Chancellor for
the district. How would the Trustee do that and then report
that? >> That's a great example. The
need for a permanent Chancellor in that institution I think all
of us would agree is paramount so I expect the Special Trustee
to conduct a pretty rapid process within the law and
noticing and involve the college community and look auto at
finalists and look at that decision and that needs to be
done sooner or later. I hope than a Chancellor could be in by
October 1 and maybe by September 1.
>> I have two other questions. 43 There have been a Special
Trustee at that district for a year. What decisions can we
anticipate a new Special Trustee making when there was already a
Special Trustee that has the power to veto the board? What
would we get different? What wasn't the current board doing
that the new Trustee would do especially when we already had a
Special Trustee there for a year?
>> I don't want to spend a lot of time beating up the existing
board. That's not a lot to be gained there. What is better is
how I envision the Special Trustee taking action and that
is in a much more rapid manner. The decisions have been slow in
coming. I think the accrediting commission did commend the
college on hitting some of the standards and I think all of us
interacting with the college can acknowledge a great deal of work
has been done. However, if you look at the reports there are
basically broken systems in the institution that need to be
corrected and corrected quickly and that probably means bringing
different people into different positions. It means permanent
employees in some of the position and that needs to
happen quickly. What we have seen over the past year
unfortunately many of the decisions take far longer than
we have the luxury for in this case.
>> Then my last two questions. What is your -- if we give you
the authority to recruit a Special Trustee what is your
process for appointing that person? And how will the public
and the board be kept informed? 44 What are you looking for in that
person and how do you install that person?
>> I think the challenge is now a permanent Chancellor and
moving Bob Agrella do this role and working with him on a week
to week, sometimes day-to-day basis, to get a path way to get
a new Chancellor hired, to get some of the key personnel
decisions made, to establish a really clear game plan how we're
going to meet every one of the standards and sub-standards.
Whether Robert Agrella is willing to did that over the
long haul I don't know but there is good work to be done and to
completely change the team at one time doesn't make sense so
Robert will be in that post in the beginning and time will tell
for how long and exactly how that transition gets made, but
the top priority is finding a committed permanent Chancellor
for that institution as soon as possible.
>> And I am assuming going from a Trustee with veto capabilities
to having full capacities of the board is a much more time
intensive position and you believe at least in the short
term he can continue in that role?
>> I do. >> My last question and part of
the process the district supposed to come up with a
closed down plan. >> Closure plan.
>> And what is the status of that? Theoretically should they
be implementing that closure plan?
>> They submitted a plan to the commission which was found to be
unacceptable so it has to be 45 revised and yes, there will
probably be preliminary activities on the plan once it's
approved has to run parallel to the attempt to appeal and retain
the accreditation of the college. This is a very steep
hill to climb in a very short period of time and you have
these almost conflicting activities going on side by
side. >> Member Ramos.
So I want to follow up on the excellent line of questioning
from member Baum. What is the relationship Chancellor between
the Special Trustee and yourself and this board respectively?
>>I envision myself and my senior team having as I said
probably daily interaction with that Special Trustee especially
in the first few weeks there is going to be a real need to put a
plan of action in place. Certainly I will keep this board
up-to-date formally at every one of your board meetings and
informally through written reports. We're going to need to
provide a rear clear audit trail of what we're doing so hopefully
at the end when we are successful all of the people who
get the considered for that. If we are unsuccessful we need to
be willing to shoulder that lack of success, and inform anything
that would happen in the future, but believe me we wouldn't take
this on if we didn't think there was a chance that we could save
this institution. I am fully committed to doing that as are
the members of the executive team and we think that we have
the horse power necessary working with the special trustee
and the great people at the 46 college to accomplish that.
>> And so just want to follow up is hoping for the best but
assuming the worse. I can imagine this is a tough
opportunity, if you want to call it that, to get a very talented
individual to want to take on -- >> Yeah --
>> Perhaps I am wrong and perhaps you have statements of
expression but in the worse case in the short term talking about
bringing the Chancellor on there we can't identify someone and
confidence in an individual to do that what are the
implications of that? >> That isn't an acceptable
outcome. Frankly we have to attract and employ a committed
leader for that institution and to your first point we've had a
number of people express -- really I think outstanding
leaders express an interest in taking this opportunity on.
There are a lot of people in our line of work who see this as a
tremendous challenge, as an opportunity to really help a
community, and students and faculty and staff get through
what are some very rough waters, and I am optimistic we will have
more than one good leader for the liege to consider.
>> I'm sorry to extend the question but your comment
triggers this. What is the role in the employment process for
this new permanent Chancellor of the surrounding stakeholders in
that community? What kind of role would the faculty have?
The students? Staff? Other important stakeholders in that
district? >> I think this is such a
critical hire there has to be an 47 opportunity for the college
community to meet and question the finalists. Certainly the
civic and government leaders of the community want to be
involved. Mayor Lee plays a huge role in the success of this
endeavor so it's critical he have a chance to communicate
with the finalist s. the decision will ultimately be made
by the Special Trustee, but no new leader coming into a
community and an environment and a situation like this will be
successful unless there is a reasonable level of support from
the stakeholders in the community for the new leader.
>>I agree wholeheartedly with that last point. Thank you for
your response. >> Any other discussion? Vice
President Baca. >> There is no other. I just
want to make a statement. >> This is a really tough call
to make because a couple of us serve as local Trustees. In
essence of this vote we're taking Anita's voice away.
We're taking Natalie's voice away and others and that is
something that the people of that community asked -- elected
these individuals to serve in that role, and I understand the
issues with the accreditation process, but I also understand
the clock that is ticking and every time a tough decision
comes up somebody says "can't we wait and gauge the impacts? "
And I am sympathetic to that and there are cases in my district
better to wait opposed to acting, but at the same time I
don't -- and I have said this before we can't stand by in the
hopes that things will change 48 without doing everything we can
within our power to implement the change and for the faculty
here and the students that have spoken at least me on the Board
of Governors are on the side of the faculty the and students of
that institution because it doesn't serve anybody's interest
to see the institution not continue, and that would be a
disaster for the entire Bay Area and the entire State of
California, so it's a tough, tough decision, and I think it's
-- I wish -- one of the things I don't know is how long the
decision would continue and is there a plan to reinstate a
local control over the district after at some point? We have
seen with Compton this went on much longer than we ever
anticipated and there is no sign in the near future that Compton
is going to regain its independence in its
jurisdiction, and that would be a situation with San Francisco I
really would not want to see happen that we're in the
long-term kind of oversight and have the jurisdictional control.
I don't know if there is anything -- I can see if anybody
wants to respond to that as well, but in essence we're going
to -- I think we all then assume the roles that we think that
Anita and Natalie and others should play, but this will also
send a message to Trustees up and down the state what is your
primary responsibility as a Trustee, and as an elected
official it's the management and oversight of the CEO of the
district, maintaining the fiscal integrity of the district and
maintaining the institutional 49 accreditation. If I maintained
at least those three things I think we have done the primary
mission for the district and that's where I would like to
keep us focused and I will say this even on my local board we
tend to get pulled in so many directions we lose track of the
core governing responsibility of the board and I hope other
institutions up and down the state are refocusing on what
their role is in the governance process of a Community College
District, and I was troubled a year ago when John Rizzo came to
the board and yes we had issues and didn't address them. Yes,
we had accreditation issues and we didn't address them, and I
was concerned by that. That this wasn't something that
happened in a year or two. This is something that the governing
board has known for many years and had not made the tough
decision to act, and I know how hard it can be when the members
of the public and the students and get up there and they elect
representatives, and then they demand all kinds of things and
as a Trustee you sometimes have to make that decision may may
not seem popular at the time but maintains the fiscal integrity
and accreditation of the district and ensures strong
leadership for a district, so it's a very difficult decision
to make and a severe one to make but those are the issues I am
weighing as a Trustee as a member of the governing board.
>> Thank you for the comments. Any additional comments anyone
would like to make? If there are none all in favor of the
motion -- 50 >> Roll call.
>> Would you like to do a roll call vote?
>> Yes. >> Fine. It's do a roll call
vote. Please call the roll call and support of the
recommendation. Please say aye. >> Manuel Baca.
>> Aye. >> Geoffrey Baum.
>> Aye. >> Danny Hawkins.
>> Aye. >> Lance Izumi.
>> Aye. >> Henry Ramos.
>> Aye. >> Gary Reed.
>> Aye. >> Okay. The decision is
unanimous and the recommendation is approved. Before we take a
break I would just like to make just a very brief additional
comment, and I think I speak on behalf of all the members of
this board. We have tremendous confidence in our Chancellor and
his team to be able to work with the constituent groups at the
City College of San Francisco and the Special Trustee to
resolve this. Last week was a very sad day for me as was for
all of us that have the interest of City College of San Francisco
and the students and faculty and staff there. Today hopefully by
doing this we have begun a partnership between the
Chancellor's Office and the City College of San Francisco that
will bring some changes, resolution, to what otherwise
right now is a grim picture in terms of the accreditation
report. I think that some voices have expressed some
concerns over the process and 51 the accreditation itself. I
think that will work through itself in the appeal process,
but also addressing those things that can be addressed, so
hopefully our decision today, and I feel very confident in the
leadership of Chancellor Harris that we will be able to work
with the City College of San Francisco and work towards a
more positive and in the near future and with that if we could
take about a 10 minute break.