straightforward 90 is raining caught financial impact our about this one well
this is a grant that we go into the child Development Fund so a gander at the
revenues and the expenditures match so you’ll see
this grant within the Child Development Fund at questions hearing and Madam Secretary
please call the roll I’m Archuleta I Virginia Baxter I Jeff Kellogg II delano I it’s an easy
a I for 8.5 resolution carries for next
items 8.6 thank you this is another a resolution
agree with the California Department educations is first air state preschool
programs 910 a motion to approve I’m much by vice president Otto second by two busty
Baxter questions comments members of the board seems chrome same scenarios the previous
resolution hearing 9 madam secretary please call
the roll on this item for March 11 Virginia Baxter I Jeff Kellogg II don’t on Sen easy I 8.6 resolution carey is next time is 8.7
resolution thank you spas or district property with collected
I under five thousand dollars I this is this is a regular agenda and we see all
the time but cutting it in a motion to prove this
item this resolution my trusty Archuleta tag second please second by trustee
Baxter questions comments on this item was a motion second on the floor hearing
no questions or comments madame secretary
please call the roll for March 11 I Virginia Baxter Jeff come
on by don’t on Bay it’s an easy a I 8.7 resolution carriers were now 28.8
resolution as a contractual agreements amendments
to agreements under a hundred seventy-five thousand dollars an urgent motion to approve 8.8
resolution much my trusty Baxter second-place tech sec my trusty
Archuleta questions comments on this item I have a
conjuring size is just easier I’m I’m a little bit pos or 10 confuses
why this is coming before the court that language that is in here I’m and for some reason I can pull it happen
having problems am and what what are we trying to fix is why we
tried to streamline procedures what’s the issue here and I’m a little bit puzzled and
specially since this is coming for us the and before the Communications Committee is report on
how to effectively to our reports somebody in give a little bit of a description a
background on why we’re doing this this is something
that the county requires on an annual basis so you’ll see this every year that will authorize the on amount that I can sign for contracts and the next one as well on the change
orders at San it’s an authorization to allow me is the
vice president Ministry of services to enter into contracts under 275,000 and then those would come back
to the board for ratification just as you saw earlier under the
consent agenda and the same for the change order so
it’s really something on that were required to do by the the
Los Angeles County Office of Education on an annual basis just to reestablish the authority that
is provided for signing contracts and change orders there’s no change this
is is the authority that I currently have
and have had and since October 23rd 2012 win we and started the Kupka guidelines so the cupcake
guidelines are the am California public uniformed construction cost
accounting guidelines that term allows us to have a higher bid limit for our
public works projects but so is it you saying this is a
requirement they were mandated at this level or is
it just an the give us the option to have this
increase in transient the the County Office of
Education requires that the board pass a resolution establishing the dollar threshold on a authorization for signing contracts
so this amount is not required but this is the amount on that the board has previously allowed for contract to be signed in and unexciting for change orders to be
signed and then of course they always come back to the board for ratification after they’ve been signed right said
that the the issue that I take with this high dollar
threshold in I’ve and I’ve good consulted and I’ve
worked for as an employee isn’t as a business owner to public agencies for a long time and you know and 200,000 was the maximum and we which is few years ago in Turin it agency that
goes to millions if not billions of expenditures and I was an
issue and the reason why say that is that
because I feel that you know as it is net and this is began I’m not trying to criticize what we have
a well the previous board members have done please
understand that I’m challenging us to be batter and and wanna come across as
though I’m sanctioning anyone but week you i think is the highlight allowable high limit you know it it is
comparatively speaking with other districts that I’ve I’ve looked at its pretty high that
special that’s not to say that by spreading able you’re not doing a
good job in your team is not doing a good job but I think we need to scrutiny if anything we need to and increase that and as an elected body and
I i have a tough time when I see ratification for Change Order what will change orders over 100000 up
two hundred thousand dollars or 175 thousand-dollar and contracts that
is just may be few words at times jurists and
10.6% explanation and I have to kinda prices for oil was
the process followed each time and I know you maybe agonizing for some of our am folks but it’s just its I’m trying to
fill my oversight role as it is with this
threshold and I think it’s it’s too high I’m we need to a.m. really look at providing additional
scrutiny and Nantes decreasing at I’m and I and I think this is the high limit as be
have happened mile hoping to get the communications report
to bring this up at that time but since this is coming before that report
that our committee trustee audio interesting
article at her a are working on I’m I can’t support this a them I I think we need to lower the threshold
K sure act as trustee Baxter miss cable
I’m do you know what the averages in the
state for an approvals are these processes you know
I’m sure you communicate with other community colleges I do and it really does very term by district some have the same
level authority as I do others don’t most of
them that don’t haven’t adopted the cup to guidelines firm so you know it really is across the board and it’s a district by
district decision writing at this rate this resolute the resolution the
required by the Los Angeles County Office of Education
so this is why was in this resolution I’m that’s what
emotions on the floor other members questions comments cherry
as his vice president auto a.m. are you able injury to to say what the effect would be this was a
lower number would increased cost is which were peopled look at things you what is practically would decrease efficiency were activities you know I
think you would decrease efficiencies and effectiveness just by the fact that
it would slow on everything down you know I think if
you you look at the agenda tonight there
were for contracts on there that were under a hundred and seventy-five
thousand dollars that do came to you for ratification on it would really I would say slow down our bond program Alana the area’s because we would we
would need to wait for board approval before we can move
forward you know with with anything on the bond
program so it’s really you know this is the
recommendation and term I think we haven’t had any issues
in the past three years that we have been doing it we haven’t had any %ah did exceptions
where they found any on you no problems with our internal
controls were still following all the guidelines that were required to follow you know as it relates to purchasing in
getting the bids in the quotes and you know the
and everything that’s required so its it’s really up to the board in which a.m. supported at this in a perfect world I wish we could all
look at everything in real time in have the information to be able to
evaluate things but what sells this for me as an alright number now is effective I
don’t think that there’s anybody up here they can point even one
problem that we’ve had well this has been in
operation and so I think I’ll sleep better at
night knowing that that there have been no problems that
we’ve been doing this for three years to all these contracts and change orders
would come back to this board for scrutiny so I’m and don’t wanna just say will were granted do we’re gonna we’re gonna make the process more
cumbersome more difficult micromanage what’s going
on if you will if there’s no discernible benefit at
this point to gain maybe in the future something could
happen but I’m comfortable with where we are remember support to seek out I am here and have something to add to that
you know I have a slightly different perspective
and difference in opinion am I can say that it’s did I would agree that
there hasn’t been a problem in the past three is because then I’m fairly new and this board is new and and I’m uncomfortable with this
higher threshold and would recommend with the
word I’m not saying we be micromanage and you know am with that kind of argument that look
we’re not headed higher the hands up and staff more than one only just
curious an elected body well we just increased international to 500,000 what
about 1 million just to speed things up in
with that kind of rationale and I would absolutely a.m. objected that because them or they
risk this is a control the board is a control
and am auditors don’t know have they been asked
to look at this threshold and they said that’s okay I mean it was a part of
their testing and that’s really the key here if they looked at it and
say look other districts are okay with that they have the same limits
within typeof expenditures with the size of the district that you have then then I will you know II would have paws but in this circumstance I
think thing it’s way too high I don’t know
what the numbers based on is that will withstand that isn’t 875,000 where do we get I was
a different from 100000 movements that where they come from our and I know
there is planning committees I get that but i’d I mean what is that was a magical number
chair recognizes trustee Archuleta thank you yes that’s fine ask you used to this is required by the
county so what would be impact if we didn’t approved the threshold is in the car by
the way County well the impact is we wouldn’t be
able to sign any agreements or change orders until we had a resolution from
the board giving us authority to do so and then also on and maybe this thread to help to clarify
matters but we do have a process in place right human for contract yet an extensive
process yes what is that process entail well for for any item that we want to purchase it
depends upon the dollar threshold but you know for the most part we require
quotes from vendors to establish that we are paying
a fair price if it’s under term 45,000 we need to have three quotes for
services if it’s between amending 45,000 275,000 then we have to do like an informal
bidding process 275,000 requires us to go out to formal
bid so that’s where learned that dollar
amount comes from on an ounce for Public Works you know
that the formal bid limit on equipment and those types of
purchases around 85,000 I don’t remember that number so you with those that comes to the board
as well to authorize awarding the bid arm in those items so we do have a I think it’s important for community to known public to know that
there are checks and balances in place to ensure that there’s no wrongdoing gambino questionable practices you know if we have it at this particular trestle I’m hundred seventy-five thousand trail time
I don’t know that will help trustee see a no absolutely not because
I don’t think with an I don’t know what the numbers based on I’m not questioning
the checks and balances we have I’m a certain that we have great checks and
balances in place but that amount is too high I mean I’m
willing to live with a lower amount just you help with efficiency but it was
was a number based on can I get his focus back the motion on
the floor is about this resolution to the county los
angeles the questions I’m hearing about which are good questions are about total
number which is a change in our policies and procedures that’s not what we have a motion the
floor this have to happen questions about to an amount citizen
just resolution on the motion the motion is this
resolution to the County of Los Angeles that’s what
this is about view it was we have questions on those
limits things that that as a good question but it’s not what
we’re discussing right now it’s the its resolution County and not a discussion on whether the
limit is property or not I’m its that’s what we
need to send to the county at this time miss you get a callback if I me thank
you for where find out and and but I’m when I’m is essentially trying to say and perhaps
in a very long hallways at I to make a substitute motion to make a
resolution to the county with a lower threshold that’s what I’m saying and and I would
like to make it substitute mission are you saying that 8 take he I i see UI up man and by them but make make a motion that
just simply make much why I again that I had a question that
has left unanswered of what is that number based on I would like to see that and answer to
question answered before I can make a resolution make it in recommendation motion for a
lower amount a project under that number was created
based on board discussion when this resolution was first adopted in prior to this
resolution there was a different I’m authorization so the board engaged
in a lengthy discussions several years ago to discuss what is the right level there
was a recommendation made by staff the Board discussed it that’s
how the number came about that number has increase slightly over
the certainly my fourteen years here but that’s how the numbers set the numbers
set by the board and so if you choose to from you know engage in another workshop
around this issue 2 understand what the
implications are because certainly if it’s lowered significantly less 275,000 we may have
to hire additional staff to ensure that the process seen occurs
in a way that is consistent with the portage in the process so there are a number of implications so mean that certainly up to the board but
that number came because I’ve aboard discussion when it
was initially adopted right with a board discussion that we
weren’t part as this new body knots said the problem that he exists
here you’re not I don’t think we had you were being
provided information that I i don’t believe it’s adequate for
us to just go ahead and approve what has been stay past
practices have former board members just because
you know it was the past practice doesn’t make it
necessary one size doesn’t fit all because it fit that board doesn’t
necessary for fit as I’d absolutely have a hard time with this
amount have always had a hard time with this amount now lie to look at it and am if it’s it’s something we can
look at in a retreat a reporter I was waiting for the communication
break it like I said and in the absence of it you know it’s hard to say what would be a good amount I’m
not saying all it should come to us and not try to hinder our that colleges the district’s business
but we should take a look at the senate thresholds in my point was that that’s why you look
at policies procedures and that you do have a in-depth discussion on the item at the
appropriate time to make substitute motions at this time
the motion the floor the ramifications of your actions we would not really maybe understand all
them so that’s why sometimes if you wanna if we as a board
one look at weekend at the future obviously but this particular item is
again the resolution to the county its can this be a table to move tanto we
happen discussion or it is are we under a mandate to past this right at this board meeting this says the sites like I’m having a
hard time with my eye laptop so I can see anything he’s to the
S to the end of the current fiscal year which is coming up I believe in this item in order for
agreements to be signed beginning July 1 would need to be adopted today it is
here because this has been a normal practice to the board before this board before the previous
port so net doesn’t mean you can’t question with the policy is but mean if the board as a whole wanted to addresses the board
could choose a time and a place between now and the next time this resolution is adopted because it does
come every year to help to engage in a discussion to
hear what the local averages are or to ask the auditor specifically and others not going to opine on on the
threshold the authors go opine on whether or not the college has
internal controls that would allow it to ensure that all um agreements are signed in have a
process in place a because we passed with flying colors
right so my point here is that some I am the board can revisit this somewhere between now and
the next time it adopted in have a fuller discussion but a.m. if it chooses not to adopt a date
then you there will be no agreements signed up below this threshold beginning July 1 until they come to the board you
understand that you’re putting us particularly unique a very compromising
position that you know it’s kind of like we have light
with were left with no choice if we would have been educated on this before this board meeting and had that
workshop we would have been able to make we would have been able to make bad determination have that those benchmarks
and I think it’s a little bit unfair to put this before us on June 23rd for july first
sentence leaving us with no options I mean I know
my other my fellow board members don’t seem to
have a problem with it I have a problem with it from a sense of transparency and a matter have making sure that we
have and progress scrutiny I don’t think this
provides for its rigorous scrutiny with professional the thick cut currently States thank you chair
recognizes trustee are a far my trusty Baxter yeah I’m I’m
starting to get a little angry about this and the reason is I
haven’t heard a single reason why the number that that trustees CEO per why she’s
uncomfortable with this %uh that she’s just uncomfortable with this there’s no
rationale note threshold 0 independent basis for why there’s why she feels this way about
it except that she feels this way about it I and I take offense that it insinuated
that we’re bringing this at the last minute specifically is away to get around transparency I A I take great offense at
that I it seems pretty simple to me I if we want to schedule this look at it
that we can do that if trustees he wanted to do that she
could have brought it up last month or two months ago or three months ago when I was in critical condition report
but you know we could it we we could have done that but but that
wasn’t done we’re now here it’s ten minutes after
eight we have spent 40 minutes on this subject
I’m gonna call the question I’m sorry we haven’t does it does just
simply not just his email it’s not three minutes 0 purse is here I
wanna member wanna here and want somebody calls for the
question I me is in turn to the port secretary which is now probably figure out how to
do this on board docs she said sitting there but call question by a board member then requires
the chair to has propelled to whether sees with discussion so I’ll
ask the for secretary you can look at me and say
how do I do that on your docs I don’t know that answer but I do know
that was the call the question there’s a roll call vote the voters
essentially when you the board Preus the call for the question it means we will
cease discussion if the motion fails we’ll continue
discussion if the motion passes well then immediately turned to
the toad on the motion on the floor that’s essentially what it is so madam
secretary call the question eyes on the floor
please as for the vote to the board on March 11
I Virginia Baxter no Jeff Kellogg hi 10 are no in San easier no motion carries will now go to the the actual question you its question was saying about when
people say call for the question is a very unless
you want me to start maybe I will maybe along but I know
exactly what you’re saying but when you and board member makes that
percent on the floor you were asking to see this whole
discussion immediately to understand what you’re saying but thats I’m just following with
traditional our schools I thank at this hour Adam sector we’re
now on the motion which was made tell which please call on item 8.9 resolution I’m 8.8 resolution thank you did we threw something different in CT she
worked on called for the most 8.9 now the resolution the call for the question took place
that was it now we’re at the resolution trick of the question ceased all discussion now or to the motion
while 8.8 resolution that’s we’re now asking for
vote on in this on chasm more docs know that causes some probs
misuse your march 11 hi Virginia Baxter I’m not sure what I’m
voting an you’re already undergone a the
resolution for a solution contract agreements to agreements under
175 thousand dollars I’m sorry and you have a place day Jeff Kellogg II don’t on by Sen easier nay 898 a a passes for now to 8.9 sensually the same scenario for love you this is a change order authorization
under a hundred thousand dollars again this is the los angeles county
office education requires mission this approval annually prior to
the end of the current fiscal year socal entertain a motion to approve Adam
8.9 resolution most my trusty other sec please second by trustee Archuleta
questions comments board members on 8.9 I have a question and directors trustees here and
Westchester backs who wants to go bill I’m my question was on the other
motion I’ve no questions I I think I am pretty much the same questions on this
one I don’t know what this international is based on what this amount is I take offense to people who think I’m just trying to on vote against is because our feelings I
haven’t heard any objective point to what the specials based on other than its this is the way we’ve done business
before while I’m sorry status cause im just gonna cut it anymore we have a new
board and we need to understand and we need to
go through that education process before we make a excuse me I have the floor trust easier like Russian least India no the
emotional impact on our table I don’t know how you are and trying to
I’m trying to ask a question them please past question I’m trying to
get there our youth censoring me know now me I was and why you interrupted me
because every time I interrupt you guys chastise me to let me let me ask my
question these two thank you so what is this about based on well as a hundred thousand dollars based
on gentlemen thank you it is based on when the resolution was first adopted by
the Board again board policies adopted by the Board at the time the board adopts policy they
have discussions on the policy I is certainly true there’s a new board
member you inherited board policy you have the ability to change board policy you can agenda is board policy is long
as you get the concurrent so the board and we can have a discussion you and the rest to the
board members were made aware love the poor policies when you were
oriented and I understand that you’ve had
questions along the way in those urs and understandable legitimate questions
I am so with regard to the discussion about
200,000 I just want to be clear that on that discussion was had in the open session in front of the public
when this amount was adopted if you wish to regen dies that discussion and om as for
recommendations so staff I’m we can do that again I thank you other
members aboard questions on this resolution 8.9 change order authorization under
100000 no comments questions this time was this
a.m. agenda is in the book previous was three
years ago as well I’m I don’t have the exact date but it
would have been around the same time other questions I’m sector please cover all night in 8.9 for March
11 Virginia Baxter I Jeff Kellogg II delgado I Sen easier nay motion carries for 21 eight-point 10 five-year construction plan for 2017 to
2021 this is a action item so I will need that the now read this board trustees
approve the annual smashing the district’s five-year construction plan for 2017 21 and authorizes burdened president the district to sign
the former documents there are others actions and may have the district s submitted to entertain a motion to
approve prior to having discussion on this item so moved much much worse easier second
second by trustee Baxter