Good evening Trustees and Chancellor Griffin.

As I’ve said to you before, this semester has been challenging for the City College faculty, along with the other constituencies. Working to serve more students in fewer courses, allowing as many as possible into our offices and classrooms, we are still sometimes forced to turn students away. The physical, mental, and emotional costs are high and the winter break is much needed.

Next semester will be no different and, indeed, 2010-2011 will probably be no better—perhaps worse depending on the state legislature and the work we do to advocate there. I know you join us in our great concerns over our ability to serve our community. We all feel a responsibility to provide opportunities and support for transferring, for job training, and for literacy and basic skills progress to all our students, especially to students that we know have struggled in the past—primarily students from communities of color, communities that are disproportionately suffering the effects of our state’s economic woes. Like you, the faculty are committed to equity for our students and to doing all we can despite the financial challenges we face.

Last month, I spoke to you about the importance of public dialog around the budget during this challenging time. I continue to advocate for greater involvement by the entire college community, especially the students who need our support and mentorship to engage fully with the process. I’m counting on the students to make their voices and their priorities heard—and we must listen. They are our ultimate constituents and it is our responsibility to respond to them. I know you’ll help us put students first in the budget decisions we make in the coming months.

On a related issue, the Academic Senate has now seen and responded to a draft of the Administrative Realignment plan put forward by the Chancellor. Our suggestions were mostly well received by him. Of primary concern is that the realignment must create significant savings for the college—at least $1-2 million; if it does not, there is no point in putting the college through the stress of change. I look forward to seeing a new draft of the plan early in 2010. I trust that the Board, also, will not support any realignment that does not concretely reduce the college’s administrative costs.

Finally, I want to say that I’ve very much enjoyed working with the new Board over the last year. I don’t envy your role, advocating in the public for the college and at the same time holding us accountable to their needs. While meetings have sometimes gone later than I hoped, and I haven’t always agreed with your decisions, I know that you are working in what you believe to be the best interests of the college. The energy and intention you bring to making City College better for students and for District employees are to be commended. I look forward to continuing the dialog in the new year. On behalf of the faculty at the City College of San Francisco, I wish you and your families the very best during this holiday season.

The Board listened to and asked questions about a presentation on the District’s Annual Financial Report, including an internal audit. Among the more significant issues discussed were: the reporting of the CCSF Foundation assets and expenses; Form 700 filing, disclosing economic interests, by administrators and others at the college; and other recommendations to improve financial controls from the internal audit.

Trustee Jackson announced a series of hearings concerning the Student Achievement Gap and Social Equity. He said an ad hoc committee of the Board would be formed to hold the hearings and propose policy recommendations regarding the issue. The first hearing will be on February 4.

Trustee Grier released the draft of the Chancellor’s evaluation instrument for the constituencies. Since it was available only today, I asked for, and she agreed, that we would have till February to get her feedback with regard to the instrument.

The Trustees heard about a proposed $96,000 grant from the California Pacific Medical Center (CPMC) to fund classes in CCSF’s nursing program. Trustee Jackson discussed his issues regarding accepting money from CPMC because of Sutter Health’s poor labor practice history and their history of reducing health services in low-income communities. Members of the college community spoke to both sides of this issue.

The Board voted to suspend the CCSF Trademark Program, a resolution almost identical to that passed by the Academic Senate earlier this fall.

Trustee Marks said he would be introducing a resolution to review and possibly revise the administrative evaluation process at the college.

The Chancellor spoke in appreciation of Steven Glick and his work at the college. He also spoke to the need for change at the college, despite its difficulty, and recognized the leadership of the Board in helping us make necessary changes. Finally, the Chancellor acknowledged the work of the entire college community during a period of great challenge.

The committee discussed six substantive items:

1. New revenue possibilities including a tax measure on the November ballot
The committee discussed the possibility of asking for a parcel tax at the November ballot to support City College. Trustee Rizzo argued strongly that any parcel tax for City College should be progressive in nature.
The committee discussed other funding sources, including other types of taxes, private donors, and a regular revenue stream from the City College Foundation.
The committee also discussed the importance of advocacy at the state level in the coming budget debate, stressing unity of our constituencies and equity of treatment throughout the educational system.

2. Child Development funding plans and intentions
Peter Goldstein made a distinction between child care that the college provides as part of Child Development classes and child care provided in centers that he called a “community service”. John Bilmont clarified that there are parts of the Child Development programs that generate more revenue than expenditures. Overall, the administration generally framed the situation in terms of subsidies to Child Development, a frame that I believe ignores the large amount of money (more than $5 million in grants) that the department brings into the college. In fact, all the college’s departments receive a “subsidy” to pay their faculty and classified staff.
When Kathy White, Child Development Chair, finally got to speak, she made it clear that the child care centers have courses attached to them and that it is very difficult for her department to be singled out in budget discussions.
Despite the Chancellor’s attempts to make a distinction between the academic aspects of the department and the business aspects, I do not believe such a distinction can be made and, personally, have yet to understand why the Child Development Department (along with the Culinary Arts and Hospitality Studies Department) is being treated differently than other departments.

3. Update on summer session and impact on classes offered and spaces available for students
The college is offering only those course which are mandated. These courses are in Health Care Technology, Diagnostic Medical Imaging, Radiology, Child Development, and Culinary Arts and Hospitality Studies. Out of about 900 sections we’ve offered in recent summers, approximately 30 are being run in Summer 2009. There may also be a very limited number of fee-based programs, depending on an analysis of whether the college can break even on those courses.

4. Report on numbers of students unable to register for classes, departments affected, and plans to alleviate this problem
There was brief discussion of how many students are being turned away, including data on the subject areas where the most students are turned away: Mathematics, English, Anatomy, Psychology, Physical Education, Chemistry, Biology, Art, Health Education, Speech, Sociology, Nutrition, Economics, Music, Mictobiology, Accounting, Spanish, Political Science, and Child Development.

5. Discussion of essential and non-essential programs
As Trustee Marks said, this is really a discussion of priorities at the college. The Chancellor maintained that all the parts of the college are essential. Trustees Rizzo and Berg said that the words “essential” and “non-essential” are misleading and not useful in the discussion. Rather, we should agree on our priorities and make our resource decisions based on that.
Ed Murray argued that providing child care and feeding our students is not part of our college’s mission. I believe this depends on the way we interpret our mission.

6. Payment to City and County of San Francisco for Board of Trustees election costs, past and future
City College has been billed by the City and County of San Francisco for past Trustee elections to the tune of around $900,000. So far, we don’t believe we can get out of paying them, although there may be further negotiations. Currently, the City has agreed to let the college pay the money over seven years without interest.

The committee discussed the proposed Vice Chancellor of Legal Services. Trustees Ngo and Rizzo support this position and asked questions about timeline for possibly filling the position.

The committee spent a fair amount of time discussing their recommendation to the full Board on the resolution directing the Chancellor to work with the Student Development Office to cease enforcing the District trademarks, except for athletic program purposes. The committee recommended approval to the full Board.

The committee discussed a proposed revision of the District’s policy on conflict of interest for District employees. This included a discussion of the current policy, last updated in 1992, and the importance of administrators disclosing their economic interests in businesses, real estate, etc.

The resolution (S5) honoring Edgar Torres for his work in the Latin American and Latino Studies Department was “mistakenly” or “erroneously” withdrawn. The Board discussed putting it back on the agenda, with Counsel Lee advising that returning the resolution to the agenda would not be noticing the public properly.
The Board voted to put S5 back on the agenda. The Board then took S5 out of order and approved it unanimously, after public comment in support of the resolution.

Roland Montemayor, Associate Dean of Financial Aid Programs, presented to the Board on the Second Chance Program at City College. The program provides books, counseling, tutoring, bus passes and other services to City College students. Two students told very powerful stories of their struggles to get an education and the importance of support from the Second Chance program.

Unfortunately, I was ill and had to leave at this point — about 10 pm. The meeting went till about 12:20 am.

As you know, the college is facing significant funding reductions from the state and other sources. Faculty and others have been contacting me about how the college is dealing with the cuts. This message is an attempt to provide some information, but, because the budget situation is complex and continues to evolve, it does not represent every detail or the possibility that additional reductions will be necessary if the state announces mid-year cuts.

On October 22, our Board of Trustees approved a final budget for 2009-2010 that reflects the work of the administration, along with the college Planning and Budgeting Council. The plan includes:

• Total class sections for Fall and Spring semesters combined will be reduced 672 sections (272 sections in Fall and 400 in Spring);
• All regular classes for the 2010 summer session will be cancelled except for those classes required by externally mandated accreditation standards (as I understand it, this means only a few, mostly career and technical programs would have classes during summer 2010);
• Counseling hours, library hours, and other student support services have been reduced;
• Salaries are frozen for all district employees;
• Funding is available to hire 1 new full-time faculty, 9 replacements, and 8 consolidation hires. An additional 26 full-time faculty hires will be deferred until 2010;
• Faculty overload and classified overtime have been significantly reduced;
• Vacant administrative and other positions are being left open, with the duties being assumed by remaining employees.

The reductions affect everyone at the college—students, faculty, classified staff, and administrators. Fewer courses, fewer student support hours, fewer employees, and still the college is serving more students in Fall 2009 than we did in Fall 2008. We are all stretched thin and relief is still a ways off since projections for next year suggest our budget will be the same as this year or worse. It is important to remember that the college has weathered these storms before and we will this time, too. By working together and focusing on our mission to serve our students, we will continue to provide the valuable opportunities and resources to our community that we have for almost the last 75 years.

Please don’t hesitate to contact me with your questions or comments.

Click here to download the report.

The Board heard a presentation by AFT 2121 concerning the budget and the need to protect employee jobs and wages. Dennis Smith, from the California Federation of Teachers, provided state-wide perspective on the issues and the need to make changes at the state. Local perspective was given by CCSF faculty Gus Goldstein (AFT 2121 President), Mike Solow, Carmen Roman-Murray, Francine Podenski, Rosemary Brinson, Nancy Vargas, and Ed Murray. Angela Thomas, from SEIU 1021, spoke in solidarity with AFT 2121. Among the messages: the need to eliminate all unnecessary costs at the college before one teacher loses a job; the importance of counseling and other support services. A large number of other faculty, wearing blue AFT T-shirts, came out to show their support for the presentation.

Students spoke about the release of the Student Achievement Gap and Social Equity Report. They spoke to the importance of improving the success rates for all communities of students, for this generation and all the generations to come. They called for follow up on the report to identify and implement programs, services, and other measures for that purpose. They also spoke to the need for summer school as an equity issue.

Peter Goldstein and John Bilmont presented the District’s final budget, highlighting a reduced amount ($2 million) taken from the reserve, compared to the $4 million taken from the reserve in the preliminary budget. They also mentioned that the state designated cuts to student services were very significant, but that the college has worked to share those cuts so that student services did not take an unfair hit. They are monitoring the payroll and other expenditures very closely to make sure that we are staying on budget.
Students spoke to the need for greater student input during the budget process, especially for easier ways to have their voices heard. They spoke, again, to the importance of summer school and that without summer school their admission to other colleges and universities can be delayed for up to a year.
There was an extended discussion of what might be “non-essential” expenditures at the college. Food services, child-care, and summer school were among those ideas discussed, with some arguing that they are essential and some not.

The Board’s Audit committee met during the meeting to discuss the results of external audits, as well as investigations by the District internal auditor.
The Auditor provided a report on the CCSF trademark program. The report recommends that an audit of revenues be conducted to see if the District has received the funds it should have under the program. In addition, it recommends that all revenue from the program should be sent directly to the District Business Office or the District Bursar, rather than any other place in the institution.
The Auditor also reported on the non-profit organization On Focus, which was founded and headed by Dr. Mark Robinson, Vice Chancellor of Student Development. Three other On Focus employees are also District employees. The report recommends that the District investigate the possibility of a partnership interest in On Focus. Further, it is recommended that the District establish policies employees from conducting non-District business during regular business hours.

The resolution concerning trademarking at the college was referred to committee and the Board did not discuss it.

Trustee Jackson introduced future resolutions regarding the development of a new campus in the Southeast community. He also informed us of a newly crafted resolution regarding the admissions to the LVN and/or RN programs.

Trustee Ngo advocated for a Board level work group to begin crafting policies to address achievement gaps at CCSF.

As you would expect, the college community continues to be occupied, as it should be, with the budget and how we will deal with the funding cuts from the state. In recent weeks, we are experiencing the economic downturn in a new way through the “bumping” of members of our classified staff by city workers who have been laid off by the city. The workers coming to City College are not to blame and we will do all we can to welcome them into a situation that is ideal for no one. At the same time, the loss of experience and institutional knowledge in many key roles will be difficult for the college. The Senate office itself is losing an excellent worker who has helped bring the office to an unprecedented level of organization.

During these times, it may seem strange to focus on how to improve the college, but fewer resources makes it more important than ever to focus on what is most important, on our mission, on our responsibility to our students and to our city; and I spoke to the importance and the difficulty of setting priorities at your last meeting.

One way the Board has helped us set priorities is through the Student Achievement Gap and Social Equity Resolution (090430-S7), unanimously approved by the Board April and also approved by the Academic Senate prior to that. The Chancellor has now completed and released a Student Achievement Gap and Social Equity Report (October 2009) requested in that resolution. The report states that “the data point to the existence of a racial/ethnic achievement gap at City College of San Francisco.” As a result, “we must accept the existence of an achievement gap and move on to propose solutions, implement them, and measure their success.”

Fortunately, the report continues, “the college already has many programs and services that successfully promote educational achievement for students from ethnic/racial groups that typically succeed at lower rates than college averages.” That is, the college community has a wealth of knowledge and experience that, together with input from the community and others, can help us improve. We won’t succeed by doing things exactly the same as we’ve always done, but by focusing on the problem, as the Board and the Senate have said we should, we will make progress – and the sooner the better from my point of view. I look forward to working with the Board and the rest of the college community to create policies and other measures that address the achievement gaps that have already been found and any may be found in the future.

Before I leave this topic, it should be noted that all communities of students are not adequately represented in the report, because of lack of appropriate data; further study and data collection is needed to identify achievement gaps that may exist for other communities of students. I support the Chancellor in forming workgroups of stakeholders in communities of students for which the college does not have adequate data so that such data can be available for future reports.

I’d like to further acknowledge that the Chancellor prepared the report while dealing with many other issues, most notably one of the worst fiscal situations in the college’s history. He should be commended for his efforts to prioritize the success of CCSF students and for helping the college look at the ways we are succeeding and the ways we are not so that we may address those areas that need improvement.

Another way the Chancellor is working to improve the college, and save money at the same time, is by reorganizing our administration to improve efficiency and reduce the number of administrators. To my knowledge, he has currently had several conversations with the administrators and others, including the Board about the details of the plan. Again, he is to be commended for this work. You won’t hear many faculty complaining about reducing the number of administrators at the college. Unfortunately, although the Chancellor has repeatedly promised to sunshine the details of the plan in the college community, that still hasn’t happened. Since the plan potentially impacts every aspect of college life, the faculty and the rest of the community need to see it. Now that the administrators have had a chance to discuss it, the rest of us need the chance to deliberate and weigh in. It has become especially important because the Academic Senate has been given a proposed administrative job announcement – an Associate Dean of Student Life and Student Learning – that is clearly part of a reorganization plan; we can’t hope to rationally evaluate the job outside of the context of the entire plan. In addition, the students are directly affected by the potential new job and their input will be crucial with regard to the position. The college should not go forward with the job without informed input from the Associated Students and Student Trustee Nielsen. I hope the Board can join me in urging the Chancellor to make the plan public as soon as possible.

Now more than ever, to be an institution that stands for integrity, responsibility, and service we must continue to work transparently together and to focus on what’s important: on our students and on preserving our core missions in the community.

New bids on the construction of the Chinatown North Beach campus are coming in lower – good news!

Projects at the John Adams campus should be complete by late this semester.

Technology infrastructure for the Joint Use Facility includes creating enough fiber optic capacity crossing Phelan Avenue (across from the rest of the Ocean Campus) to provide for other projects in the Facilities Master Plan on the west side of Phelan, even though those projects have not yet begun.

The committee discussed the creation of a Bayview Hunters Point Campus and initiating project analysis in the future.

The committee discussed the latest Bond Program Performance Audit Report. The report has 11 finding and 12 recommendations to make the college’s use of bond funds more efficient and effective. The recommendations include more careful policy, control, and organization for project bids. The district got between a C and a D on it’s record keeping and management of the bids.