well I’m sorry why is it that I I don’t
know what I’m improving here it’s you’re putting us in a position of approving
something we can’t see it says perfect schedule your staff have seen the fee
schedule i can tell you that other agencies provide the feet it is
scheduled for their governance body to prove and I don’t understand why we are
put in a position of not seeing this in fact I don’t believe it staffs position
to make that decision they make a recommendation to the board we approve
it within our fiduciary duties and it concerns me that you’re bringing this
forward with no background and it’s pretty much it taking your word for selecting the these
attorney visit this law firm with who I don’t really know and I have nothing
against but as a board member i’m not going to be able to prove something I
can’t see think it’s a very common sense basic thing to ask and have in the
docket and when such limited information and on top of that again I brought this
up previously this the term is backdated to $MONTH july first meaning that it’s
presumably they’ve done work and I don’t like to be put in a position of after
the fact and improving something that is already commenced so it really
undermines the board’s authority that this stuff’s already authorized this is
zia you have already given staff authority to enter into this contract
let me make sure I understand you clearly the delegated authority is not
to approve that’s why it comes to the board for
ratification superintendent president oakley correct let’s let’s get that
straight to the board it’s within our purview to approve and I’m not going to
be able to prove something that I can and I don’t have any knowledge of what
it is so so why there aren’t watching seven we answered in the fee schedule what’s the fee schedule like to see the
fee schedule them that you’re asking us to prove so the fee schedule is based
upon the type of service that we would beginning and the type of position held
within the law firm so for paralegals and legal assistance it’s a hundred and seventy dollars per
hour senior paralegals and law clerks it’s a hundred and seventy five dollars
per hour non legal consultants is two hundred dollars per hour electronic technology litigation
specialist is 240 dollars per our associates are two hundred forty dollars
per hour senior associates or 280 dollars per our
partners and senior counsel is 295 dollars per hour and senior partners is
310 dollars per hour are those all the classifications within
the fee schedule yes and we need to provide this to the
public’s the for their ability to see this this is not just for our benefit is
for the public’s benefit as well I I’m disappointed i think we’ve made great
headway in our efforts to increase transparency and this is a setback so in
the future please don’t bring anything like this before us and asked us to
approve something we haven’t seen in a prior to the agenda item i would
appreciate that i think would be helpful trustee zia if that if that is indeed a
statement of the board that at some point you clarify what is it is not
delegated authority below a hundred seventy-five thousand so so that it’s
clear amongst all five board members what they’d like to see I can make it
very clear for you you’re asking me to messaging the board
excuse me at the ball and finish and that you’re asking the board to approve
something that you have put in here under amount per fee schedule that you
have failed to include is unacceptable mr. Oakley so please don’t rationalize
it just remedy in the future and will approve it I think I would I don’t want
to speak for the entire board but I i would think that they share my being and
that we need to see what the then what we’re proving if they disagree then you
know I would certainly I won’t be able to approve anything that i have no
knowledge of and just buy a verbal and were I mean I appreciate you mentioning
the rates vice president gable but i don’t think this is this is not right
this is not okay the public have the right to know we
have the right to know what we’re proving and will be being asked to
approve oh yeah a trustee mallalieu thank you I’m I i would like to agree with that
trustee zia on that matter that i do think that the fee schedule should be
included it’s actually while I didn’t pull it
from the consent agenda items i did actually print it and i was curious
myself with the fee schedule was and I you know I almost fault myself for
playing the new card i was under the assumption that maybe the fee schedule
was something that was readily accessible by everybody else but I could
see how you know a layperson would not know what that is I appreciate also how you listed each
item per hour for the rates that these services are being billed at $TIME but i
think that it should be included also i think that president oakley mentioned
that it was a twenty-five-thousand-dollar requisition
i think that that should also be included I don’t think it’s you did something
atrocious or wrong I think maybe just to further clarify that line item then we
wouldn’t need to pull it from the consent agenda in the future wouldn’t be
something that we would even have to discuss because it would be disclosed
and so I do see trust easiest point of view on that and i personally you know
would like to see the fee schedule in the future and also to have a limit I I understand 275,000 cap on this
particular item I get that but is it one 175,000 is it three is it for you know
we don’t know so I could see what I lose 25,000 which is a lot different than
275,000 I understand but it’s not it is not decided it’s for three years you’ll
be 75,000 so it’s not about and I don’t want to be labor the point but I do i do
see that point in the future if you would include that would help me thank
you okay thank you ok call for the quick up
the striatum quickly there was a question raised about the firm and as an
attorney I have worked regularly with atkinson handles and lawyer ride and
Rome and they have an excellent reputation throughout the state of
California doing community college work and living in this world i can tell you
that the fees are more than acceptable there are lawyers are charged two and
three times those amounts so without going to the issue of of including all
that information here i just wanted to hopefully if there was any discomfort
about the firm to at least from my point of view let you know that they have a
good reputation just easier yes thank you president pastor I
certainly and again I’d like to reiterate and i said this earlier as is
nothing against the firm I’ve worked with them in a different
capacity on claims and litigations that they’ve done a fine job but this is
about the process folks this is about making sure we’re transparent and
knowing what we’re improving and just to put a statement / fee schedule and take
my word is just not acceptable and that therefore i’m not going to vote no for
this item because of that in the future if that would change and I would
encourage staff to make that change just for the sake of sun shining these type
of things and making sure that the board is fully aware of what theyre approving
and the public knows i would approve it in the future but this time around the
absence of that information i cannot remember all the fees based on verbals
and I won’t vote for it Thank You president master okay thank
you it’s like call for the question oh no the motion no no there has been no
emotions will make a promotion traditionally i would suggest you make
the motion before we start to discuss yes and I’m sorry that’s my fault ok whatever makes person to prove my
point for so second game moved by trustee kellogg second by trustee at 0
virginia baxter i jeff kellogg right Vivian mallalieu I dug auto or it’s an
easy name okay thank you all right now we go 6.1 6.1 page 1 yeah I have to turn that
many pages ok 6.1 6.1 CCA lbcc initial bargaining
proposal to the district full contract renewal is an action item itself yeah I would move that the board of
trustees accept the CCA l bcc bargaining proposal for reopen negotiations for the
2016-17 year as submitted ok and second second madam chair yes I’m wait let we gotta
passes and then we have discussion just a quick point of information shouldn’t we include the new title at
CCA has gone before we approve it because they did change the name as I
know they did and I thought about that and I didn’t know what the process is I
think as a point of information we should make the motion with the correct
name the Faculty Association so that the record will show ya is lbcc before after ok lbcc fa ok do you that can be an
amendment lbcc F&M Frank if a ok and as an associated a hyphen F just fa know I
know heightened lbcc and it’s it’s been officially changed i I’m sorry so what is that okay with you I’m just
the question came up and i know we’re sitting here talking but this is a
process everything else hasn’t been officially changed where there’s
paperwork that follows it ok ok it’s been moved by trustee auto
second by trustee zia is there any discussion with ok call for the question okay um excuse me virginia baxter i jeff
kellogg right Vivian mallalieu I dug auto or and sunny zi ok excellent now I
was number one different number two different one it’s the other side the
other side okay thank you alright so then this
should read district initial beginning proposal to lbcc f a dash full contract
renewal have a motion madam chairman I move that the board of trustees accepted
districts initial bargaining proposal to lbcc fa for we open to negotiations for
the 2016-17 and submitted excellent and is there a second second ok it’s been moved by trustee attosecond
by trustee kelo for a discussion hearing none call for the question virginia baxter i jeff kellogg right
Vivian a loon I Delgado right-center xia I excellent
6.3 10-year longevity increment for the management team salary ranges 17 to 22
and you’re a motion so moved come second okay it was my understanding
woman I’d offer friendly amendment to that and that is that the board of
trustees approve a five-percent 10-year longevity incredible the increment for
management team members and salary ranges 17 to 22 with a one-year sunset
provision so moved well you can you guys make it as a
motion and a second you’re able to that friendly and my
understanding is this is just to clarify it that was the intent superintendent
president oakley we’re just adding just to clarify well my understanding from
the board the intent is to do it for one year while the board reviews the
management team salary schedule 84 other potential changes right so to make her
emotions come up with that wording in the motion set while the what do we want
to sunset or while the board reviews 32 through 2017 do i need to add anything
else so ice a second is friendly amendment and then you can take it back
but I was an acre of emotion i’m i’m fine with it and just something for the
benefit of the folks who are in the audience and also the board the when you
open up the document it does say the salary range is forced 2016-2017 but I
think trustee autos amendment is prudent ok we can further o’clock clarify that
language that is in the docket so i would i would support that and the
second just easier this salary schedule is the current salary schedule without
any additions that’s just what’s kind ok IC ok well then even more reason for
trustee autos amendment ok so we’re just seeing with a sunset of
june thirtieth 2072 reckon so the friendly amendment was accepted by the
maker of the motion trust easy and the second myself is comfort with him yes development has been accepted by the
motionmaker trustee zia and seconded by trustee gallop will clean it up but you
can see it’s there but note ok ok we have discussion oh yes is your
discussion but i just wanted to mention that we’re looking at this we want to
reward our staff all staff including our management team and want to do it in a methodological way so we didn’t
want this to be an analysis paralysis and in the meantime have it impact moral
so I think it’s important for us to give this one year increase while we’re
assessing what is the most prudent amount for everyone but I want to just
put that out there in case you’re wondering about the sunshine of fact thank you thank you a call for the
question virginia baxter i jeff kellogg hi Vivian
mallalieu I dug auto or send xia i motion passes ok now we’re at number 7.1 the Academic
Senate biscayne I present one item linguistics 32 be added to plan a B and
C on our general education patterns and we need action for this yes so may I have a motion so moved ok move by trustee zia second and
seconded by trustee auto is there discussion yes madam chair yes I was just like
Karen came to just explain to us how that came about I i went through the
catalog and I thought that we already offered languages is it just a higher
level linguistics three what what is what brought that about so linked with 63 is a new course it’s a
higher level of linguistics and anytime a courses approved it also has to be
approved for one area of our general education patterns or plans this one
will articulate on all three of our general it patterns AB&C okay thank you any other questions call for the
question virginia baxter i jeff kellogg alright
living in the loop I dug auto are sending xia i motion pass
next day . one new board policy and administrative regulation 5020 sexual
misconduct they have emotion so this is the first reading so i don’t need a
motion ok questions comments or questions yeah i just wanted to see what prompted
this new policy if someone can provide an overview and give us some background
that would be great i’m assuming that would be You vice president peterson yes so in April 2015 the US Department of
Education office for civil rights issue dear colleague letter with new
guidelines reinforcing its expectations that colleges universities appropriately
respond to complaints of sexual assault on campus that presented policy outlines
the procedures for reporting investigating and resolving complaints
about sexual misconduct as they are now required by the office of civil rights
so that’s why you’re seeing this come forward at this time so this is new
content these are these are revisions ok as
outlined by the office of civil rights very good thank you anybody else ok i madam chair I I do have a question
it if you can vice-president help me understand why so
I understand title nine and I understand the requirement i get that but if
there’s a new sexual assault you know in the event of that occurring on our
campus god forbid something like that were to happen the jurisdiction would be
for long beach pd or how does that work because you know what sometimes
especially crime scenes you know they’ll get muddled when you’ve got too many
people you know too many different agencies involved at what point does
does this this incident get passed on to the next
agency and how far do we have to take it here before you know how does that work so the so we are required to silverlight
requires us to investigate and respond to all complaints of sexual assault that
occurred on campus it’s a separate process then then a
process to the police department and a victim can choose whether or not to
pursue a complaint a criminal complaint with the police department or not we are
still obligated if there’s overlap so if the victim does pursue a criminal
complaint then we have in a relationship in place with long beach police
department to collaborate to ensure that we are were not creating an undue burden
on the victim or witnesses and we are protecting the the evidence for their
processes ok thank you and I’m sorry vice
president Peterson this is this pertains to any conduct related to the student or
does it also span to personnel that it’s hard to tell from the administrative
regulation language so the if I’m timeline covers any incident that
includes a student that could be a student to a student that can be
included a student to an employee that can also include a student to a
non-college constituent so so sometimes that happens that what might happen on
campus or to a student in a campus college activity so there there are also
title seven requirements which are specifically about employees so that
that’s what we have separate policies specifically for that ok because in the
administrative regulation at least I was unable to tell in the policy itself it
was a little bit more explicit in the administrative regulation it’s silent on
the student it just it has designated person and then persons it’s just something i’m glad to clarify
that appreciate that any other questions ok this does not require action so we
will go on to 9.1 contract award i need a motion I move that the board of
trustees authorized the vice president for administrative services or her
designee to enter into an execute the contract has submitted second and it’s
been moved by president of trustee auto and seconded by trustee kellogg
discussion i have a question president destr so I’m a little bit puzzled first of all I think this is a fine
selection i’m particularly confident because of the work that I’ve seen acct
to that they will produce quality work i’m a little bit confused or perhaps i
misunderstanding says that they’re flat rate for the recruitment was thirty-two
thousand dollars and yet what the amount were being asked to approve is sixty
thousand dollars it’s almost double that and that’s for it seems like it’s to
cover it just search screening committee incidentals those type of origami why is
that number so high for twenty-eight thousand dollars in addition to a
straight and just a vice president gable would you like to answer that I
certainly can and so what this is these are decisions that the board’s
going to have to make during the search process so for instance if the board
wants to reimburse candidates for travel for an interview or if the board wants
to go and visit the finalists districts to do a site visit if we want to use
this firm for national or regional announcements so these are services that
we can choose to utilize acct for or there are things
that we can do outside of it or things that we don’t have to do it all and so
we only want to bring the contract to the board once so that’s why we put it
in at the 60,000 so if the board chooses to do some of these things and utilize
acct for those services then we’ve already covered it in the contract ok so i guess a I’m not clear on when
would we make those determinations to utilize your services beyond the base
feet that would you have to come and ask us for authorization to tap into this
additional layer or contingency fund it seems that would that is added on top of
the base rate honored you areas by way of approving this item it’s essentially implicit delegated
authority to staff to make that determination on our behalf you cannot you’re giving the authority
to for the board so you have a ad hoc committee that will be working with the
search firm to make some of those decisions and bring them back to the
board the the consultant will be working for the board you will make the choice
on how you want to search conducted yeah I guess I like to have an explanation on
the mechanics of how that would work let’s say we want the committee bring
that to the DA to the full board and say look when he does firm to go nationwide
and we need to pay them reimburse them is that the desire of a committee or the
intent of this just like a long issue in that well the eighth the answer is and my apologies i was
that I was going to give the background and treated emotion but the the
recommendation is we have here today you can give the background now right certainly will so the and this is a
recommendation to the full board to approve acct the individual we are very
specific on on awarding the contract in the
background information of the respondents that came in and and so this
is the recommendation from the ad hoc committee at this point to directly to
your question is that it is the anticipation that the ad hoc committee
will then meet with this represented from acct we’ll ask her to put down a
timeline and actions that are going to be required by us as a board because we
do have a tight we have a very tight timeline to have that given to the board
so for consideration including some of the questions you can you just raised
also including are we going to look at in this timeline because with the
superintendent president oakley vacating the chair in December are we are the
question and I’m just throwing this out but these are the questions that they
are going to help us with presenting to us and then will deliberate here and
make the recommendations including are we going to look at the potential hiring
an interim are we going to look at the possibility of hiring an acting
superintendent president do we want to do the National the regional how are we
going to do that and then the timeline the committee of the composition of the
committee i’m making a recommendation again
depending on this a consultant to give us some good ideas framework to them
forward to this this board to have consideration improving move forward so
all those questions and much more are going to be at each one of our meetings
what I would anticipate talking to President Baxter on this is to have a
teleconference with the individual and to start start having them produce some
documentation timelines and actions required by this board as we move
forward for the next 30 60 90 days and so all those questions will be answered
as far as the cost again it’s a base cost if we everyone remembers the first
cost was thrown out we had earmarked $100,000 for the entire process and now
we’re saying this one cost not to execute exceed 28,000 but there are
additions that if we want to utilize we can and so that’s gonna be the option of
this board what we think we’re going to need to do and and and deliberate it at
that time so a little bit of header ourselves here but a good question
because again it’s going to be a very aggressive timeline and a lot of
questions that we’re going to have to answer as a board and that’s one of them
so and i would just suggest that some of the first ones were going to be dealing
with is not on the composition of the makeup of the committee that goes out
there but also how we want to proceed as far as the interim the acting the
brochure needs to be developed all those items and and that’s the that’s the role
of the consultants so we try to have the base fee and by the way in this document
the three respondents need the two of them that were actually within our price
range were fairly compatible in price and the third one was was not so through
all the we make this recommendation that is the motion and move forward and each
step each meeting will have things to to really try to deliberate and make
recommendations as we move forward trustee auto yeah having participated in
a couple of these processes before including one here at long beach city
college the first principle i think is you need to keep it moving and the reason for that is that you
don’t have a chance to keep go back every time and to the board for what is
going to happen is just no timeline to get that done we’d be in the search
process for two years so i expect what will happen is that the selected
consultant will put a timeline together there will be opportunities for people
in this community I’m sure on both campuses to provide
input as to the kind of individual that you would like for our next
superintendent president