Board of Trustees Report
Valley College
October 5, 2011
Finance and Audit Committee
The committee resumed its discussion of a bond purchase policy. As mentioned earlier, the district has never had a written one, just a set of protocols. Nancy Pearlman was concerned that the firms the Board chooses for bond purchases not necessarily be locally based. She does want them to show local involvement, however. That was agreeable to the other trustees, though it seemed that they would like something somewhat stronger. Steve Veres called for them to be “principally based” in the area, for example. There was further discussion about the length of term for any contract (three years was chosen), the vetting process, and the need for the district financial advisor to have no conflict of interest with any applying firms. The new policy will be voted on by the full Board at its next meeting.
The second item concerned procurement. Scott Svonkin and Veres were both very interested in ways in which the district might use economies of scale to obtain a better price for various contracts (antennas were under consideration today). Veres spoke also about the policy implications of coordinating procurement, however, suggesting that coordination could improve policy in some ways. Svonkin said the goal was to be sure that there was a thoughtful discussion about procurement decisions. That is, for centralizing or decentralizing to be both considered options for any large purchases. Veres talked about the search for the best value, even in a low-bid award structure. One way to do this is to create minimum specifications that preclude poor products.
Jeanette Gordon presented a budget update, reviewing the two main scenarios for mid-year cuts. The need for a 10% balance was stressed by the trustees, especially given that the Board will be going out to sell bonds within the next year. The balance for 2011-12 is projected at just under 14%, even with the maximum mid-year cuts.
Gordon presented the recommendations from the DBC to the chancellor (which he has accepted). They call for no further cuts to classes or student services at the colleges this year. Svonkin was concerned, however, at the lack of trustee input, and suggested that the committee should meet with the DBC Executive Committee. He said the role of the trustees in budget deliberations needed to be identified further. The chancellor said he had some questions about joint meetings that he would discuss with Svonkin. In response to Pearlman’s question as to where to cut for 2012-13 and beyond, if it becomes necessary, he said that options had been identified in the DBC recommendations, which talk about developing “other districtwide solutions, which may include actions requiring negotiation if necessary.” He said this referred to possible furloughs and pay reductions.
Svonkin spoke further of his intention to increase district revenue generation. One way is to look for partnerships with companies. He said this revenue could then be used to protect classes and staffing.
Finally, there was a brief discussion about the budget calendar. Svonkin said he wanted to be sure it was in sync with other Board committees.
Open Session
There were welcoming remarks from Sue Carleo, and several others, including ASO President Norvan Berkezyan, Senate President Josh Miller, and Guild President Larry Nakamura. Student Trustee Amber Barrero asked for support for “Occupy LA.”
Public speakers included Endora Jones, a Southwest student with a grade complaint, Carrie Tumbler, a regular speaker at BOT meetings, who read a letter from another student complaining of poor counseling at Pierce, and Laura Gutierrez and Miki Jackson from the Van de Kamp Coalition. Gutierrez claimed the district was not complying with a recent judicial ruling regarding an environmental quality issue and also insisted that the district has the money to run classes at Van de Kamp, given the rental income there. Jackson mentioned the just announced district attorney investigation, which the VDK Coalition had requested. She also claimed the district was inappropriately using the rental income for general funds expenditures. Finally, she said the Coalition repeatedly addresses the Board so that the trustees will have no plausible deniability about knowing of the improprieties the Coalition alleges.
Miguel Santiago announced out of Closed Session that an action has been started against an architect. No name was give, but he said more information will follow.
Svonkin gave a summary of the Finance and Audit Committee meeting (see above).
Several resolutions followed, all of which passed unanimously. The first was in support of a proposed state initiative for an oil extraction fee. Money raised would be appropriated to higher education.
The second detailed a process whereby the chancellor can support legislative positions without explicit Board authorization. This was discussed in detail at the last Legislative Affairs Committee. It is meant to be used only in special circumstances where time doesn’t allow for normal Board review and approval.
The next four dealt with bond issues. First was an authorization for an independent review of the selection process and qualifications of the Inspector General by City Controller Wendy Greuel. This was in response to the audit by the State Controller’s Office. There was no discussion other than my question as to why such a review was still necessary, given the district attorney’s investigation. The chancellor replied that he saw the two performing different functions, with Greuel’s looking at the process and the DA’s looking for indications of criminal intent.
The next three resolutions were also in response to the audit from the State Controller’s Office. One calls for the Attorney General to issue an opinion “regarding the SCO’s concerns about the district’s Proposition 39 compliance and voter-approved bond ballot language.” There is clearly a sharp dispute as to whether the language is legal or not, and the Attorney General is thought to be the one to resolve this.
Another calls for a master budget plan “that assigns budgets at the individual project level” and maps them to an appropriate funding source. It also directs the chancellor to review and strengthen internal control procedures for procurement processes and for him to address the costs of maintaining the new facilities. He is finally asked to report back to the Board in 90 days.
The final one dealt with various steps to strengthen the District Citizen’s Oversight Committee’s authority and responsibility. The Controller’s audit had described the DCOC as “passive, perfunctory, and ineffective.” The steps focused on communication between the committee and the Board and recruitment of members. The DCOC will be meeting more frequently. In the discussion, it was clarified that it currently has access to legal counsel, if it chooses to use it. There had been some question about this in the past.
I did ask why some of these steps weren’t discussed first in Bond Steering, which had met just the day before. Veres replied that the resolutions were based on an extensive review of Bond Steering and other committees’ work, and Mona Field cited the need to move quickly and not follow the usual shared governance process.
The Chancellor’s Report followed. LaVista talked about the excitement of the opening of the semester for both students and faculty and then reviewed district enrollment data in some detail. Looking ahead, he cited the likelihood of mid-year cuts, said that colleges were reporting there was nothing left to cut other than more classes, and said fees haven’t yet hurt enrollment, though the next increase remains to be felt. He also talked about the state Student Success Task Force recommendations, and said he found some of them especially interesting, such as the proposed limit on units for those with BOG fee waivers.
In a second report, he reviewed the State Controller’s Office audit recommendations and detailed how the district is responding to them. You may recall that the district rejected the findings of the SCO, but accepted most of its recommendations.
Field asked what plans colleges were making regarding Winter Intersession. The chancellor wasn’t sure at this point.
Sue Carleo then followed with two reports of her own. The first and shorter of the two was on Valley’s Urban Forest Master Plan, an ambitious effort to study the 1,600 plus trees on campus and to plan for future planting. Extensive expertise is being used in this endeavor. The goal is to have over 2,000 trees by 2014.
The second was on LA Fellows, an ambitious program to help unemployed individuals get back into the work force through short term professional training and volunteer opportunities at local non-profit organizations. There have been 126 graduates to date (100% of participants) and 70% have been employed. We heard from Christine Stenberg, who was in the first cohort. She was deeply appreciative of the opportunity. Michael Graff-Weisner from Chrysalis, an organization that works with the homeless, also spoke.
The Consent Calendar drew questions about a number of items. Svonkin was interested in two food services contracts, with an eye to how the district might coordinate between colleges (see committee report above). There was also a discussion about vending machines at Mission. Veres suggested that the district consider ordering all of its machines at the same time from one vendor, thereby reducing costs. Lockers and parking lot repainting were also discussed, as was the contract being given to a consulting firm who will be assessing the Project Managers at the colleges.
The meeting concluded with a few announcements from the colleges. Harbor will be sponsoring two debates for the City Council seat vacated by Janice Hahn.
Comments
I must say I’m impressed with the work of the new trustees. They’ve shown a real diligence and determination to create some useful new policies, and their aggressive pursuit of new revenue is certainly welcome. They’re also asking lots of tough, but reasonable questions.
I was surprised that neither the chancellor nor Tom Hall shared with us the information about the bond resolutions in Bond Steering, but the resolutions themselves seem solid, if a bit unclear.
On a very rainy day, the trees at Valley were more beautiful than ever.
David
David Beaulieu
District Academic Senate President
Los Angeles Community College District
(213) 891-2294
