5/21 Regular BOT Meeting – Post 11

Hamilton: We are not going to make any decision on the Strategic Long Range plan. We have to identify and solve problems. So, we have these 2 items: SLRP and budget.

Next for new business are Board policies. They were described a month ago, and gave authority to the president. They are now returning the authority to the BOT. I will entertain a motion to approve the policies: 5-5, 5-10, 5-15, 5-20, 5-85, 5-90, 5-130, 5-165, 5-195, and separate adoption of new policy 5-171.

Moved and seconded.

Mazzochi: A citizen sent comments on the formulation of administrative policies. It’s administrative procedures to implement the specific policies. I am sympathetic to the public commenter’s concern that we had the right to student handbook, we are just talking about administrative procedure.

Hamilton: The board is charged with policy, give structure. We pass on the implementation to the president and the president creates policy with staff and faculty. In the past, that pathway to implementing board ideas, the BOT has not been able to reach out and solve problems as needed.  One of the things vice-chairman Mazzochi is touching upon is that difference. The Board has more power, and these policy changes have to be implmented in procedures.

McGuire: Proposes amendment to 2nd paragraph on board involvement in SLRP.

Hamilton: The position you are advocating should even be higher.

McGuire: In D203, SLRP staff, union leaders, administrators, and board members were at the table.

Hamilton: We should not just participate, we should direct it. You know this is how I feel. We have talked about it.

Mazzochi: Trustee McGuire makes a good point, but it should be in the procedure, not in the policy. By having more control in 5-90, we can direct that. If we mandate in the policy that trustees must be present, it might turn in every meeting leading into OMA issues.

Hamilton: Administration procedures should be the domain of the administration. We would just tell the preisdent that, for instance, we want two trustees on SLRP. What we can do is change the language.

Attorney: Trustee McGuire raises the point that SLRP is in two places. You can keep 5-5 the same, but you would add to the responsibilities of the BOT. To address the OMA issue, if there are more than 2, then, there should be notice.

Napolitano: On a village board, the whole board attended SLRP, Notice was given. Few people would attend but it was open.

Hamilton: I agree. But we have an even stronger role than that.  The IL Community College act has a more directive language.

McGuire: I want to be part of this process but VP Bente has created a great document. I’m impressed with it. Looking at the task matrix, they’re all tied back to that SLRP document. This is not a document that’s gonna sit on a shelf.

Hamilton: it drives a lot but we are the BOT and we should be driving this. We should provide oversight and direct that process. We should view ourselves as adding to what Bente has put together, what the direction of the college should be.

[Back and forth between Hamilton and McGuire along the same lines.]

Bernstein: We can do all that without changing the language.

Hamilton: Yes, we can. I’m trying to empower people. If trustees want to go, we should notice and go.  We should be empowered to do that. Language will be added to 5-15, with the caveat of “don’t be shy”.

Next policy, 5-10. This was just about erroneous language.

5-15, item 6, where language is changed and reiterated by Maz.

McGuire: I don’t see any goals for the BOT.

Hamilton: I don’t think that’s policy.

Mazzochi: The concern I would have is we, as BOT, should set goals in terms of educational goals of the college. Going into the BOT goals, that’s very limiting. I don’t think we should set goals for ourselves.

Hamilton: I think we should set goals for ourselves, but not in policy. That’s why I’m in favor of retreat to reflect on how we interact.


McGuire: Would we need to retain the title of trustee or should we identify as individual?

Hamilton: You can identify as trustee and speak for yourself, that’s freedom of speech.

McGuire: I do want to protect that freedom of speech. But there is value to speak through the chair.

Hamilton: We are a group, yes, but we are made up of different people, with different opinions, different constituents, different people voted for us.

Wozniak: I’ve been on this BOT for 8 years now, this has never been an issue. Everybody has always been known as a trustee.

5-85 – no comments


Hamilton: So this is the part where we add that the BOT approves the procedure, and can revoke them at any time, which is consistent with the IL CC Act.

Birt: I have to excuse myself as I have to leave at 11:30pm.

{Birt leaves at 11:40]

5-130 – no comment


Attorney: I have concerns about this one. If it’s maintained digitally, whoever has access to the server has access or any device. These recordings have to be pretty closely guarded. I am uncomfortable with multiple copies floating around. As BOT lawyer, I’m not crazy about that particular revision.

Napolitano: As secretary, it’s a monumental task to transfer previous recordings to digital. This can’t be delegated. It’s a monumental task and is going to require IT support. If the secretary cannot do it, it can’t be delegated.

Mazzochi: My reading is that the secretary is supposed to maintain a copy.

Napolitano: But that needs to be stored somewhere not in possession of the secretary, like a server.

Mazzochi: But these minutes need to be maintained by someone on the Board. We may have a scenario where the minutes are solely in the hands of the administration and we, the BOT, don’t have our own copy, we can’t get to recordings of our proceedings without going through the administration. And if there is a situation with a hostile administration, we need something for that.

Napolitano: Support of staff should be in there somewhere.

Mazzochi: I read this as maintenance of the BOT copy.

Attorney: Your board attorney is very uncomfortable with the repeated use of the word “copy”. the remedy is some sort of locked place / drawer / whatever, that the secretary has sole access to. that is what I had in mind on this. A tape.

Napolitano: If you have only one copy.

Attorney: That’s always a risk.

[More discussion on who has the key to the tape]

Attorney: [proposes additional language]