SBCC Board of Trustees 10/12/2017

»: So we are going to call the meeting to order and about a minute. We are hoping Veronica will arrive. There she is »: Yeah! A big round of applause. Right on time »: Okay. Calling the meeting to order. Our rollcall in all of our trustees are present and we welcome our members of the audience today. We have a few people joining us and that is always a good thing We don’t have any recognitions,; correct, Anthony? »: No recognitions »: Angie? (No response) Okay. So that takes us to public comment and we have, and I’m going to do this wrong, but I’m going to try Kivilcim? »: Hello, everybody. My name is Kivilcim Dogonysgrt. First of all, I want to thank the SBCC Board of Trustees for allow me to speak on behalf of the international students out-of-state. And want to think of myself as an educator student and a good community member as well as being able full-time student and working part-time, I actively participate in clubs and volunteer outside of the school As a fact of matter, I know I am not the only international student who does this. For

instance, a big portion of student ambassadors are international and they do so many things to help this community. Today I’m here to express my feelings and concerns about the optimal college size The language that has been used in the new policy caught our attention and made us contemplate. Many questions popped up in our minds due to this, and not been able to answer those questions because us to be more apprehensive about this new policy. For instance, what does the optimal college size mean? Where does this new policy lead to? There is a potential cut for the amount of students who are accepted to SBCC, but do you guys have a specific number? What portion of this cut will be made, especially for international and out-of-state students? How does the localizing affect director the student body? Will there be a geographical disc rumination when accepting students? It is crucial that SBCC understands or experiences — our experiences because of toots one of the greatest if not the best due to the diversity in the community SBCC helps us gain a better culture and knowledge and educates individuals to become more interconnected By lowering the amount of international and out-of-state students, SBCC will take this great experience away from their students. SBCC student body has an equal chance of education, and we all hope that we are just worried for nothing. Although our worries won’t go away until we get our answers. Then we left our homes, and we moved to SBCC, we adopted this place as our home and community, and nothing would hurt us more than SBCC treating us like outsiders. Thank you, so much »: Thank you Our next Item is approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of September 14. And I have a motion to approve? Craig? Veronica, do you want to second? Okay. Comments? Changes? Questions? All in favor? »: Aye »: Opposed? (No response) have human resources consent items and Angie do you have any problem with taking those two together? Do you think that is fine? I think so. Anyone have any problem with taking two together? It is only two. So it is 5.1 permanent personnel and 5.2, experts and volunteers David? Sorry »: In regards to Kay’s comment I was wondering if we could regard this and move to 7.2. I don’t know if you guys have time to stay for the whole meeting, but just to be considerate of our students here »: I think we need to keep it in order. Thank you. It will not take all that long So may I have a motion to approve 5.1 and 5.2? Jonathan? And Peter? Second? Questions? Comments? (No response) »: Aye »: Opposed? (No response) »: All right. Those two are done. Revisions to the Santa Barbara City College equal employment opportunity plan, the EEO plan? Are we going to have some presentation on that? »: Yes, we have Dr. Monalisa Hasson here to explain what she is doing with this, and basically it is some updates and revisions »: Good evening, board members and members of the audience. Thank you for having meet tonight to present a little bit. I will not take up too much of your time. The Board of Trustees adopted this plan in April 2017, so it is fairly new It is a 3-year plan, but it is a living document as well as we see that there are needed changes, and we can come back and make some revisions. When I came on board I realized that some of the language in the EEO plan was from an old Title 5 language and because I had served as the peer-reviewed were for the state, I sort of — something sort of stood out And I wanted to make sure that we were aligned with title five So what you will see here with this document up here are just the first nine pages of the EEO

planned that was adopted in April. And all I did was align it with title five current language. And the things that we were looking for is to make sure that we have an updated definition of diversity, that we had specific topics of training for the EEO advisory committee and that we were no longer indicating goals or targets because that is not part of the Title 5 regulations as they sit now So you will see the strike outs in the bold information on here. So it is pretty self-explanatory, but it doesn’t require board approval. And so you will see the first change on Page 5. And there where the business necessity;, that is not current language in longer in the Title 5 regulations, so that was stricken. We made a few minor changes to number one I’m sorry. I skipped that. On adverse impacts; just to aligned that with title five. The definition of diversity was from the old Title 5 as well, so we updated that to ensure that, that is updated So just a slight change on number five there. We are striking some things and adding the language there. That is in bold. It is pretty self-explanatory there. The one thing that changed on 5 is that when we are reporting our data now, we are bound to — and it is a good thing to reported by categories because oftentimes, we look at our data in its purest sense. So it is a claim that we have 30 percent Hispanic. Let’s just say that, but if they are all in the service areas than that may not be a good thing of the college We need to move those numbers through and move them from service to higher level positions. So you will see that data in November when I present the numbers for last year Some more definitions were changed here. So on ethnic minorities, that was old language. It is now at ethnic group identification So I don’t want to go through each one because they are really aligning it with title five unless you have any questions on any of these. There was another change on number nine, on Page 10. The advisory committee; what was missing from this language is that we are required to train our EEO advisory committee in these areas. So you will see the addition in the center. Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 have specific training we are to go through And I’m very proud of our EEO advisory committee. We have met once since I arrived and we have our next meeting on Monday and we have a student joining us on Monday as well since they were not involved in the first meeting. And so we are a full team and looking forward to developing some ideas, professional development and cultural proficiency, cultural competency, and just rolling out a series of workshops that will continue throughout the year because we always say this discussion cannot be a one-shot thing. It needs to be an ongoing discussion about what we can do, what strategies can we have in place to ensure that we work on diversity in the workplace. But also more importantly that we have the understanding of our population So I don’t have anymore for you tonight. Thank you for having me unless you have any questions »: Any questions? Marty? »: Yes, I looked this over and I could not see that there were any real substantive changes. So is that correct? You said we are lining it with the new Title 5, but I did not see any really substantive changes. You added a few things »: Nothing real — just the alignment with title five ensuring that there are some definitions that put us back in like affirmative action language »: Understood. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for all of this work too »: I appreciate the different aspects that you highlighted. These things are always tricky and crack always brings them up. We approve them because they are under our purview, but we don’t always get into doing anything with that So I think a lot of things you highlighted are appreciative because they definitely online with our goals and what we are looking to do with our student populations and larger communities. So thank you »: Thank you Okay. May I have a motion to approve the revisions? The EEO plan? Peter? Second? Marianne? All in favor? »: Aye »: Opposed? (No response)

»: That brings us to item 7.1 revisions to board policy 2430 and 2014, board policies an admin of procedures. And let me just double check because we do have some people who want to comment, but I don’t think it is this one. No? (Comment Off Mic) 7.1? (Comment Off Mic) Sorry »: Is it under — »: It was there. Angie confirms it was there. If I lost it, I apologize »: On members of the boards of trustees, President chronic your, Dr. Beebe, I would like to share the Faculty Association to include on BP 2410. You are setting a pretty ambitious goal for setting board policies. Sixty days for BPAP to approve emperor for government input to come back to the Board. Usually, I am poor ambitious. Ambitious is good. That is what I always tell my students, but maybe in this case, we need a couple of additional things. And, please, allow me to explain why. Many of our board policies affect working conditions. Basically half of the Chapter 7 policies and a bunch of Chapter 3 policies as well. The era, the educational employment relations act requires that any regulations that involve working conditions have to be negotiated with a collective bargaining agent. For the SBCC faculty, this bargaining agent is the Faculty Association Well, we all know that things work a little differently at Santa Barbara City College Codified an article 13 of the contract between the district and the Faculty Association, we established a very unique relationship between the Association and the Academic Senate. At SBCC, the Academic Senate is authorized to discuss and agree with you on a number of normally negotiable items However also an article 13 it is established that the Faculty Association has still to be consulted on any of these matters. And such consultation needs to be taken seriously That means the group needs to be given enough time to gather information, discuss the matter, and give feedback to the Academic Senate. It appears that this is not all doable in 60 days. Just for an example, one of the policies that will be discussed in the next agenda topic today, specifically BPAP 3150 only came from BPAP to the Academic Senate on September 27 No way that the FA can have meaningful input on this discussion in such a short amount of time. But I will talk more about the specific policy when we get to this and you should have another one. So in conclusion, my request for you is today that you please consider to make an addition to BP 2410 that additional time is provided for any matters that require Faculty Association consultation. Thank you very much »: Thank you. Cornelia? Weight. Jonathan has a question »: What is an appropriate length of time? If 60 is too little? »: It very much depends on how fast the items come down from BPAP. Once we have them , I think three to four weeks would be an okay, amount of time for us to discuss. You know if you bring it in the middle of the summer, may then we need a little bit more, but three to four weeks, that would be fine »: Why does it have to come from BPAP? I mean, the process that I was envisioning was that when the Board discusses it and says this is a good idea, we should go for it, then it goes outright right there »: Well, it goes out — »: And it has been on the Board agenda, so it has been available »: It is my understanding, what I saw as a process, which was presented to — at the Academic Senate — that it first goes to BPAP. I hope I got that right, from the Chapter leads. It goes to BPAP and then from BPAP, it goes to Academic Senate and other governance groups. And once it is at the

Academic Senate level, that is when the FA gets consulted. So we have this whole flowchart. I am not sure — »: The flowchart is the old way when we were doing the completely legal review of all of the possibilities, that flowchart applied to that. Now we are in a different — »: Then I think we would need to discuss it at what time it comes to the Academic Senate and to the Faculty Association »: That is what I’m suggesting »: If that is no longer the flowchart , which I must admit his new to me »: I am just suggesting that the idea was that once the Board has put it on the agenda, publicly discussed it, decided it should be put out for participatory comments, that is they 1 »: Okay »: So if you need three to four weeks after that, you are well within 60 days »: I thought that was 60 days plus. Especially if you look at 3150, which only came to the Academic Senate at the last meeting on September 27. That is when Faculty Association basically started I am not sure if we discuss that »: We can do that with 3150, but that is not the Schedule I had. So whatever. We will get to it »: Okay »: Thank you »: Any other questions? »: Yeah I have a question So I sit on Academic Senate as well and what we were presented with was the flowchart. So I am a little bit confused now in terms of due we have another chart? In terms of how — »: I believe Anthony was working on the process for going forward in doing that, which would comport with the general approach laid out in this policy. I mean you were not here when we went through this, but we had a set of board that were not on the website, not available to everyone, including the Board, and had not been updated for very long time. So we spent three and a half years going through and update process for everything in the Board policy section. And that was largely based on what the League recommends , the California Community College league recommends. It was a big project. But it was a one one-time catch up project , so that elaborate system reflected that catch up basically. I mean I had not seen that chart. It certainly, looks Byzantine , but the process was intended to bring us up-to-date, and we are up-to-date now, and we have much better systems in place to move forward that way. So now we are moving to a really similar process because clearly, there are some board organizational things that really don’t need that level of review at all. And then there are other things that may need the usual level of review Anybody else? Jonathan? »: I have two comments. So the way I see this playing out in my mind is like you said, day 1 is like a day we talked about it in the Board and then the students and faculty and staff, it is public information. So once they know it is on the agenda, and we have said yes, we are interested in moving forward, then it just goes on the agenda for the next relevant meeting for each group. And at some point in that 60 day window, the reps from each group go to BPAP and says yes our group likes it and yes, our group does not like it and it BPAP votes on it. I think it is very simple to me. One thing I would be okay with putting in is within 60 days maybe put something like, “The Board can extend that in special circumstance” like it if it is the summer, and we don’t think we can get it done, you know like under certain circumstances we can extend it. But I think 60 days is a pretty long time, and it doesn’t get people time to meet This one particular instance seems like — I am not sure what happened — that is not my role but, I mean, these policies were up on the website, on our agenda for months. Night — I mean, August was when we got the final version, but we got these in February, April? So it has been a long time »: Yes, and again they were on the Academic Senate, 1300 and 3150 was Item 5.2 on the Academic Senate in July, July 12

So there has been a real chunk of time and BPAP ask for a couple of extensions, and we said okay. Which is why it is taking this long to get back there »: I just think it is important to put a day limit on when BPAP has to give a recommendation because it is faculty diversity policy. It took literally eight months And to me, that is not okay. So I think 60 days needs to be — I mean, it is a goal to hit »: I am okay with it. I’m ready to move approval. I know we can do that. I am ready to move approval »: Second? Jonathan? »: Second »: Other comments? (No response) (Comment Off Mic) »: I checked the slips. You are on the next two, right? (Comment Off Mic) »: I moved to just do it as is. I mean I think that Dr Beebe, should you see that something — I mean, if there was a relationship, would come to us with all of our policies, and we can always revisit them I think this is not the first policy where we can add or change and say we will revisit And that is okay »: My only comment would be all along the lines of what Jonathan was talking about in terms of maybe a friendly amendment to the idea of adding special circumstances of some kind that might arise, whether it is summer, whatever it may be. I mean it is hard to describe. I mean is of just having the set 60 days with no flex ability »: I think we haven’t heard flexibility anywhere. I mean we can say 60 days, and we can agree to waive the 60 days in any particular case. I mean we have taken that approach with pretty much all board policies I mean we have the option to wait in a particular situation unless it is against the statute »: So let the record show it we have ultimate flexibility (Laughter) »: Not ultimate (Laughter) amendment later, but I think it is important to pass it today Wordsmithing; I don’t think we can do »: Where you waiting for a comic? »: I don’t know. What we are going to vote on — just what is there? Not changing any of the verbiage? I like what you said about the flexibility I mean that is inherent and we are not unreasonable here. So I don’t see a need for the change »: Okay. So we have a motion and a second. Unless there are more comments, all in favor of adopting 2340 and 2410 »: Aye »: Opposed? (No response) »: Policy and policies »: Go Jonathan »: Okay. That brings us to 3150 and that will be followed by 1300 as separate items. We have a request for public comment at these items. And I just wanted to preliminary — upper airily say that we as a board should be in listening mode. We are receiving people’s comments and above all we are not in a debate. We are in a situation where we want to hear those comments, understand what is being said and model the kind of civil discussion that we expect from everyone in the college, consistent with our mission. So I would like to call the people to make comments, and we will have ample time afterward to discuss Okay? Priscilla? »: Good evening, numbers of the Board, Dr. Beebe I want to make clear that I’m speaking in my role as Academic Senate President. And my comments are relevant to both of the next two items, 7.3, 7.3, BP 3100 and 3150 and I want to express appreciation for BP 1300. For those of us who have had worked on this document and been in dialogue about changes to it, we recognize that that contributed to a great improvement in the document and I want to express gratitude around that and also be clear that my comments today are not about whether that document is good or not, but

rather on the process for considering that. And separately, I want to address some of the concerns around BP 3150 So there are two major process issues that we want to focus on. And the first one is in the BP 2410, which the Board just voted to approve. It says when any new or substantively change policy is being proposed, it should be discussed at a regular board meeting and then if generally agreed for further discussion, shared with BPAP and so on. And we read that very carefully. BP 133150 were publicly discussed at the August 24 board meeting and at that meeting, Dr. Beebe he requested that the policies both be considered as having undergone the initial discussion. So as I understand 2410, the initial discussion was in the first reading and in the approval stretches, the three process — approval stages — the three-step process — and yet at today’s meeting, the agenda reference has a quote about first reading and discussion occurred on August 24, which collapses the two-step process and while the concepts for these policies may have been previously discussed at board retreats or other venues, retreats are not videotaped, do not have the same level of public visibility as a regular board meeting. And to be consistent with the Board’s policy, these policies would be considered for first reading today as I understand BP 2410 with possible consideration for approval at a future board meeting Secondly, the approval process also seems to suggest that when a significant change occurs to a policy, that that should start the process again So BP 1300 in his current version is dramatically different from BP 1300 in the version that was seen on August 24th, and from that perspective is a significant change. Which as I understand it would require it to go through a review process again. So to be clear the substantive changes seem to warrant an addition of round review also by our governance groups. And in the Academic Senate has not seen the version, which is being considered by the Board today. I would also like to express some concerns around BP 3150, optimal college size and efficiency, originally when Academic Senate and BPAP weren’t working on this, we talked about what size is appropriate, should this word be here, is this an appropriate efficiency target? Because that was the language for us to consider. As we stepped back from that a little bit, we have concerns and started to recognize that the language itself does not seem appropriate to board policy. The community College league of California Trustee handbook states that clearly state the intention of the Board, but not be overly descriptive or detailed and should allow employees to exercise the professional discretion for which they were hired, and I know that I have heard that type of statement repeatedly from board members at various points. I know that Dr. Beebe and his presentation on the Carver model of policy has represented that the Board provides overall goals, but not define how to achieve those goals. And BP 3150 seems to be dictating that. BP 3150 contains very descriptive language including a precise declination of size and a particular FTS target and the faculty did not consider that giving numerical targets for such operational components of the college fits within a broad high-level policy And further at least one component of BP 3150, the FTS target is clearly geared toward addressing our budget challenges yet existing board policy already provides clear direction about that, including BP 6225, principles of budget development and BP 6200, budget preparations in multiyear fiscal preparations I would like to explain a little bit how we see the kinds of issues that are in the current version of BP 3150 as being relevant for us since we have perceived those to be the, “How” of resolving some budget and other issues. We think the elements would be more brightly in the education master plan and each year the college does its annual review of its educational master plan and that seems to be the appropriate place for the how to achieve a goal should exist. So in summary, we are asking for two things — the first is that neither BP 1300 nor BP 3150 be voted on for

approval today. And the second is that BP 3150 be removed from further consideration; instead the content of that proposed policy should be considered by the college as it does its annual update of the educational master plan. Thank you »: Thank you, Priscilla Kim Monda is our next speaker (Comment Off Mic) »: No, we cannot hear you that way (Comment Off Mic) (Laughter) »: I will try to do this in five minutes. All right. Good evening. It is nice to see all of you. I had a lot of great moments of reporting about the work of the Senate and welcome, Dr. Beebe, in this new role. I would rather be home grading papers. And I also say it is not nice to see you in this context. I feel terrible. I woke up early and I could not sleep think it about speaking to all of you today. I am speaking in my role as a form Senate President and a leader on this campus were people come and talk to me when they are concerned. And one of those moments — and I’m getting emotional now because I love this college and I gave my life to this college and I sacrifice my family — did we talk about it? I know you knew that too, Veronica. We make the sector might — the sacrifices for the place we love, and what is happening with the policies is we are feeling the participatory governance and really understanding what your people here care about is not happening right now, and it is really, really painful. Our core principle talks about participatory governance, and you heard some details about process. And they are better at that. What was supposed to happen when; I don’t know. But I know these poor policies are like our laws, and they are what we live by as our institution, and they are published across the state, across the country, and we have a national reputation. These policies will be looked at by people probably around the world. And right now, these policies contain things that right now, I don’t see as models, but I do see as violation of a lot of our principles, of our mission, end of our vision. And so I have more to say if you just ignore your notes. So I will take a moment. I am a little freaked out about the five minutes. I want you to hear this crisis, and it is not just me. I take this really seriously. It was an honor to serve the faculty and I really learned to listen and not put my opinions first, which took me a little while But I really learned that and I haven’t stopped learning that So I’ve heard from a lot of different people. We have new administrators. They are wonderful men, but they don’t know our culture. They are learning it. And these two policies push through choices and descriptions and attitudes toward things that the rest of the community is not going to be able to weigh in on and we don’t even fully understand what they feel like The one young woman — I came in late because I was chairing another meeting — that looks like we are not inviting a student on a who just joined us that people are going to wonder, can I still apply here? Local access and service; it is at the heart of everything that we do But sometimes that includes welcoming people from outside the area and outside the country because that is how we have a better college for the local people here. It is complicated And as Priscilla spoke beautifully, as our president who can put it into that framework, it is never as easy for me to fully grasp. But I understand it line because we are in a fiscal crisis. We are facing a lot of decline in enrollment, and we need to make some changes. So I respect your role to set that policy. But I too feel like I am shocked by the specific numbers. Because there is so much that goes in to the programs we offer and the sizes of our classes and the people who are here that you don’t understand. And that you shouldn’t. That is your role That is in the weeds. All right. The last thing I wanted to come to you about with 1300, and I really hope you don’t want to approve these today. I hope you hear me and recognize there is a lot a people behind me and behind Priscilla and a lot of other speakers. But I don’t know what you are going to do because I got five minutes of public comment to try to tell you stuff late Monday night after I saw this when I was still grading papers and planning classes and cooking for my family. So if you approve this now, I needed to take a minute to tell you something about the language that you are going to approve. And Jonathan

I think it is sometimes important to wordsmith or not approve it. You don’t come back. So the policy of the 60 days — don’t worry, we break our policy sometimes. That is not an answer. This is language, and you just approved language that doesn’t leave room for summer or working conditions or a message to our students that you didn’t realize it would be communicated. And if they can only tell you in public comment, we say we will approve it and come back to it That is not how we make right our laws. So if you approve 1300 which I really hope you don’t, there is some language that implies that we have not been focusing on our local students, and we have. I came to you for two skiers and told you countless programs of what we are focusing on for our local students. So we don’t need to reconfirm anything. We don’t need to make a significant effort. We have. We don’t, “Will include” as priority. We have. The only language that acknowledges that we have is we will continue to enhance relationships with the foundation ships — yes. The others are all we will. And we have been. And as a former president and representative of so many hard-working people who constantly innovate, especially for our local and at-risk students, this policy offends us So thank you »: Thank you, Kim. Our next speaker is Laurie Vasquez »: Good afternoon. Members of the Board, and Dr. Beebe, I am standing before you today as vice president of Academic Senate, an elected role by the Academic Senate. I served on many governance committees on our campus, College Planning Council for many years, faculty and professional development committees, chair of the instructional technology committee for many years. A member of the district technology committee. The educational support division Senator, and I work with my colleagues and disability services and the faculty resource Center. And I’ve also chaired several chancellor advisory office committees over the years. I have served under for Academic Senate President’s, past President Dean Nevins, Kimberly Neufeld, Kim Monda, and now our new president. We serve the constituents and ways no one can truly really appreciate unless you are the one sitting in the room, problem, seeking additional information, compiling research, data, and seeking new ways to inform the body at large. They wear the badge of leader quietly? Purposely, and with true grit, acknowledging no one leader can do it alone. For any leader to be successful, requires a collaborative effort, understanding, and a great deal of listening and listening, and listening. The work of the Senate takes a great deal of planning, scheduling, searching for all necessary required information, broaching new ideas, and compiling the information in a way that sinners — Senators on the Academic Senate can respond to issues. The Senators are the conduit to the faculty conditions were concerns can be addressed in a timely manner It takes time and a finely tuned calendar to ensure that any concerns are addressed in the feedback is addressed. Often time discussions at Senate are conducted over several meetings because all perspectives must be heard and noted in a nuanced way. It is a responsibility of our Senate President to guide this conversation for the best possible outcome. Dr. Butler is a valuable facilitator in this role. To be successful the Senate President has to be working in a tandem with multiple campus leaders who must be trusted and respectful of the role they are in. Perhaps it goes without saying, that leadership in any form is not easy. All eyes are on you. For a smooth running organization, all of the information must be presented in a way the Senate can be responded to and countered with a solution. Our faculty are known to be engaged, thoughtful, persuasive, and forward thinking when it comes to attending to the well-being of our college and all of its members The Academic Senate at Santa Barbara City College follows the guidance of the statewide Academic Senate for the California Community Colleges, which strives to promote the effective participation in college academic matters As you know, these matters are widely known as a 10 plus one, specified in our BP 2510, participation and governance in local decision, but also in

Title 5 Our board policy states the district ensures that if there are opportunities for meaningful collaboration and engagement In summary as one member of the campus community, I care deeply about my colleagues at Santa Barbara City College however I do have concerns about our current process regarding the approval of board policies and some of the content that have far-reaching effects on our college community and I hope you are listening to us today »: Thank you, Laurie. And Tricia Stark — Patricia Stark? (Comment Off Mic) »: Hello. My name is Patricia Stark and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today. I want to offer my support to all that was expressed just now by my colleagues regarding board policies 3150 and 1300. I am now in my eighth year serving on the Academic Senate and I am now President-elect. I will take over at the end of May and that position. I am serving on my fourth year in the College Planning Council and I am now a member of BPAP. And I’ve also lived in Santa Barbara for 27 years, all of them in a house to blocks away from this college. I live on the Mesa Both of my sons attended public school for all 12 years and both of them have taken between them many classes at Santa Barbara City College. My oldest son Will was lucky enough to take doula in Rome it classes and starting in his sophomore year, he took summer classes every summer. When he applied for college, Kirk Solberg, the late great Kirk Solberg wrote him a letter because they were good buddies Kirk invited him up to his house, and they sat in his Viking canoe It was a summer class between his sophomore and junior year Will took a lot of dual enrollment classes, through our excellent dual enrollment program and when he was a senior in high school, he was one of two students at Sun a Barber high school who was a national merit scholar. Interestingly, enough was Jay who is Alice’s son, but I can tell you that my son did not make it to national merit scholar and get a very large academic scholarship to his for your school because of what he learned at Santa Barbara high. But it was Santa Barbara City College who put him over the edge. My younger son Luke is now completing his lower division requirements here. He is enrolled in our excellent iPath program in the transfer academy. He plans to transfer to you see Davis. Neither of my boys ever felt in any way disadvantage because they grew up in five minutes from this college. They received and are still receiving top quality education. I don’t feel that we need to reaffirm or recommit to anything. My family is walking , talking testament to the quality that we offer our local students. Through my professional networks and my engagement with my son’s activities, I have sat on the PTA and parent groups of every school they have attended. I have been a soccer mom, swim mom , mock trial mom and so on. And I have befriended many people from many walks of life in Santa Barbara. I am proud of my social and civic engagement in the city and I’m very proud of my service to Santa Barbara City College, which I assert to you that this college is as beloved to our community as it is to me In terms of policy, together with my fellow Academic Senate, we have discussed, debated, and offered support, and sometimes opposition to literally dozens of board policies over the last three and a half years, or four But this is the first time I have felt compelled to speak to you directly about any of them We faculty do not support BP 3150 for all of the reasons outlined today. We are asking that you pull it out of board review today and refer it to the administration and the proper channels to be included in the educational master plan where targeted numbers are discussed, and I’m also requesting that you postpone a vote on 1300. If few minutes ago you discussed, you actually approved BP 2410, board policies and administrative procedures, which laid out an outline for significantly substantive changes to existing board policies. As Priscilla noted, the changes in this policy are subsidy. We are

asking for a delay in that This is BP 1300. As you can tell it has not been uncontroversial yet as others have noted. We thought this significant revision was seen Monday afternoon. Our faculty has been keenly concerned with the impacts on BP 1300, its target on the college as a whole, own individual groups, and we are respectfully asking time to share these with our colleagues consistent with the policy you just approve. We respectfully ask that you eliminate BP 3150, optimal college size and efficiency from board consideration, and it you delay today board policy 1300 Thank you. Thank you for your service to our college and thank you for letting me speak today »: Thank you, Patricia That concludes — Cornelia? Okay. The missing — I still did not find it — (Comment Off Mic) »: So here I am again Thank you, trustees for giving me the opportunity to talk to you. I would like to share the Faculty Association input on BP 3150. And first and foremost I would like to commend you for discussing the topic of efficiency because it proves to us a number of things. It proves that our Board of Trustees deeply cares about the institution and its financial health. You are aware that a prolonged period of budget shortfalls is detrimental to our college, to our students, and to the faculty managers and staff who serves this fine institution. So starting this discussion is important and I am here to suggest that at this time we continue the discussion about these targets before we codify them into college policy I see several reasons why today might be a bit early to finalize these BP 3150 and, please, allow me to share those For one, efficiency targets are a mandatory subject for collective bargaining. That means that this has to be brought to the Faculty Association for consultation and this has not happened yet Secondly, I believe that we all do not have enough information with reaching such an efficiency target means. What it means to class sizes, to class offerings, to pedagogy, to students, to programs, and last, but not least, to faculty and other educational staff , or in other words, we first need to find answers to questions like how many more students will be have to add to each class to reach this target? Is this all possible given our programs? How will this impact student learning? How many class sections will we have to reduce? How will this affect choices for students? How will this affect working conditions for faculty? Marsha, you were right; I stand corrected. In fact, BP 3150 was listed in July on the Senate agenda. I looked at it however it was not discussed then. I would assume due to time constraints in the meeting. Also, the version ought to the Senate was the one recommended by BPAP, which is, in fact, somewhat different from what we have in front of us today. So I feel there really was not enough time for us to gather the needed data in order to have an informed discussion In the meantime faculty Association has already requested to establish a workgroup with respect to this topic, so that we can gather the information we need. The FA is also planning to have a faculty plenary session within the next few weeks because after all, any efficiency target will first and foremost affect our faculty and their students. So at this point the FA recommends that we keep in discussion, gather a good understanding by everyone involved, and Garner as much buy-in as we can, and then codify a target in this policy As said before, such a policy will effect the core of how we do business here. This should definitely be something we all do together, even if that means that things will take a bit longer. I am sure you will agree with me on that. Thank you »: Thank you

»: Thank you, Cornelia I think Paul, you are going to help us by giving us some discussion on some of the questions that we have heard and maybe help people see the answers to some of those questions. We did have an extensive presentation by Paul at our retreat when we initially discussed 133150. That was in February of 2017, as I think Jonathan may have mentioned So the Board has the benefit of that presentation, but I think may be revisiting some of that for folks who did not listen to the tape or were not there would be helpful »: Sure. Thank you, and good evening. Let me give you a little bit of a perspective, at least in my mind of what initially started this conversation on campus. When I first arrived in my role in July last year, we were in the middle of trying to understand the third year, or the second ear at that time of a pretty sophisticated decline in enrollment. We reformulated or reformed and enrollment management committee that had met or I think many years , but had really focused on the enrollment process meaning registering students in classes And we tried to take a little bit of a different angle and try to S the question, if we wanted to add a strategic enrollment development plan for Santa Barbara City College, what might that plan look like? Who would be the key players? For that decision? So we started that conversation and initially what I did to educate myself about the hesitation and also may be some light on that is I looked at historic trends and enrollment patterns at the institution. And we focused on — because really just for convenience because the data was readily available in Banner and Tablo the last nine years. So we looked at the nine year trends with regard to FDS, headcount, proportion of residents, nonresidents, students, accredited and non-accredited CTE basic skills That is what my frame of reference was. What is the mix of those for this particular institution? We looked at those averages and from those averages we begin to have a conversation in the fall and at throughout the ball with a number of different groups about if we just took the average of that nine years, realizing there was a peak that occurred probably in 2012, 2013, in that area, what would our institution look like if we were to average all of those, taking out the average of that peak? And those are the numbers we started at And they are not too far from what I presented at the Board retreat or the 15,000 number that is listed in here. The 15,000 number came out of that discussion, looking at what work our historic averages, looking at the resident, nonresident FTS? So we looked at that and we looked at the mix , and we had pretty much the same conversation with enrollment management committee, College Planning Council, faculty senate, and we had a discussion at faculty in-service, actually, two different in-services last year, one for the fall and one for the spring around trying to drill down on an optimal size or optimal mix for this institution. Because enrollment management strategies that had been used up to that date was I want to change the FDS, Chase the growth to maximize the income for the district. That resulted — we did that strategy — the students did not come It resulted in a pretty inefficient offering of courses as a way to chasing FDS, adding classes, and adding enrollment there. So we had a conversation about the other type of enrollment management and that is where we determine what is the optimal mix right now for our institution and community, and we build programs and offerings about that mix. And so we started with that nine-year average. We also had a lot of conversation happening in the fall, people just expressing subjectively but just that it seems that things were less crowded, students moved through student services more easily, classes were impacted and impart that is because we were overscheduled as a part of chasing the FDS kind of mentality. But last year, ‘1617 we started writing about this. And we finished about the ballpark of what might work

for this institution and conform the basis of the strategic enrollment management plan. And that is kind of how we settled in on the numbers. Subsequently we — I think we may have even voted on the numbers of CPC or something, but at least there was consensus that it seemed like a reasonable plan to start managing around. And impact that is pretty much what we have built, the model will be built in our 5-year projections. We are based on trying to reach that mix in about 2020 given our enrollments, the fluctuation and trying to manage to that mix. And that is sort of the history I think of how we arrived at the 15,000 — and really from the historical perspective »: And what you are saying is within the 15,000, the discussion also included the different kinds of students that we have. We have online students. We have nonresident students »: Yes. We did not break out the online — I mean, we had discussions about that — or I don’t know if we did in that format, but I, certainly, have had discussions with a variety of people about that. It was looking at the mix of credit versus noncredit and then looking at resident versus nonresident. We did not really disaggregate. We did not talk about the numbers apart from that. We did not talk about an enrollment strategy that would manage to a different mix of in district versus out of district. It was a resident versus nonresident And that is how FTS is calculated and we focused on FTS »: I would like to say something »: There is a resident and nonresident »: In terms of one of the comments that was made relative to the Carver model and the idea of we have ends, which is what the Board is concerned with Here is an end that we want to try to get to, a goal that we want to get to. And we have means. We have methods and means. And, in my view, this topic of mix, whether it is online, dual enrollment, whatever that may be, that is really getting into more of the means part of this. It is not the ends. The ends would be the 15,000 that you all have been talking about. And that we have discussed as being a comfortable size for the institution in terms of community impact and all of the other elements that make up that very complicated number. I just felt it was important to make sure that we emphasize that the mix and how we get to the 15,000 really is something that would be more operational and something that we would be dealing with on the college side »: Right. I mean our goal all along would be to have some sort of strategic enrollment management plan that would guide our decision-making process on campus or a framework to operate with »: And that would really be in cap sold in the educated master plan or some sort of strategic plan — that would be encapsulated in the educational master plan — I think our vision has been that way »: David? »: Just a question for Paul , actually a couple of questions. Will there ever be a cap on students — (Overlapping speakers) number of bodies? »: 15,000 FTS translates into what number of students, whatever that maybe »: Giving the mix of full-time, part-time, absolutely »: When we say optimal size, are we suggesting that sometime down the road there will be a cap? And my second question is in 2009 there were 16,000 students on main campus. I think there was something like 20, 21,000 students on this campus. The second test — the second question would be are we ready for our resources to serve the students or do we plan the resources, so that when there are more students that may come »: Thank you, David. The 15,000 is a funding number. It is how the state funds the 114 committee colleges in the system By allocating full time equivalent student funding They give us a little bit over $5000 for full time equivalent students. The state puts a cap on resident FTS for district that they will fund. Any resident FTS that a district earns it what the state caps us

at four funding are unfunded FTS. And sometimes we hear year-end reports about FTS They have X number of unfunded FTS. White now we are in a decline. It hasn’t been an issue for us because we have been under capped. Because we have been in a decline. But with regard to headcount, it is in the student’s best interest and our best interest to have programming that to the extent possible can accommodate that They are as full as their lives can allow. So I would say that from a strategy for success, I mean, we would want to achieve this 15,000 FTS on the lowest headcount possible. We know the more student classes they take, the more likely they are to be successful. But in those classes, they are taking in the degree of objectives. I would say that would be sort of a goal for us That would be better for our student success Did that answer your question? »: Just a quick follow-up »: I just want to put this into perspective. Our FTS for last year was roughly 14,000 »: 14636 »: 14,636 — I wasn’t sure that everybody knew that »: And next year we are projecting lower? »: Yes, this year would be a little bit lower. About four and a half to 5 percent. I think we are starting to reach — I hope — the bottom — »: I looked at it as about a thousand short of this number in FTS »: I was just going to say that I hope that we get to the problem that we are discussing »: One of my answers — or one of my questions was not fully answer. Will we ever have a cap on out-of-state or international students? Is that what this is suggesting? »: We have a board policy of 1500 students for international students. We don’t have a cap for nonresidents, and we cannot put a cap on resident students in the state of California »: Will we ever have a cap on nonresident students? »: We have a cap — nonresidents as opposed to international? That is not my decision to make. I cannot tell you »: It is a board decision? »: Yes »: We have an obligation as a community college in the state to accept all students that come to us that her ready and prepared to become educated and learn. That is an obligation we have as part of our state system and that is really I think that is where the tension is. We have a district, and we have a committee college service area that is defined geographically, like all 114 community colleges And the tension becomes when we are in a situation — in a hypothetical situation — it is growing as what you are suggesting, David. How then does the mix look? We are not there. It is a hypothetical situation. I mean we are still struggling with enrollments to try to stabilize and hopefully get to that scenario. But you know with promise programs that are taking off across the state now; I think we have close to 50 of them. The promise programs are about helping those within the various districts to be able to have access to a community college education and the college programs are buried in terms of how they are structured, but they are all structured in a sense of supporting the local students in that particular service area, in that community college And so there is somewhat of a natural support mechanism that is kind of already been built with real recognition and reconfirmation, if you will, of the service areas that are happening across the state And obviously, if we didn’t do that, which we are; we are recognizing the importance of our service areas and giving recognition to the promise students. If we didn’t do that and to the other districts around that are doing that, it would certainly put our students here at a disadvantage in the Santa Barbara Community College

district. So thankfully — and I agree with the comments that were made, we are recognizing the importance of our service area We are serving our service area already and doing an excellent job of that so I felt like I wanted to make that statement relative to the local service area »: Paul, did you have more comets? »: Only if you have more questions »: I think we were talking about a motion? »: Questions? David? »: I had my questions, but I actually wanted to address a couple of the public comments »: Wait a minute. We are talking about whether anybody has questions about Paul’s Let’s finish that first »: The suggestion has been made, especially about 3150, that it night — essentially, not be seen as a board policy, but instead be seen as part of the overall strategic plan generated at years end. How would you respond to that suggestion? »: I am personally fine with it, a strategic plan, and educational master plan. It is common to have targets in educational master plans or strategic master plans or strategic enrollment master plans. That is a common place where you find these kind of things, especially ones that are broken out in more detail »: Thanks »: You are welcome »: If I might it seems that through the entire discussion, if I can jump in at the macro level, that the two categories of questions, one has to do with process. Did we establish a process and have we followed it? And the other has to do with the substance of the Board policies being considered. The process part — I am a little confused and I’m hoping somebody will clarify it for me. Board policy means that the Board makes a decision about policy It receives recommendation from all sorts of participatory groups, but ultimately, the decision is made here. You know I don’t think that there is any question about that, at least if there is, I have not heard it today. So I think unless somebody jumps up and says you are just dead wrong, we can take that as a given Was there sufficient time allotted to provide the kind of input, the suggestion was made and especially with respect to board policy 1300 — it was not submitted in time, the Academic Senate did not have time to review it, did we error on that score? »: No. I don’t think so. I think it was on the Academic Senate agenda, as I said, on July 12. I am a little puzzled by the idea of having an agenda that you do not finish. We don’t do that here. We have to finish the agenda. We don’t go home »: Is that a threat? »: No. I am just saying I am not letting you go home until we are done with everything on here. But even ignoring that it was discussed at some length I believe according to the minutes for — what is it — August 30 and the Academic Senate discussed with them and the comments were, as I read them according to the minutes again fairly mixed You know there was an issue about whether to strike out the language about the history of the college involvement and someone said that they don’t think that is the weight we normally do that. Well, we had that discussion ourselves about context and some of our best policies have good contacts, academic freedom ethics, the meaning of getting a degree at this institution. So we had that discussion in response to that the first time we considered — I think that was August 24 — our first reading of that But someone commented in Academic Senate, what would be

the harm in keeping the language? It is for the local community. Someone else said the second strike out paragraph below the admission is a description of what is happening here now, the promise of underserved students, keep it and give local students priority access. So that is saying don’t strike it out. So somebody is saying policy as a result of deep history in the community and this could be an opportunity for faculty to showcase to the Board and community the wonderful things we do, and frankly, that is what I see. I see an opportunity here »: I have a point of information. Sorry about that So for BP 1300, there were significant changes — to answer your question — there were significant changes that were made that have not been to Academic Senate. So in front of you have BP 1300 that says a local access and success focus Just looking at them without really looking deeply, this one that we potentially will approve a says local service area emphasis. This has not been presented to academic scented as far as I am — Academic Senate — as far as I am sure — »: David, can we stick to the one we are on? »: The question is has they’ve been to Academic Senate? »: And I’m answering that question »: Point of information, which is there are radical changes »: I hear that you are saying that, but I will get to that. Okay? So I was recounting win Academic Senate had it on the agenda and discussed it and that was August 30. And then again, September 13 and September 27. They were on — 3150 was on the agenda again 1300 and 3150 on September 13 So you are talking about four Academic Senate agendas with these policies on them. It is hard for me to think that is not time to discuss it for that particular group BPAP commented on May 19, both 1300 and 3150 and then again, they want to better explain their comments after our discussion when we had our first reading. And so they ask for an initial extension and then a second extension and gave us additional comments on September 29. Now I am thinking it will be useful to us to go through those comments. Because BPAP is the entity that comments to us and so we can understand what those comments are. The rest of our participatory governance of into BPAP, which has representatives for Academic Senate and students and so forth. So that is kind of the focus point here That is why we have BPAP But it is the process that we have described and the fact that there are some changes in the most recent version, in my view, does not send it back into the cycle again for more months because those changes were intended to respond to BPAP’s comments and that as well we can go through. I mean the point here is for the Board to understand that we have taken the steps and then what the comments are and talk about whether we agree or disagree with those comments. So my suggestion would be — I don’t see a procedural issue. I recognize David’s comment, but at some point when you change something in response to a comment, it doesn’t become a new something »: Right »: So I think it is worth getting into more detail on that. Marty? »: Like Peter I have procedural issues here that I would like to talk about first The substance and so on, I think people need to work it out and talk about it, but I think first of all — I don’t think everybody up here — I will only speak for myself, but I don’t think any of us — I would hope that we are not being critical of the Academic Senate or critical of BPAP to say that you should have finished this discussion. That is what it kind of sounds like we are saying. You should have finished it. You had it in the agenda. Why didn’t you finish

it? If that happens, my goodness we are going to have people coming to us to say what happened with that one? Why didn’t you finish it instead of sending it on to whatever — I am not that critical of other bodies. In fact, I think they do a great job. It adds to their burden. I know that, but I think they do a really great job. From my sitting up here I always have respected them when they bring things to us. And I want to hear what they had to say. So for us to be very critical of their agendas I don’t think is a good idea Secondly, you mentioned that we have a new flowchart »: Not yet »: Not yet? »: Anthony NCHAM Kim laid I don’t know that we have a new flowchart — Anthony and Kimberly — I don’t know that we have a new flowchart — »: We set and all of those meetings, and had a certain procedure that we had to go through to change or update board policies. You indicated a little while ago that we have a new procedure now »: That we adopted just today, a few minutes ago. And when we came to the end of that grand review of everything, the catch up review, as you may remember, Lori, Dr. Gaskin was extremely emphatic that the committees and that process was over. We were done. So that is kind of the okay, now we have got it caught up »: Okay. I understand. But I think it is important that we all know what the process is I mean we don’t know what it is »: We do. That is in the policy we just adopted, the big picture, the policy level now Will there be an AP that reflects that? That would be the next step »: It says — »: But it would not happen until we have the policies »: I feel like we are going in circles here. I am not quite understanding how this is working. But the third thing I want to ask is the first reading. When we have a first reading of something, then we have time for second reading And with the second reading and so on — I don’t remember — I don’t think the first reading can ever be at a retreat »: It wasn’t »: I know. But somebody mentioned that. I just wanted to say that can’t be. Because at a retreat you don’t have all of these things listed. I mean there is no listing with the agenda of things aligned line by line. There is no way that the first reading should be, or can be at a retreat. I feel like there are a lot of — there is a lot of angst about this process And my problem with — Willis just take 3150. You could have this discussion We could discuss this forever and ever. I know that. But with 3150, I am not sure why we are even talking about headcount versus FTES. I mean everything we discussed was FTES and this is headcount. I mean I need to know how this works out. I feel like there is enough angst about all of this that it is not right for us to just pass it necessarily today And my problem is when I look at this and I am having it at home. I want to know what was the old one? What did it look like? What was the one that looked like when it went to BPAP? I don’t get to see these things. We really don’t »: The last time folks got confused because we had different versions of it. So we were trying to make it simpler, the older versions are on here, but if you would prefer having all of the verge, that is certainly something we can do in the future, absolutely »: There has to be a final version, which is — »: The one we are looking at — »: But I do need to know how this was changed »: Well, that is what I was suggesting we talk about. But I don’t think we are quite done with the process. I think you were concerned about that »: Right »: So the first reading for 1300 and 3150 was August 24 That was our first reading. It was a regular meeting. It was noticed as the first reading »: So this is essentially the second reading? »: This is the second reading, that is correct So you have the comments from BPAP

on 3150. Does everyone have that piece of paper? It has three boxes on it »: Except the one online is 1500 and this one is 1300. The one online says 1500 »: Okay »: Mind says 3150 »: What does the other one say? »: The one online says 1500 »: I don’t know »: I am not online »: On Board Doc? (Laughter) »: I just shut down the wonderful device »: Online it says optimal site 1500 »: Not on mind »: 15,000? »: Sorry. 15,000 (Laughter) was thinking about the international student, 1500 »: Okay. We are back. So 15,000. Does everyone have this piece of paper which has the yellow highlighting and the three boxes? Okay. So the first box says BPAP feedback Would it be misleading to the public to include this that was based on the 2013 data? And this is referenced to the FICMAT report. So in response to that comment, the first paragraph was basically a little more information was added to the first paragraph and more explanatory information Because clearly, we are not talking about a snapshot on 2013 data. We are talking about all of the budget information that we have been looking at for quite some time including the projections and the fact that if we don’t act, our reserves are basically gone in about three years, a little bit left, but we don’t have Campus Center reserves and we are eating through and well below our board policy reserves. So this is a serious ongoing structural deficit that we are addressing in this policy. So what we did was we tried to explain in greater detail that the Board of Trustees with concurrence of the Superintendent/President asked FICMAT to conduct a fiscal management analysis of the districts budget and reserve. FICMAT issued the report validating the ongoing budget deficit and summarizing the important steps needed to achieve and maintain future financial stability. The FICMAT Chief management analyst, and then we go into, quote, — that is the same quote — so in response to the BPAP comments, we expanded the expiration of what happened It was in there as context and I think it is important context because FICMAT recommended this as critical , critical for enrollment efficiency, critical to improve broad high policy on enrollment strategy. Now they said determining strategic mix of credit, career development, and CDCP and regular noncredit We did not go there for the reasons that Anthony talked about earlier. We said how you get to that 15,000 FTS — FTES is something that we look to Paul, and Anthony to sort out. We are looking at the big picture numbers and FICMAT is saying that you need to tell, folks, what to do at the policy level. So the endpoint — and there was a version here that said 13,000 main campus students Thinking at that point, was well, that would be easier for the public to understand Comments came back and said no, we have a budget to FTES Everything we do relates to FTES. And we really want it to be in FTES. So this version says FTES. There has been three versions. 15,000 FTES started, went to 13,000 full and

part-time students, went back to FTES, 15,000. And that is what Paul was describing. Went through CPC. It was incorporated in Lyndsay’s budget assumptions, all of that was aiming for a 2020 balance budget at these levels., actually the projections are lower because our enrollment is still dropping. But we are hopeful — we will come out of that And FICMAT also said efficiency , enrollment efficiency and productivity must be a part of this. Such a policy is critical in helping the college determine is optional size to develop a multiyear financial plan. These are the experts These are the things we need to do to avoid having FICMAT come in and the other incarnation and do it four months — for us — and they won’t make it pleasant. They will take about three or four days They will say here are the numbers you are laying off. Go to it. We don’t want to go there. So this is the second piece of it, optimal enrollment management efficiency. Again, I think — and Anthony you can comment on this. We are looking for an end. We are looking for that goal point in the Carter model. And how you get there is very complex. There is a whole range of factors here that I am sure Paul can tell us for an hour or more about. It is not any one thing. Operational — we are setting the goal, the target, you are figuring out how to do that. I am sure you will need all kinds of help of all parts of the college It is one thing I would like to point out hear relative to the efficiency target Before we go back to the BPAP comments — I was asking myself late in 2016 why can’t we afford to pay our faculty at least median salary how come other districts can pay their faculty and staff more than we can afford? And then it occurred to me it must be an efficiency issue. So I started Googling efficiency And I came upon a report and I came upon a report, March 24th 2011, and it was by the College brain trust, which some of you may know. It is a well-regarded consultant, President of San Mateo, retired, College of San Mateo or the project leader , Vice President of student services, College of San Mateo faculty member, foothill College, all of these people who are retired, executive Vice President Santa Monica College and Rocky Young who was the Chancellor of Los Angeles committee college district who we had considered ourselves hiring at one point They were analyzing these two colleges and what leapt out at me when I read about this was the statement — a reasonable — let’s see — Mission College must also focus intently on improving its core scheduling and enrollment management processes The procedures and practices in place have made it extreme or difficult to achieve and sustain efficiency. The team recommends the process be examined and streamlined. In addition, a reasonable WSCH FTF would be 595. We are not talking about a number like that. Paul’s numbers are lower than that. I think they are 525 to 540 range. They said in Spring 2008, WSCH FTEF for mission college was 441.8. That is where I am told we are. Between fall ’05 and Spring ’08 it ranged from almost a 525. A single College, committee college

district, operating at this efficiency level over an extended period of time simply could not survive. That is the sentence that really caught my attention. Could not survive And that for me said that we should look at this. We need to look at this. And thank goodness we had Paul who understood how to look at this So returning to BPAP’s comments , blocks on the left talked about 13,000 unduplicated headcount and the desire to go back to FTES. That was done So I think that box was a accounted for, made that change On the right-hand side, there is a box that says this number represents significant improvement of recurrent efficiency as of the impact on instruction, working addition, students have been considered, increasing class sizes, the most direct method to achieve efficiency, but has a negative correlation for student success CTE programs has lower class size than other programs and in order to preserve the range of CT offerings leading to account for smaller class size, we recommend ending the sentence at 525 Like I kind of go back to the west Mission Valley who seems to be telling me this number would not work. Either statewide number, statewide averages and frankly, we are looking here to our administration to figure out that complex thing. There are so many moving parts in achieving efficiency and it is not just a class size. Am sure — I mean, Paul, would you care to comment on those moving parts ? »: Thank you. When we look at it efficiency, the number, the number of the 525 number that is mentioned on the standard calendar, that directly relates to class-size. It is the average class size of 35, and it was excepted years ago It is kind of the standard based upon our funding model in order for us to be able to offer programming’s and whatever as a system. That is the number we should try to manage for. When we look at that number, you can increase efficiency for the number of ways without actually raising class-size and that is by made in a gene to make sure the classes that you have awful and that is the efforts that we have been undergoing in the spring and the last spring and this fall is to have the schedule reflecting better the demand given that we have a decline. And so our efficiency no doubt has gone up. I feel very comfortable that they have gone up quite a bit and that it’s been the primary way we have trying to do it Trying to fit the class capacity as opposed to smaller classroom and things like that, trying to adjust it without having things to affect a discussion around changing the actual size of the class except for the curriculum »: Persistence? »: Persistence works for FTES for sure. Persistence to consensus is a big thing here We may start a class with 35 students, but may only have 30 at Census or something. And senses is something, a statistic we have to be tracking to manage this as well »: And we are having that conversation right now in terms of how we can improve that? And we have time where we are talking about a target of 2020 And these are some things, these are broad conversations on how to achieve that »: Like we said it is operational We are looking for the generally accepted standard — as you said that is looked at and, apparently, it is not something that we were looking at as a college. Sometimes that helps to realize what the statewide standards are. And having this operational deficit, structural operational deficit is clearly part of why that

happens. I suppose another choice could be the faculty could say we want to increase efficiency, but I will take a lower salary instead. I mean you are trading off in effect, lower salary, less class? Less class-size or scheduling or; however, you work that out »: I have a request for information. I was wondering, Anthony, in San Diego, your community college, did you have a board policy that set an optimal size? »: Well, the whole San Diego Community College District was growing It was kind of a different scenario. We did not have FICMAT come in and we did not have a deficit, a structural deficit that we were trying to correct. So we did not need to have a target like this to manage I think that is something of what Dr. Jarrell was talking about in terms of we haven’t had really and enrollment management practice here. You know that man to a particular target. It was really about — managed to a particular target It was really about getting people enrolled and in some cases, it was about pursuing FTES growth , you know, in whatever means it would take to get to that growth. So it is just kind of a different scenario that we were up against in San Diego »: Just a follow-up — are there any community colleges in California that have a board policy for optimal size? »: Related to what I just said, I don’t believe there is probably any community college in California that has a deficit, a structural deficit like we have in this district that we have to try to unravel and try to figure out how to get out of So we are in a unique situation here so I would not imagine there probably is another community college that has this kind of a policy »: The other thing I might add to that is the state has a master plan, a 20 master plan for planning on what are the needs for colleges, what is the enrollment need and the way they look at it is they say community colleges; they specifically say in the plan, community colleges are primarily commuter colleges. The commute that they look at is 30 minutes including five minutes looking for parking which people here would probably not agree with And then they say what is the population growth in an area? And what are the needs of that community? What programs do you want to offer? What is the community support for it? How do I decide how to add a new community college? Things are very community. They are virtually all community questions. And the Board of governors have to approve if you want to do that. Well, basically you are saying here is a new population explosion here. We are going to add a new community college to address that need to. We are not stuck with a unit on the number of a community colleges. And that is how we really create the access around the state. People have those colleges within range for them to go to So questions? Comments? Jonathan? »: So we have talked a lot about having optimal size and the benefits of having an optimal efficiency. So I think there is no deep disagreement But is much as I think those things are important, and they are, I think it is important to have like the buy-in to those. I do want to have a policy that no one is happy enforcing. I want to have a policy that everyone is behind. So I personally — I mean, I am encouraged by Cornelius comments that you want to have a plenary, even just be more educated, like I understand. Like I personally — I mean, I don’t think we are losing anything by waiting a little more, but I don’t want to wait a little more and then have the situation again. Like I think it would be good to delay by a short amount of time, not two weeks, but may be a little more than that. Because I did not even here about this

educational master plan option or alternative until today. So maybe that is something that can be discussed and worked out between the purchase of Tory group and the administration While I completely support the idea of having the optimal size, I won’t us to do that. I think it is best for the college. I want us to have buy-in on doing that. So I would stand behind a measure delay, not an open ended delay, but a defined amount of time to say we will come back to reconsider this Because now we have had this deep discussion. We have heard a lot from people. So we are in it and I think we are close to finding a solution, but I think the entire college would benefit. Our college would have — our decision would have more legitimacy if we waited. But if we didn’t, the whole process, and the policy came up — like it came back just as it is now, like I would probably vote yes I agree with the concept. I agree with the details and the concept. I would like to see more buy-in, but I think this is the direction that we have understood that we need to go in »: Craig? »: You know I am glad — did I get it on — it is on — okay. Man, I don’t get paid for this. And I don’t know that you could pay me enough to do this job »: Closer »: I will not eat the microphone, I promise. But what I would really like to say about this is I really appreciated they demonstrated emotion, planning, and forethought of the comments that were presented to this board. I especially appreciate the forthrightness and a little bit of emotion presented by Dr. Monda. I have a great deal of respect for the faculty This is my fifth year or so on this board and when I first got here, I was trying to figure out what was going on. And I looked around and I have made these comments before. But I’ve got to keep reminding myself to never forget. When this college one the Aspen award, I was not here when they work was done for that to be achieved Lori Gaskin was President at the time, but she was not here when all of the work was done and there were all kinds of problems on this college, but I do remember — I do remember — and I don’t want to ever forget that it was the faculty and staff that won that award. That is what it was. That is flat truth. Now we encountered some difficulties just a few years ago We finally sort of got over the thing with we are not doing all of it anymore, at least our style of it, and then we started having some negative feedback with the community, which this board listen to and tried to participate in. And we listen to the public and we saw what was in the news. And we saw some things, maybe did not all vote exactly the same on it, but we no longer have one of the private schools here teaching English classes on campus It did not make sense to me Though students had private homestays. I don’t know why we gave up that income. Right now, I wish we had it. But we did That was listening to the public. Those people that voted for those members on the Board, that is who we have to listen to. That is who we have have to represent when we sit here, and we make these decisions. And these decisions have profound effects on faculty, staff, and even more than that, and more than that is the students. And when I hear from — when we get to hear from foreign students , that come here and here their experiences and concerns, we have Student Trustee’s that sit on the Board here. They are young people, they are learning I don’t know if anybody could quantify. I cannot do this and I have not heard any faculty do this for me. Can anybody hear actually quantify or put a number on just what the benefit is two our students because

these foreign students are on our campus or the out-of-state students? But everybody says yes, but if we can do that, that would help us better communicate with those people So we did raise the rates a little bit for the foreign students to come in and we knew when we did that and you can look at the Board minutes, the Board meetings when this happened. But when we studied that, we looked at well, it is not just putting the cap on it Just by adjusting the rate, the fees, that will affect the number of students. The problem is now we are looking at, with all of those things that happened and we tried to react to the public, and I have had faculty give me side comments pro and con to what I was thinking, maybe though students should not be here, or maybe they should not be like that, but the thing is what it is and how it affects us. But the students, that is who it affects I know I am getting long-winded — (Overlapping speakers) »: I am not quite done »: I am saying go, but we are not doing the mix. We, the Board, are not doing the mix We are leaving that to the operational side »: Right. But we are setting the policies that they are doing this under. And I don’t have a problem with what they are trying to do. Because in my summation, what I am trying to get to is we need this — we have got to get more efficient. We have to controlled the cost or the doors don’t stay open. We are fine for the next couple of years. I think about where it should be in 10 years, five years. I want the doors to be open. I want young people who are able to do what I was able to do. And they can get a college education to get started which I wouldn’t probably have done if it had not — if this is a not been here I can get as emotional as anybody else. If you have a better way to do it, we have a job to do here. We can work together to come up with a good solution. If you want to frame this a little differently. If you like that scope, of it needs to be done under an educational master plan, I am fine with that. But let’s keep this discussion, so we are working on this together. Everybody cares as much as you do, Dr. Monda, we all care. We don’t get paid for this. You might, but we don’t. So I will be quiet. And I will be done »: I appreciate everything you said. In my prior institution, I was faculty for many years. But as a manager I did not get to work much with faculty. We do have a very rich culture here, management working with faculty to arrive at solutions for this institution. And I have every intent add to adhering to that same culture. And, by the way, what I heard from some of my favorite people I get to work with is passion. And I think that is what we don’t want to ever lose in this because that is what gives us these programs and that is what gives us the accolades that we get, like the Aspen award. What we will do with this, and by we, I mean, they campus community, is we are going to continue with the work — we started this conversation before FICMAT came in. We started this conversation with the faculty at CPC in July last year. That conversation will continue I don’t pretend, nor would I ever pretended to know what the right mix of students is for this institution, nor is that a static thing. That changes depending upon conditions. And we will have the process in place that will allow us to have a strategic plan, that allows us to have it be adaptable to those kind of changing conditions. And that is the goal that we are shooting for That is the one that does not live on a shelf. It is a living document. It is a living process. And that is what we are going to be producing on the campus through the proper channels. So regardless of the outcome here, I view that as one of my primary jobs on campus is to shepherd us through, this enrollment management and the capacity and inefficiencies, and what the mix is. And I will work with anyone who can work with me on that »: By the way, we have made grand headway in some of these areas, thanks to Dr. Jarrell and the Academic Senate. And we

have done some remarkable work in this direction already. So it is not like we are starting with a clean slate from ground Zero. I mean we have already been doing this. And you know like some of the things that we have been talking about at CPC , quite honestly, originally I brought to CPC an idea of a deep hiring freeze, just as an example of how we work together And through significant deliberations and a great deal of discussion, we came up with the workforce reduction at plan or WRAP as we call it and Lyndsay has run it through her financial projections and presented that to CPC and, in fact, with great discipline and we will hold to it. We will reach break even by 20 which is why that timeframe is important to us But we do work together, and we get things done, and we can figure things out on the operational side »: But you are assuming, and we saw that in the budget projections, increases in efficiency, which you think are achievable in our long-term budget? Projections? »: I do. I don’t think it will be easy, but I believe it is possible »: Yes. So I think we are talking about the same thing there. That you know whether or not this becomes a board policy as FICMAT has said it needs to be or it becomes something anywhere else, we can’t not face up to the budget problem »: And Marsha, that reminds me. I think it process — I think it was you know he said boards are expected to take on these issues head. And you are right, Jonathan, it would be ideal to have board meetings like we always have where it is clean. Everybody is happy. A great college, and you come up to some issues like this and they are uncomfortable. Not to act. I don’t think it is an option. Use it at this table to make bold decisions. I think we have had a lot of conversations like we said. I cannot even think of like the dean of the school? Are like the work of Lyndsay? I feel like there is so much work. I mean really like the vision of this be on policy, I think the vision of this is going to be going because we see so many things that can go under way that the presentations from the fiscal end of it, that is just one whole side of it, that it’s been a long process, and now you have the school of Central learning. That is a huge other process. That was really cool for me to hear. They are conversations, and they have a heartbeat for that. So I am comfortable to approval. I trust that this is a target. It is like 20. Like if this is like a year and this is not looking good and someone tells Dr. Beebe, Dr. Beebe will say we are bringing this back and revising it. We did this with nationals students. I was like no. 1500 is higher than 8 percent. And they were like it is fine Veronica. We will check it out and revisit it. I think we do it all the time. We trust in what we need to do to move the as addition forward. I think this is fine. You guys have done so much work. I have sat and so many meetings listening about this over the last year. Back — that do not vote and act on this, than I would think my volunteer time is like really I am doing this volunteer which I will continue to do. But I honor your time You have talked a lot about this I want to move approval on this Item, on item 7.2 »: Okay. Do we have a second? Marianne seconds Well, we can continue our discussion a I don’t want to take it forever. There are limits. Let’s give other people a chance for a minute here, David. Peter? You have not commented lately »: Well, I think the thing to remember — and I think the discussion has been moving in that direction. It is that we are essentially all on the same team. It is not a matter of good and evil. What we are disagreeing about or potentially disagreeing about is how best to move forward. I would not be opposed to a specified delay in voting. If I could be assured that it is something very specific that is going to happen between now and that date

Because I believe that we are moving forward on this policy, no matter what. We are moving already. We are acting as if it is policy. And so whether we raise our hands today or in two weeks, it should not matter a great deal. But I am concerned There is the idea of the buy-in. If there are procedural discussions, things that should have happened that did not happen. But I am hearing that they did happen So I’m trying to find some other reason why there are so many deep and emotional points to be made Maybe is as simple as a fact that we are rejecting the idea that we have a very serious problem. The nine million dollar structural deficit defined as something that happens year after year until we fix it That should scare us all That really should scare us all And I have no problem admitting that at first I enjoyed rejecting that idea. It really was not real. It wasn’t going to happen in my life Yes, it is — »: Basic human nature — »: Right. So if we can get to that point, may we can find that we do have some common ground and move forward. We must move forward. We must adopt something, whether it is policy or strategic plan that says here is what we are going to do about this problem And may be step one is recognizing that we have one »: Thank you, Peter. I think that is a really important comment. Jonathan? »: Since we have recognized that we need to do this — I mean, FICMAT — this is a very explicit paragraph on FICMAT that we need to do this. We have recognized that. And to Peter’s plan, I like what you had to say — not just delay, but have a specific sequence of events that would happen if we delayed. Not just delay. Maybe that delay could be the discussion of do we implement this through a board policy or through the educational amendment and either next time we vote on this or we vote on an amendment to the master plan But either way I think we do need to decide on this like in the month of October — November, like the latest is November. But I think that could be an avenue forward Like determining where this best goes, but not whether we do it or not. I think we need to do it by determining how if it — how it is best done »: Marianne? You have not had eight turn — a turn — »: I have been sitting here this evening just thrilled that we were discussing this Because if you remember in my last year’s’s, I could not get that far. And there were times when I knew that we were spending money that we should not be spending because I could not get that far. We have come a long way. And some of that comes with having worked together with our administration now for a while And some of it just comes from looking at the numbers, and they become more and more evident. I will be very disappointed if all we did was say there is a bad problem and I want us to discuss it next time and make a decision. I would be disappointed with that because this should not be a surprise to us. It has been presented many times in many different ways. And I am concerned that every time we put it off, we spent more money And it is money that we should not be spending without Ian aware of what impact it will have on the agenda So I would prefer us to decide it tonight. Now I am not making a motion yet because I do not think that is where most of you are. But if we could decide it tonight, it would be better. If we cannot decide it tonight, we decided it into weeks or else. In that is really the truth and terms of

the way budgets work. You can put it off, but what you do when you put it off, is you spend »: Craig? And you will be next »: It was brought up. I forget who said it here and I kind of agree with it. I don’t like this idea of putting it off because it cannot be put off A sooner or later something has to happen. But there are different ways to implement what we want to do, whether you do it one way or another way. I don’t care. And if we make it a policy and someone wants us to do it and has a good reason and a good plan for us to do it, to implement it in a slightly different way, we can take that under advisement into do something about it. And this board has been open and willing to do that and make changes But to sit here and put it off for 30 more days, it is like I know I have to pay that bill, but darn it, it is inconvenient right now. Sometimes you have to just go know we cannot afford to go out to dinner, honey, for the next two weeks in a row because we have to pay these bills first. We have got to make a policy. This board does not have to implement the policy. We have somebody to do that. We have staff. We have faculty. We have got to make progress here, and it has got to be in writing I would call for a vote because I don’t see a point in delaying it. Maybe the vote is not going to be 100 percent, but I think we have got to do this And if it needs to be revised later and have an implementation, we don’t have an adversarial thing going on here with staff and faculty and management. You know we are all kind of shooting for the same end goal and the goal is the students and are we going to be around 10 years from now. So let’s just take a look at it in »: Peter? »: The question I would have for the faculty who spoke so eloquently is would a two delay delay matter? (Comment Off Mic) »: They ask for a board — (Comment off mic.) »: Can I make a comment, please? »: Yes, David »: Thank you, so much. I just wanted to address your point. FICMAT does not say we need a board policy. That is the first thing. The second thing — and this goes to the point of Kimberly — the students here, at least the students that I have spoken to do not feel welcome. I personally do not feel welcome I was in out-of-state myself The faculty, as far as I have heard included. So with that, I would respectfully ask that we delay the vote for two more weeks »: I think two that comment of FICMAT not asking — we cannot do anything without that policy. So anything you get, the only action you can have is a policy. We are a policy making body. You will get reports, and you will get information, and you cannot do anything. We cannot tell you your pedagogy to serve first students. I can have the conversation was the Fullerton where I graduated, but I cannot come into your classroom and tell you how to close achievement gap in Santa Barbara. All I can do is set policy. When I get a FICMAT report, that is the only voice »: Let me just read from FICMAT’s statement. It says enrollment efficiency and productivity must be a part of this and they were referring to the broad high-level policy on enrollment strategy. Policy is the word. Is such a policy is critical in helping the college determine its optimal size and composition. As I said, we are electing to be a policy, to enact a policy at the highest level, not them mix. And I think their statement is very clear that it needs to be a policy. The educational master plan took us a long time and I assumed that the amendments will come through, perhaps a little more efficiency or efficiently, or quickly, or

whatever happening come together on the main plan. But the main plan — and my reading of it, it does not talk about anything like this at all. It talks about internal student and technology and facility kinds of issues. But there is nothing about efficiency. I think it would be a new concept for that plan to start talking about some of these other issues. And I think it is a great idea, but in the meantime FICMAT is doing — saying do a policy board. And at said that back in February, or Winn did we say the issue was to report? November, November 3, 2016 they said we needed to do a policy. So we are not rushing here (Comment Off Mic) »: Maybe this would help If I understood Paul comment a moment ago — »: Let’s slow down here because I think it is very difficult to just add in comments from the audience. I appreciate it. You have valuable things to tell us, but let’s go back to Peter’s comment for now »: When I asked earlier Paul if you would have any objection to incorporating this into the strategic plan, you said that it really didn’t make a great deal of difference one way or the other »: That was our goal all along »: So whatever we do tonight will be up for consideration and integration into the strategic plan »: And I would hope the perception of the Board is that we are not already doing something. We are doing things I mean we are working really hard to address these issues and hopefully, we are doing them in a way that is inclusive of the campus community and trying to address some of these issues. You know so from my perspective, whether you approve the BP currently as written, you change it, you do it now or into weeks, I am still having the same conversations tomorrow with the faculty and the classified and everybody as I would have had any. Because I mean, I feel we have an imperative and I think other people agree. We are not ignoring the fact that there is a problem. People do accept there is a problem and I think we are trying to embrace that as a group and take that on »: And should that group make a decision that takes exception to what some of what is in here, tweaks it one way or the other, then the strategic plan will incorporate that information, those ideas, and supersede anything we put into a policy statement »: I am not sure about that, but it would come to the Board to have to approve whatever »: And to the extent that it disagrees with your policy, if you approve one or the other, you might be changing a policy »: And that is fine Exactly »: I have a question on efficiency I am looking at our enrollment update right now, and it says in 2017 you have a 1100 international students. And from what I heard we have a BP that caps at 1500. If we talk about efficiency, we need more students here. One of the reasons — the primary reason that I’ve heard of why we are in a deficit is because enrollment is down. Enrollment is down And is down. If enrollment is down, I think we need to be more welcoming of students and not give off the impression that we don’t want a certain type of student here, International, out-of-state. If the issue is enrollment is down, we need to bring enrollment up. I don’t think having a policy that says optimal size, and some students have interpreted that as a cap I don’t think that is welcoming and I don’t think that will accomplish the goal »: David, I have heard from people at the state that says this is not the case. That is simply not going to happen There is nothing in this policy

or strategic plan that would — in your words make students feel uncomfortable. I would oppose anything that accomplishes that goal. I believe that international, out-of-state students are extraordinarily valuable to the students who are being supported by this policy Because if we don’t have that mix of students, we don’t have no business claiming that we accept the responsibility for creating globally aware students. We just don’t. So I am not worried about that. And I would hope that no student feels unwelcome here and I was certainly commit myself to working in whatever direction is necessary to make sure that didn’t happen »: Here here »: Okay »: May I ask a last question »: Of course »: So is the problem the 15,000, the number, or the policy of having end policy? Let’s say we don’t do the policy and then with the faculty than say great we are at 15,000 with the educational master plan? That seems like the number that has been determined. It is the average. That is what the data has told us is the number. So what is really going to change between having in the educational master plan compared to this? Like I said I am open to going in that direction, but what is the tangible difference? Like what is the problem? »: I think the difference is time in part — (Overlapping speakers) it for a long time »: I understand that difference, but, let’s say, the difference in 2019. Like this is past. The decision has been made. It is June 2019; whether or not this 15,000 number is in the plan or in the Board policy, like what is the actual difference, the day-to-day basis? Is there an actual difference? »: Jonathan, the difference is we are a policy making board The rest of it is administration. And the rest of the members — what we do here on the Board is we are the ones that right, that vote on the policies, ask for the policies The policies are a profound written statement that give directions to the institution And if we fail to do that, then we are failing to do our jobs Now we went to the process to develop these policies, and not all of us every time agree 100 percent with any of the policies necessarily. Sometimes, and frequently we have all voted unanimously, but that does not mean we all feel identically enthusiastically about it. But we need to do our jobs. And by failing to do our jobs, whether it is now or in two weeks, certainly waiting months more and repeating this process when we need to take action, I don’t want to be an ogre. I don’t want to be the authoritarian and I certainly don’t want to carry around the impression that I am carrying around a hatchet and chopping this. But what we need to do is grow the institution and get everybody working on the same page and to do that we have to have some policies There has to be some directions And we have a people who are highly educated, highly responsible and experience on all signs of the issue And we have the track record of being able to work together So let’s get on with the show and let’s have some confidence in each other. Because nobody is looking to do anybody any harm or kill anything around here. All we wanted to do was get better. But to do that, our responsibility and what we can do as this board is vote for a policy. That is what the Board does. And if you don’t like it, it is okay not to like it and it is okay to say we don’t like this about it. And can you try to look at it doing it a different way? Yes, we will listen and we will even do it a different way if someone asks us, but we cannot not do anything. If we do nothing, if we put this off, we are doing nothing when we could be doing something. And people vote for us. They expect us to do something. We need to do this Can we change it? Can we fix it? Can we amend things? Sure But we have to initiate and do something »: That is a good point, Craig. I mean all of these board policies are subject to Amendment. We just did the process for doing that. The other thing I would just mention is baked into this discussion of that number, or baked into that number and the many discussions that have been had There are a lot of factors like the size of the campus, the facilities we have, the

resources we have two teach students, the community, the transportation, the general need to live comfortably and sustainably within our community. And I don’t know May there will be another need for another college or another Center at some point down the road, but here, on this hill, we have a constrained amount of space, and it made sense I think after all of those discussions to recognize that and not be splitting our seams, which is really what was happening in 2009. I mean it was painful, as I recall. I saw students trying to crash classes, filling the hallways, and we just could not do it. And we needed to know that. And we need, to be honest about it So I think it is time to vote on this one. We have a motion and — (Comment off mic.) »: I am a little torn obviously. But if you can keep it briefly. That is helpful »: I hear you quoting from the Academic Senate minutes, but I want to make very clear that these minutes are a little bit — they are not — I see the way they are written. They are not reflecting what was discussed. On that meeting on August 30, the only policy we discussed was PP 1300. So the — BP 1300. So the only time faculty had any input on BP 3150 was the last five minutes of the September 27 meeting. And I understand. That might have been our fault, our Academic Senate President honors at the of our faculty members as if the meeting is scheduled until 5:00 , then we have to break at 5:00 The only thing I’m asking today and what I am asking for is a little bit more time to give faculty the opportunity to have educated input on that The PNR committee has invited Dr. Jarrell to talk about the PNR committee because not every committee member actually understands really well what the wish to FTES actually means. And I don’t think this actually reflects the majority of faculty. That this is a measure, which takes time to understand. And you know me. I am for efficiency and I am for a balanced budget. This is why I am here. This is what the Faculty Association does. I support you in this. I am only asking for giving the chance, giving the faculty a chance to have some input and some discussion on that within the next few days, weeks, and possibly vote on this in one or two meetings later, thank you »: Okay We keep prolonging ourselves by doing this. So I think we should get to an end. One more »: Just really quick. If we do vote right now. I will vote yes bit can we vote do like an up or down straw poll, »: No »: Can I make a motion to delay this motion until the next meeting? I can do that? I just want to see the temperature is. After hearing Cornelia »: I think we have to take the vote. We have a motion »: My motion is to amend the current motion to delay until two weeks from now »: I would like to see how it goes »: Weight. Veronica has to accept it »: Someone else seconds it »: Aye second Jonathan’s motion »: Like I said I am voting yes »: We have to try to accept an amendment to her motion »: What do you want to do? »: A motion to tabling her motion until next meeting »: You want to see — »: Just like Craig voted a motion to table my motion — (Overlapping speakers) »: I am motioning to table Veronica’s for the next meeting »: You want to see who wants to table this? »: Yes. If we cannot do a straw up or down, I would like to do this motion to see — like Cornelia, I trust her. I just heard her speak. They will do their due diligence between now And if they don’t, we will vote yes. Two weeks; I am down to vote two weeks. If it makes the decision stronger, I think it is in our best interest »: So there is a motion to amend the motion on the floor, and it has been seconded. So we

now discuss the amendment? »: All right, »: And we vote yes or no Do we delay it or not »: Do we delay it or not, and you are saying two weeks? I mean, to me — I have to say this is a statewide number What are you going to say about it? »: Moshe — Marsha, I would vote yes — (Overlapping speakers) After hearing her say that, I trust them to figure it out between now and the next two weeks. If they figure it out and we get to decide it into weeks, nothing operationally really changes. Because like Paul said we are already doing this. But if it makes the vote on the stronger, I want us to have a better vote. So that is my priority. I agree with this I will vote yes on this, but if two weeks helps, then two weeks as what I am going to ask for »: Except when I ask at that same question a little while ago and the idea was not accepted »: But that was there. And that is Cornelia, and she is the president of the FA. So I am listening to the President of the FA »: May I make a comment on what Jonathan said? I think it would be very courteous to the students as well. We only had one chance to really make a comment on this. And that chance was about to minutes. So I think it would be — you know the faculty, of course,, I really appreciate all of the work you guys do, but also the students who are making this decision — I think it would be very important and courteous »: I certainly hope that we get a more streamlined system because we have a committee. A student is on the committee There is BPAP, and BPAP is supposed to give us the comments and that is what we have been working on. So you know it is sort of like everybody comes out of the wall and says well, I needed more time. I didn’t know about it I didn’t hear about it. It was a year ago, but I did not know about it. That is I know a little frustrating. And I am saying I will give them a last two weeks and then we vote. Or we vote now »: All right. We will have a vote on the motion to delay two weeks All in favor? »: We are going to have to go around the room »: Shouldn’t we have Angie go around the room? »: Trustee Croninger? »: No »: No »: Trustee Gallardo? »: No »: No »: Trustee Abboud? »: Aye »: Trustee Blum? »: Aye »: Trustee Nielsen? »: No now we go to the vote on the policy »: For my point of view I think we are skipping a buy in I know it can be discussed forever and ever and ever, but somehow we don’t have a buy-in And I don’t mean on the actual number. Because after the actual buy-in, we can figure it out. But there is a huge wall here. And I am not quite — I am trying to figure out why. I mean I think everybody on the faculty, everybody on the staff and so on, everybody believes that we are having a problem. I think we all acknowledge the problem. I think we also know that there is a deficit spending and we cannot keep going on and doing that. But that does not mean that they are buying in on the idea that this is the optimal size or the optimal efficiency and so on So I am not arguing what it actually is because we have had a lot of meetings on it. But that does not mean they have. I am not getting a sense that anybody — »: Well, — »: Has made that decision and if they want to put it into the educational master plan, I don’t see why that would not be okay. So I guess I am having a little bit of a problem myself because I really think we make the decision up here, and it should be with the buy-in by everybody »: Two things. Sometimes we don’t always agree and sometimes that makes the decision hard. And sometimes I think the other thing is that CPC approved it and voted on it, that is my recollection and that was quite a long time ago I am not talking about it as a BP. I am talking about it as

the concept of 15,000 (Comment Off Mic) why I am okay with this is that what Peter clarified. The conversations are happening And they have been happening Once this goes, in effect, get the conversations will continue to happen. Then it might get better and Dr. Jarrell come back to us. And so I think this is the start. And I think Peter clarified that which is why I am okay. He said Dr. Jarrell, we have had these conversations If you feel like it comes up different in the educational master plan or whatever other plan, where you come back to us? And he said yes. We would So I think that is the reciprocal relationship we have where I think we can trust that if I am not comfortable voting on something, but you guys say no Veronica don’t worry, okay, good. I will give you a vote of confidence. And I feel like we have done that a lot »: But what you are saying is that we can have that buy-in All of that — I don’t question that all of us had the buy-in, and Dr. Jarrell is doing a great job with it and Dr Beebe too. So it is not the buy-in up here. It is somehow the buy-in — (Overlapping speakers) »: That buy-in, like if they feel like this is not somehow the right target that they will come back to us and at that point, we can change it. But you do nothing would sort of not give that message going that this is something that we really want to get the ball rolling on »: Now the onus is just going to Dr. Beebe he now »: I would like to make a comment »: The onus is on you — »: I think is of the tension that we are hearing has to do with the idea that somehow — it is not the 15,000 FTES, and it is not the 525 so much. It is not those numbers. The tension I think that we are hearing has to do with having numbers in the Board policy like this in the first place. I mean at least I think that is my understanding And I think that is where it is different. I don’t know if we have necessarily had cardinal numbers in board policies like this in the past And I think that may be part of the tension of what we are hearing here »: But we are talking about these as so fundamental , you know a statewide generally accepted average — in concept — I mean, this end of concept. I am having trouble — as a goal — which leads all kinds of operational work to be done. It just seems to me to be very fundamental to the Board’s role to say here is your goal, figure it out »: With no numbers in the goal — and if they are the wrong numbers, you still have to have some figures to shoot for, some numbers to plan towards, something to work towards that is definite, that is concrete, incentive just an ideal. If you don’t do that, you are not aiming precisely enough. And we all know — I know because I am an old guy now that you tend to hit what you aim for. So we need to do it as accurately as we can, and it is probably going to be off, but the further off it is, the worse it is. So we have a number in there. And if somebody comes up with better numbers, that is fine »: We very likely could »: If I could just a a little bit on the process that led us to the numbers. The 15,000 is the only one — that is the ideal size of the college , optimal size of the college That is the conversation we had throughout last year. I am sorry »: It has been a long time We have been talking about the number for a long time »: Part of the conversation — we did not mention efficiency. We were not talking targets or numbers or efficiency at that point. There were subsequent conversations when we realize that we do have a declining efficiency and one of the things that we are going to have to have is a goal will be managed toward 15,000, 15,500, whatever the number might be. We want to do that in the most efficient way possible So those two values were never linked together in a conversation before until we saw them at the Board policy »: But you are having those discussions? I think you said you had them from the fall on last year »: In the fall with regard to the optimal size of the college, and then in the spring with deficiencies we started having conversations »: All right. I think we need to vote. We still have another one we need to talk about and we are going to be tired. And I am not letting you out of here »: Back to the thread? »: Back to the thread. So stretch, and we are going to vote. Angie, I think you need to call it »: Can you tell us with the motion is?

»: The motion is to approve the policy as written »: What policy? »: 3150 »: Thank you »: Trustee Nielsen? »: Aye »: Trustee Blum? »: No »: Aye »: Trustee Hasland? »: Aye »: Trustee Gallardo? »: Aye »: Trustee Kugler? »: Aye »: Trustee Croninger? »: Aye »: Student Trustee Panbehchi? »: No »: Okay. So we have a policy. Let me reiterate what Peter said, which is we are open to amendments. We have a process. People want to bring that forward; we can. And same goes for the next one which we are going to take up, which is 1300. So procedurally we have done the steps. Let me dispense with the date stuff. That may take a while, but we have done the steps. It has been out there. It has been a couple of rounds of comments from BPAP We can go through what their comments are, or you can pick up on a shorter timeframe. Your choice »: Can »: Second »: All right. We have got the comments in front of us. Anyone have any questions about the comments? »: Yes. Because this BP is so radically different from the one that we have seen; actually, the first time I saw this board policy was when the agenda came out at 3:55 on Monday. So I would like to move and make an amendment to the motion to vote in two weeks »: Okay. I am not hearing a second »: I did not understand »: I made a motion to amend to delay the vote for two weeks »: Why don’t I go through with what those changes are There was the initial concern — »: Sorry. I think I was not on the Mike — there was an initial statement about the statement of context in the beginning. So the change in the first paragraph — basically it takes context right from the catalog, the SBCC catalog. This is what we say about the college in our catalog, to our students, to our community And we thought that would be a simple vocation. It also does pretty much the same language in our self-study accreditation report. Again, the idea is noncontroversial. We already said this stuff. There was concerned and a perception, and clearly, we have been talking about this perceptual thing, and clearly, from some of our comments, there are perception concerns. And I feel bad about that because everybody has there own perception about what is going on. But clearly, in thinking about this policy and the discussions we have had and the congruence with the Board goals for supporting community focus, something we have in our board goals it just surprises me that people would feel like it is a criticism, and it surprises me that people would feel like it wasn’t an effort to say yes, we are already doing this and we want to do it more. We want to continuously improve in the words of the accreditation committee. We want to get better every day at doing this. And so in responding we said the Board supports the success of all of our students to try to get at that question of did somebody feel left out? Nobody should feel left out. We have said that multiple times, and multiple ways. But community colleges — and there is a legal opinion here attached, are very much an institution that looks

to their community. And our linens as trustees is in many ways to represent the community. So that thought process is in paragraph two and I think that is reflected in the Trustee handbook, which says among other things a question that should guide all policy decisions. How will this improve the effectiveness of the college in serving its community? That is what the League has said we should be thinking about Another question that came up here was well, what do you want us to do? And so the third paragraph talks about that, that we will out and we think that there are students out there, students who may have left but might like to come back, students who have not realized that college is an option for them, students who are local, but not in our Promise Program because it didn’t exist then. Mainly, and in many ways, economically just — disadvantage students and yes, we are doing wonderful things they are. And yes, we want to do more. I mean, that is the point here. We want to work with our community in developing workforce skills that get our students good jobs, try to raise our families who have been stuck in lower jobs, tried to raise those people up to a better job. Positive relationship with the foundation , local institutions, K12, nonprofits local four institutions, those are things we already do, and those are things we can do better, every time we think about it, we can get better. So I am having a hard time understanding why it is seen as a bad thing or a negative thing or a difficult thing because I feel like we are already doing it. We are doing a great job. And we are saying great! Let’s keep improving it! And it is bothering me in the sense that I am almost feeling like the mode of discourse that the country, the entire country is adopting is what we are hearing out of Washington people are moving into little groups and worrying about what is theirs , and not thinking about what is good for the public as a whole , you know what, does my tribe think, what controversy can I see here? And I would like to see has come together and say, of course, we support our community, of course, we support our students and saying that this is important to us is not a bad thing. There you go. Next ? »: Next what? »: Comments »: There was some concern about this distinction about committed and recommitted. And if that is a distinction that matters to people, I have no objection to changing that word in paragraph three from the Board is recommitted, to the Board is committed »: We did change it to reconfirm. So that was an effort — »: My reading — »: You are reading the one that was commented on — »: Yes and I said how about we confirm. We are trying to move away from that »: All right. I got it It seems to me — and maybe this is already taken care of — it looks like it is — I think this paragraph takes care of my concern with my potential objection, the notion of special consideration. It means different things to different people and since we are all still — still getting special consideration to the

Promise Program I think that is the advice to be deleted »: We did keep the priority registration that is specifically authorized by Title 5. And we have other priority registration. We have priority registrations already in for our athletes and this is no different in process and authority You know the different composition of the students »: I accept it accept it is a larger component than just say athletes wouldn’t you say? »: Not a lot larger. I think we have about 400 athletes and the promise is around 850 and then there is two years worth so in little bit of a bigger group, but really what it says is you are in this much larger group and you will get a first chance to register And given that our Promise Programs require students to go two years to keep that money, it seems eminently reasonable that we should share that concern »: Got it »: Marianne? »: When I was reading this, I knew that there would be questions and so I read it asking myself who does it leave out? And the answer is it doesn’t leave out anybody For example clearly this does not say we do not accept students from other countries It doesn’t say that And, in fact, if we care about our students, one could make a very good case that accepting students from other countries was part of their education It doesn’t say we don’t take people that don’t live 5 miles from here or 50. It isn’t who is left out. It is who we are responsible for and how we decide who comes. And what it says is we accept people who need what we have two offer and who will be an asset to our college family. I mean that is what it says essentially. And I don’t see how you can ask to be more specific than that So I am really happy. After I thought about it a long time, I am really happy with it. I think it is the closest that we can come at this stage to what we have been saying when we have these discussions »: Do we have a motion on the floor? »: We do I would just add to it that in our board goals and here, I think the one of the things that I care most about is the commitment to help the underserved, the folks in our community who live here, have to live here, worked, juggle family and all of those commitments. You only reach the poorest folks in your community because they are not traveling around. Like it was said in the opinion, they don’t have that time. They don’t have the money to travel around. They are here, and we would like to help them. So I feel good about that. And we are helping them I am not trying to suggest it is not happening. It is happening. But giving it that important statement, I think it matters. So shall we vote? All right. Angie? We will go to you again »: Trustee Kugler? »: Aye »: Aye »: Trustee Hasland? »: Aye »: Trustee Gallardo? »: Aye »: Trustee Blum? »: Aye »: Trustee Abboud? »: Aye »: Trustee Nielsen? »: Student Trustee Panbehchi? »: Aye »: Okay. That takes us to the end, and before we get there , I would just like to remind everybody that we have been talking about a lot of things that matter to us here at the college. We have a sister college in Santa Rosa, which I believe has been closed due to the fires in Northern California. And those fires are truly horrendous and we have had people who have died in them. We have

incredible property and business damage. We have Sonoma, Yuba, Mendocino, Napa Valley, all of them with fires and I would hope all of our governance groups can think about something we might do, end of the included to reach out to those folks who are having a really hard time And I would add to that; we have had a hurricanes. Puerto Rico is perhaps the one that may feel most left out. I don’t know But they seem to have 85 percent of the people don’t have electricity. They have all kinds of problems with medical care So again, if the college would like to reach out, I think this is a thing we can do together, and it would be good for everyone to reach out and think about what is happening for those people So we will adjourn in honor of all of those people who are having a very hard time. Thank you (Gavel)