Board of Trustees Meeting Notes — 6/25/09

• The Board put out a proposed timeline for the Chancellor’s evaluation that has the members of the college community being surveyed during March 2010. We look forward to working with the Board to create a survey instrument that is meaningful for faculty evaluating the Chancellor.
• The Board had an extended discussion of the idea to solicit private contributions to sponsor classes and to extend naming rights to those classes. The general tenor of the discussion was that they commended the Chancellor for his creativity and passion and that there were reservations about its implementation. If the idea is to be implemented, it would need a careful process that protected the mission and ideals of the college, its students, faculty, classified staff, and administrators.
  The bigger issue is that we as a society need to fund education more and better than we are. We would not need to ask for private funding if the state was funding the college as it should.
  Faculty members, students, and members of the CCSF Foundation spoke mostly in favor of the idea.
  The Board voted to have the Chancellor develop a concrete fund-raising plan that they could endorse by July 23.
• Trustee Ngo moved an amendment to the proposed preliminary budget that would: 1) reduce the salary of administrators who make $150,000 per year or more by 6% and to use the funds to restore heavily impacted courses and “disproportionately basic skills courses”; and, 2) suggest a voluntary 6% reduction in the Trustee’s salaries and use the savings to restore some EOPS food and transportation vouchers for students that would not have received them because of the budget cuts. The Chancellor supported the amendment and spoke strongly to the need for the administrators to share the burden of the financial crisis. Trustee Wong and members of the faculty suggested that the process should be more respectful of the administrators. The amendment passed.
• Trustee Ngo also aired, but did not move at this time, a proposal to create a Vice Chancellor of Legal and Legislative Affairs. His idea is to combine the office of the Associate VC of Governmental Relations with the office of the General Counsel in one new office. In a discussion with him after meeting in which I suggested that the idea should have wider college discussion, Trustee Ngo said he was happy to be patient and to work with the constituencies on the proposed administrative change.
• Trustee Jackson moved an amendment to eliminate the proposed cuts to our childcare program. The amendment passed.
• Trustee Marks spoke to the process of change in the Board culture that we are clearly undergoing and that, I believe, Trustee Marks is fostering.
• All the Board members, and especially the Chancellor, acknowledged the hard work that all the members of the college community have done on the budget in this difficult financial environment.
• In my opinion, despite at times serious disagreement, the meeting was characterized by a high level of discourse and collegiality.

Board of Trustees Facilities, Infrastructure, and Technology Committee Meeting — 6/11/09

The Board committee (Trustees Jackson, Rizzo, and Wong—Wong was absent) met to discuss the Chinatown/North Beach project, a proposed resolution on local hiring for construction projects, and an update on the new CCSF website. The committee also heard a presentation on small business enterprise (SBE) participation in CCSF construction projects.

According to Doug Re and Beth Cataldo, the new website will be “live” this September. Not all the current website content will be transferred to the new site by then, but all the student services information should be. Other information will be available through links to the “old” site.

Excavation for the new Chinatown/North Beach campus has begun. The state review of the plans for the campus is almost complete. Excavation work should be completed by August. Everything is going according to schedule so far.

The report on local hiring on CCSF projects revealed a pretty bad record with regard to gender and ethnic diversity on projects. The Trustees, along with members of the public, had several questions about local hiring practices and how we can promote more of it.

During the discussion of the proposed resolution, Trustee Jackson stressed the need for more concrete strategies to increase the amount of local hires on CCSF projects. Members of the community spoke to the importance of the resolution as a first step toward improving local hiring.

A few words about the budget

Various faculty have contacted me about the financial challenges the college is currently facing, which may well be the most serious the college as ever experienced. People want to know what is happening. Unfortunately, because the college is in the process of identifying its response to the crisis, the exact impacts are still uncertain. It does seem clear that every part of the college will see fewer resources in both the Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 semesters. Indeed, the Chancellor and the rest of the college are trying as much as possible to balance the impacts so that no one constituency suffers disproportionately. The highest priority has been place on preserving jobs for both full-time and part-time faculty, classified staff, and administrators, while still serving our students under the constraints that that state is placing on the District.

*Proposed* institutional responses to the crisis include (please note that many of these are subject to Union negotiations):
1. Transfer from Board Designated Reserve
2. Transfers from other sources, including Contract Education and State Mandated Cost Reimbursement
3. Other administrative transfers
4. Long-term lease of District-owned sites
5. Substitute District employees for outside consultants in grant funded work
6. Reduce Police Academy payments due to decreased demand from SFPD
7. Reduce hours of operation (weekends and Fridays afternoons)
8. Postpone production and mailing of class schedules (possible postcard instead)
9. Postpone full-time faculty hires (to be decided on a case-by-case basis)
10. Keep vacant administrative positions vacant (additional savings will occur from reorganization of administrators with reduction in ranks to occur in 2009-10)
11. Eliminate most travel, including backfill for the employee who is out
12. Eliminate consultant contracts with a switch to zero-based budget
13. Freeze salaries for all District employees for 2009-10
14. Continue hiring freeze for Classified employees
15. Eliminate Classified overtime
16. Eliminate most faculty long term substitute (LTS) positions
17. Reduce overload/reassigned time for faculty (in instruction)
18. Reduce subsidy to Ocean cafeteria and childcare centers
19. Reduce as-needed Classified positions
20. Reduce student Lab Aide positions
21. Reduce Summer 2009 and Summer 2010 support services
22. Postpone Summer 2009 and Summer 2010 classes
23. Reduce student support services in Fall 2009 and Spring 2010
24. Postpone Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 classes (from 9800 sections to 9000 sections), with some possible switchover to fee-based Continuing Education

The District is also trying to mitigate some of these cuts by increasing revenue from grants, donors, and possible participation in a November 2009 local ballot measure.

If you would like specific information about how your department or program will be affected, the best source of information is your department chair or program manager.

As bad as this all is, it is the students who will suffer most. Everything you can do to reduce costs for the college—even as simple as using less paper or other resources—can help save sections for students in the spring and beyond. As a community, we must stick together, share the pain of this time, and rise to the challenge of serving our students.

Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have questions, comments, or suggestions.

Board of Trustees Planning and Budgeting Committee Meeting — 6/4/09

The Board committee (Trustees Berg, Marks, and Rizzo) met to discuss the impact on the college of the proposed budgetary cuts coming from the state. A crowd of over 30 people, including faculty, classified staff, administrators, and Trustees Grier and Ngo attended the meeting.

The administration presented the plan that the college has worked out so far for dealing with the financial crisis that we face. The Trustees asked several questions about the plan and the various places that the college is looking to save money. The questions were especially directed at issues of potential job loss for current employees.

(For more detailed information on the proposed cuts to the college overall, contact me at shuntsma@ccsf.edu. For information about how the cuts will impact your department, contact your chair.)

There was also a discussion of the role of the Board of the Board’s Planning and Budgeting Committee, with faculty and other District employees speaking to the need for the Board to set policy and priorities but not to mess with the details of the budget.

Board of Trustees Meeting Notes — 5/28/09

The open session portion of the meeting didn’t begin till almost 7 pm and ended about 10:30 pm.

The Board self-evaluation was scheduled for discussion but that conversation was postpone till June’s meeting to allow for people to read the evaluation more completely.

Vice Chancellor Goldstein’s financial report was in his word “grim.” The proposed cuts from Sacramento, some of which are draconian and while we will certainly be advocating to reduce these hits, we expect to still see most of them. The Chancellor said he is preparing a report detailing the impact of the college’s proposed response to the cuts. That report should be released to the college community by the end of next week.

Several members of the community spoke to the Board both for and against the resolution establishing a District local hiring mandate of a goal 50% of the workforce on projects and a minimum of 35%. Representatives of the union asked the Board to table. Members of the community spoke strongly in favor of the resolution. The conversation went on for over an hour. The Board voted to refer the resolution to the Board’s facilities committee with the understanding that it will be back for the June Board meeting.

Congratulations to 16 faculty members who were granted early tenure.

Grim Words from Chancellor Scott

This is easily the grimmest message I’ve seen from state Chancellor Jack Scott:

The past week has clearly been devastating to all of us.   On Thursday, May 14 we were shocked by the Governor’s harsh budget proposals and then yesterday’s defeat of the ballot initiatives further complicated the disaster.  This means that $5.8 billion is added to the $8 billion short fall in the 2009-10 budget, making a total of $13.98 billion deficit in the 2009-10 budget.

The Governor has proposed the following cuts to the community colleges.

Current year (2008-09):

• Defer an additional $115 million in apportionments from 2008-09 to 2009-10.
• $85 million in across-the-board cuts to categorical programs.
• It is estimated that these will be a $42.1 million property tax short fall and no backfill is proposed.

Budget year (2009-10):

• $343 million in across-the-board cuts categorical programs.
• $120 million cut to implement lowering the funding rate for credit P.E. and recreational courses to non-credit rate.
• Eliminate 2% enrollment growth, a cut of $116 million (leaving 1% enrollment growth).
• It is estimated that there will be a $116.7 million in property tax shortfall with no backfill proposed.

So the news is bleak.  However, these are several things to emphasize.

First, realize that this is the budget proposed by the Governor, not the final budget. The Legislature must be involved.  In fact, they will fashion the budget that the Governor eventually signs.  For that reason I have redirected my efforts to talk to legislative leaders. During the past week, I have talked to two of four legislative leaders; the two chairs of the Assembly and Senate budget committees, and several other key legislators. I emphasized in these conversations that this proposed budget has disproportionately cut community colleges.

Second, there is no promise but there is the possibility of some relief from the federal stimulus package.  These remains some of that federal money that has not yet been allocated. I have received some glimmer of hope from Administration officials about that possibility.

But make no mistake about it: tough times are ahead.  I would advise all of you to take steps such as the following: 1) Reduce course sections for the next year. We can longer to educate above the cap.  2) In most cases, don’t replace resignations and retirements.  3) Reduce administrative costs by having fewer administrators oversee larger areas.

Of course, some savings cannot be effected because of collective bargaining agreements.  However you might be able to negotiate savings when your faculty and staff realize that layoffs can only be prevented by such concessions. I am sure that these are other savings that you can design, so use all your inventions.  And communicate to your staff just how difficult the situation is.

We will do what we can in the Chancellor’s Office to support you. We will advocate for the colleges as strongly as possible, but there is no way the colleges can escape.  Perhaps by sharing ideas we can come through this crisis.  But, make no mistake about it, community
colleges have suffered a real setback in terms of offering service to the thousands of students who desperately need us.  It is a shame, but the reality must be faced.

The main thing is to pull together, continue to do the important work that we do, and serve the students. We can do this even with the limited resources that the state has given us.

Board of Trustees Policy Implementation Committee Meeting – 5/14/09

Agenda:
• Roll of the committee
• Process of Creating and Reviewing Board Policies that Relate Only to Board Operations
• Proposed Amending of SFCCD Policy Manual Sections
1.04 — Committees (Board)
1.05 — Mettings (of Board)
• Role of Shared Governance in Creating and Reviewing Board Policies

Ginny Riegel addressed the committee about the role of the committee as spelled out in the document distributed by the Board President in January:

• Establishing and implementing framework for ongoing review, updating, and creation of new Board Policies
• Setting yearly calendar for selective review of Board Policies to ensure that they are being followed by the District

Members of the College Advisory Council spoke advocating for the chance to look at potential Board policy changes to make sure they do not affect any of the college constituencies. The Committee decided that the Board has the right to change policies that only affect internal Board operations without consulting the College Advisory Council. Rationale includes the idea that these policies do not affect the college constituencies and that the college constituencies do have at least two public opportunities (at the two readings necessary for any policy change) to give input on the policies.

The committee asked Riegel for her recommended policy changes, which will be distributed to us and discussed at a committee meeting in September.

Another Community College Leader in Washington

President Obama has nominated a second community college leader for a post at the Education Department. Glenn Cummings, dean of institutional advancement at Southern Maine Community College and a former speaker of the Maine House of Representatives, has been chosen to serve as the assistant secretary of education for vocational and adult education.

Board of Trustees Audit Committee Meeting Notes — 5/7/09

The Board committee discussed the findings of an audit report on the 2001 and 2005 bond funds. Five areas are identified in the report as needing attention: accrual accounts, competitive bidding process, bid splitting, unallowable costs, and approval of expenditures. Because the report does not give specific information, the Board committee asked for more detailed about exactly what the issues are before acting to address them.

The Board committee also discussed the role and responsibilities of the internal auditor, including the best use of the internal auditor’s time.

Several documents were distributed at the meeting relating to auditing (which I have available in the Seante office):

• A list of internal control weaknesses and corrective actions follow-up
• An audit find status report form
• A proposed annual audit work plan
• A list of discussion points from the internal auditor
• A list of the types of audits to which the District can be subject
• “General Guidance of Internal Control” from the state Department of Finance’s Office of State Audits and Evaluations

The Board then went into closed session to discuss “anticipated litigation.”

Board of Trustees Meeting Notes — 4/30/09

The meeting began with a fairly large number of faculty, students, and staff from the John Adams campus speaking strongly about the need to upgrade and improve the John Adams campus.

Later, the resolution on student equity and achievement gaps was taken out of order, first on the agenda. Many students, faculty, and community members spoke strongly in favor of the resolution. The Chancellor joined the parade, supporting it “100%,” including full implementation. The Board passed the resolution unanimously. Trustee Jackson’s leadership on the Board concerning this resolution should be especially acknowledged.

Steve Spurling reported to the Board on the annual ARCC report (Accountability Report for Community Colleges), on which City College improved or was flat on all but one of the seven measures.

Steven Glick and a student (unfortunately, I didn’t get her name) presented to the Board concerning the upcoming President Obama Celebration and Teaching and Learning Event. This included a draft of a letter to President Obama, inviting him to speak at the event. The event will take place on November 5, 2009, (one year after he was elected) from 9:30 AM to 2 PM in the Wellness Center. Stay tuned for more information as the date approaches.

Peter Goldstein reported that this fiscal year’s budget is looking decent because we have controlled spending, because we have had an increase in non-resident enrollment, and because we expect to earn growth monies from the state. Next year’s picture is not so rosy, especially if the propositions on the May 19 ballot do not pass. Estimates about how much we will lose in that scenario vary widely; suffice it to say it would be “difficult to protect” all District employees.

The District apparently owes almost $870,000 to the San Francisco Board of Elections for our Trustee elections. We paid $247,000 for the most recent Board election. Goldstein reported that in total the District pays the City and County of San Francisco about $1.5 million per year.

Goldstein reported on a conversation with the state regarding the money we are saving on the Joint Use Facility—basically, there’s a disagreement about how much of that money the District can keep and how much we might have to return to the state. Goldstein said that we will keep at least $1.2 million of the $2.9 million we are saving, but probably not all of it. He is hopeful that interest earned from the 2005 bond measure can be used to make up for the money we have to give back to the state and that we would like to use for improvements at John Adams campus (see the B5 resolution to newly appropriate $2.9 million to the John Adams project). Trustee Marks asked for—and received—a commitment from Jim Blomquist that there would not be a request to add funds to the Joint Use Facility at a future time.  Further, Trustee Marks criticized the Facilities office and asserted that all the truth was not coming to light.

Trustee Marks consistently spoke about wanting a different and better process for bringing items to the Board.

The Board passed a resolution opposing Proposition 1A and in support of the removal of the two-thirds requirement to pass a state budget.

Finally, the Board approved a new master agreement with the CCSF Foundation, formally making it an auxiliary to and separate from the college.