BOT meeting reconvened.

Motion to reconvene. Moved by Mazzochi and seconded by Napolitano.

Chair Hamilton calls for a motion to approve Item 13 A  June 25th regular BoT minutes

Birt abstains, all others vote yes.

Hamilton calls for motion to approve Item 13 B approval of minutes of June 25th closed session.

No discussion. Roll call. Birt abstains, all others vote yes.

Motion passes.

Item 14 — ratification of certain personnel actions to be entertained by the College.

Moved by Mazzochi. Seconded by Napolitano.

Roll call.  All vote yes. Motion passes.

Item 15. Ratification of Construction Change Orders.

Moved by Mazzochi. Seconded by Bernstein.

No discussion. Roll call. All vote yes. Motion passes.

Item 16. Ratification of Consortium Purchases, Moved by Bernstein. Seconded by Napolitano.

Trustee Mazzochi would like to hear discussion of Item 16 by management. Chair Hamilton calls for someone from management to answer questions. President Collins asks VPAA Kartje is there is anybody who can address the questions.

Collins asks what the question is.

Mazzochi: Normally if you are going to a gun range you supply your own ammunition. So I am wondering why we buy live ammunition.

Collins: We buy the ammunition for SLEA and we buy it in bulk. I am guessing this is for SLEA and for the new building.

Napolitano: Let’s table it until we don’t have to guess.

Mazzochi- moves to table it until the next regular BoT meeting.

No discussion on tabling the issue.  All trustees vote to table. Motion passes.

Item 17 — Ratification of interpreting services for the hearing impaired.

Motion to approve — Mazzochi, seconded by Bernstein.

No comment solicited from management. No discussion. Mazzochi states she appreciates the bid information presented in the packet and therefore it is clear it was an appropriate process.

Roll call: Unanimous yes. Motion passes.

Item 18 -Ratification of campus-wide exterior Security Camera Plan.

Moved by Mazzochi. Seconded by Napolitano.

Does any Trustee want to hear from management on this item?

Napolitano: Yes.

Jim Ma comes to the podium.

Napolitano” It seems that between E-lert and Guidepost– they were almost the same. They differed only in Evaluation of Project Team. It says that the quotes were comparable but we don’t see the quotes. What was the difference between the two?

Jim Ma: The whole thing was evaluated by Police, IT, six indiviudals in total. We all scored them and tally the results. In my opinion, E-lert is a bigger company than Guidpost, which only has three ??? people in the Chicago area.

Napolitano: But what was the financial difference?

Jim Ma:  We wanted the company to come in an present to us. We talked to them, they gave us a price of 32,000. That was a comparable price.

Napolitano: After they do the work and tell us how many external cameras we need, are they going to do the work?

Jim Ma: No, it will be another open, competitive process.

Napolitano: Will they also be making network recommendations.

Jim MA: Yes. The camera is now all digital, not analog, and so they will make the network recommendation as part of that.

Hamilton: Trustee discussion of this item?

Roll call: Unanimous. Yes. Motion passes.

Item 19: Trustee Discussion Chair Hamilton calls for any trustee discussion.

Mazzochi: General comments. I’m a lawyer and so sometimes I can speak for quite a bit. Regarding the new policies. I’m in favor, but I want to hear the public input on them because they are intended to provide transparency and make sure that Board policy is followed. I know that in the past Mr. Wozniak was going to try to get a day going where all of the BoT members would go work at a charitable organization. I thought it was a good idea.

Wozniak: I asked Chair Hamilton to find out what support there is. If there is another support I can go ahead and figure it out.

Hamilton: Let’s talk about it. I would be interested. I would like the experience of working in a soup kitchen.

Napolitano: I volunteer at the Northern Illinois Food Bank.

Birt: Joe I think it’s a nice idea.

Bernstein: Yes.

Student Trustee Roark: I do love service projects.

Hamilton: So JOe you have your mandate right now to organize something. Should we pick a SAturday?

Mazzochi: Joe can pick some dates and find out when it would be most useful.

Hamilton: Can you bring some dates for the next meeting.

Hamilton: Anything further?

Mazzochi: For Trustee Birt — Kim Savage said recently that she was instructed that all of her campaign materials had to be reviewed by the people at COD. Was that a policy that you instructed her to do?

Birt: I can’t speak for Kim Savage. I wouldn’t create policy on my own. You’d have to ask her.

Mazzochi: No I’m asking you if you created a policy to have these materials reviewed.

Birt: I answered your question. My answer is no. I wouldn’t tell someone that they have to do something.

Mazzochi: Did you suggest it?

Birt: No. I stayed out of the campaign process. I didn’t talk to any of you about your campaigns.Mazzochi: She also suggested that Rez Vazquez was serving as her attorney in that capacity?

Birt: You are asking the wrong person. ASk Kim Savage. If she felt someone was acting as her personal attorney, she would have to tell you. Of course not. You’re not even making sense. Talk to Kim Savage. Don’t waste our time at a Board meeting.

Mazzochi: I thought you would have knowledge if what she was saying is in fact true. You are the one who hired Res Publica.  I want people to know that there was some question about why we would have an RFQ process. And why we would have an RFQ and and RFP process. I would hope we can have broader base of experience that the college can talk to. More than one attorney, or even a panel of attorneys that we can talk to. That’s my experience in the private sector.  What we’ve had in the past led to somewhat insular perspective. I think we need to get the perspective of more than one attorney from the community, which will help us in our decision-mking process. One more thing– Trustee Birt, at the beginning of the meeting you complained about the quality of the agenda. You complained that there wasn’t enough information on the packet today. Your complaining today doesn’t match your record

You didn’t inform the public of when Dr. Brueder was getting his contract extensions. You issed faulty agendas regarding the Breuder severance package, at least twice. You’ve had a faculty Vote of no confidence which never actually made it to the agenda. You are  coming in to snipe but your record on this isn’t good.  You talked about extravagant legal bills — to the extent that the current BoT is experiencing legal costs, it is because of what happened under your watch.  It is not extravagetnt to have our attorney review our agenda in a timely manner and making sure we are in complaicne. Your failures are what is costing the public tens of thousands of dollars.

Birt: Well you’ve just spent ten minutes on your political speech. Regarding transparency I have comments as well.

Birt: Previously I raised questions about the hiring of an employee here. And today I talked to PResident Collins. I want to renew  my question about the hiring of your assistnat Chris Robling. How much is he being paid? He sat in our closed session today.  It is odd for a Board to have an employee sit in a closed session when we know nothing about his employment.  We need to know who we are dealing with. What’s his role? Why is he sitting in on closed sessions?

Mazzochi: You are abusing the closed session process. You are completely misrepresenting the closed session process.

Hamilton: We’ve told you what his title is and what his job definition is. He is with the Human Resources department.

Birt: Maybe Linda can read to us his job description.

Trustee Roark: How can we get a list of Board meetings sooner than we’re getting them?

Hamilton: They are scheduled in advance. But we are in a period where we are having special meetings and they come up suddenly.

New Amended Board Policies

10-45 Interfund Transfers–prevents unauthorized transfers such as those used to make the postcard campaign of MArch 2015.

10-65 Venfor Payments — improved COD transparency. requires the College to provide the Board a listing of all payments the College receives. Accessible to the public. This effectively ends the imprest account problem.  We will not see expenses like those we saw made to the Max McGraw Foundation. We are committed to opening the college to all.

5-220  Audit Committee. This is what I proposed to Jeanne Ives in Springfield. We are ahead of the General Assembly by putting this on the books. With this Audit Committee there would be no disasters such as the WDCB scandal. Members of this college and community can let the committee know what this college is doing.  It is nearly impossible to now how much we have lost at the Waterleaf. It might be twice as much as the 1.5 million dollars the administration is reporting. With an audit committee this will not happen. With this committee all expenses will be transparent.

Birt: Let the public know first that this is a first reading so the public knows that.

Hamilton: For information: Item 10. A-F For information only. There is no vote associated with these items. Does any trustee wish to hear comments from the Administration on these items.

Bernstein: Questions about the amount listed for the Buffalo Theater Ensemble. How did this come to be since we no longer have the ensemble?

(laughter in the audience) Kathy —  is this something that you can address?

Catherine Brod: There is still a donor fun. This will be used for other kinds of MAC activities related to the theater department.

Bernstein: Are there other situations where the fund donation line no longer exists?

Brod: Not that I know about. This is about the donor’s intention.

Hamilton: Is the donor aware that the money is no longer going to the Buffalo group?

Brod; Yes.

MOTION TO Approve the interim Management Services

Bernstein: At the last BOT meeting we approved the Surety bond– the cost was 70 cents per 1,000 dollars of coverage. Here this says — a dollar. Where did the other 30 cents come in?

Attorney: The bond that we approved had not gone through all the levels of underwriting. This is an interim fund only as our treasurer is on leave. We got two other offers at 1.30 per thousand. Liberty at 1 dollar per thousand. Liberty had advantages. We needed to have security in place for the time when either Glaser returns or a new treasurer is installed.

Hamilton: Would the secretary call the roll?

Birt abstains. All others approve.

Closed session for approximately one hour.

Calls from the audience– for the purpose of?

Attorney: Appointment/compensation/Dismissal of employees/Negotiating matters between the public body and its employees/litigation discussion of minutes of closed session.

Vote: All trustees vote yes.

President’s Report– Joe Collins.

COD enrollment — we offer different kinds of classes.

Our overall enrollment is pretty good – we are down only 1 percent from last year. That is pretty posit considering the publicity that COD has gotten.

But college-level courses have actually increased which indicates that people still recognize COD for its academic excellence.

I would also like to note that we have public comments, including questions, at BOT meetings. We have now posted answers to questions we get form the public and they are now posted on the Board website.

Joe Moore goes to the podium to show where the answers are located — on the BoT page of the COD website. There is a section called Public Comment Responses.

Joe Moore opens up one of the documents and Joe Collins points out that the answers are given although the name of the person who asks the questions is not listed.

Trustee Birt asks if these will only be answers to questions made at BOT meetings or can other questions be posted there.

Collins: For now they are questions that have been asked at BOT meetings but we could also begin to post others.

Napolitano: The name of the person will not be there, but will the person be notified?

Collins: We could do that.

Trustee Roark: I have been using the summer to begin preparing my presentations to the August 20th meeting.

Collins: We would like to present more information on the Waterleaf. Now Ellen Roberts, Director of Business Affairs and Dean Donna Stewart will present.

Ellen Roberts: Leased space option. Bringing in a third-party entity to lease and run the restaurant. The rental would be for a restaurant option. It will not include the removable items that could be used elsewhere in the college. We did our best to estimate the expenses. But if a broker came in the numbers could change.

rental rate $20 per square feet, as per Glen Ellyn areas. We are assuming that the leaser would pay for cleaning, taxes, etc.

Gross rental would be 120,000. Offsetting of electricity and gas, snow removal, etc.

EXPENSES — utilities are hooked into the building systems so the bills would have to come to the college. There would be expenses for a security system.

Subtracting total expenses we come up with a total of about 84,000 dollars.

One thing we really feel is important. We feel there is a real risk that we cannot rent this facility. Location, venue type, anticipated additional expenditures and the recent publicity. So the income could be much greater or it could be much less. Plus there would be no income while we waited to rent the space if we had to wait.

60% of new restaurants fail within the first three years.

Plus our current Sodexo contract indicates exclusivity with the exception of the Wheat Café and the Waterleaf, so we would possibly have to renegotiate that contract with Sodexo.

We also looked at Event Rental Assumptions.  Space would be used for event rentals only when not scheduled for use by academic programs. Rental fees for the college – this is a unique space. But we looked only at square footage even though the Waterleaf has some unique features.

We lose five rental opportunities per month, so using that as our base, the total annual revenue could be as high as 34,000. We would have to balance academic needs with rental opportunities a priority. All events would require a College Event Supervisor. Sodexo would have to assess the use of the kitchen space.

Donna Stewart: Conversion to Academic Lab Wheat and waterleaf Revenue Projections. I am looking to maximize opportunities for our students and opportunities for our students to learn. Unlike Ellen I am not looking for maximizing revenue. I am an Academic Dean. Looking for student preparation rather than revenue generation.

My projects are based on a continued enrollment at about the same rate as today. Enrollment patterns seem to be staying steady. Our enrollment is a little soft in culinary because of the economic.

We want to present the best prepared students we can to the growing restaurant field in the improved economy.

Immediate student benefits: expanded academic offerings. more breadth in the program for students.

The Waterleaf can host more people, has greater capacity. The Wheat can only hold about 50 people. The Waterleaf can seat about 175 people. Our students are not prepared to host that number. We could increase the number of people we can now serve by about 10% comfortable, now.

Back and front of the house opportunities would emerge for students.

As we transition more courses into the Waterleaf facility there will be more opportunities for the students to interact with more diners. More variation in their life as opposed to the controlled environment of the Wheat Café. Moving more work into that lab facility would provide a more realistic experience of the workforce.  The kitchen facility is actually crowded at the Waterleaf. It is a real restaurant kitchen. unlike the student kitchens which are very spacious, the Waterleaf would offer a more realistic experience to the students.

I know we can strengthen our culinary program. We have a stellar program now. We can make it even better by reviewing the curriculum and strengthen the program. We can improve the profile of our program by having students more involved in student run activities.

Recently I attended an international cuisine event, all student prepared and delivered. During that event two people came up to me to express their passionate support for these type of activities. The more we can get the public to come in an interface with the students, the better our program will be.

There has been considerable confusion about who is doing what in the Waterleaf. Between myself and AD Chris Faye we know that student run dinners know that students cook on Mondays and Tuesdays. We are the only people who know who is cooking on what night.  If it is only students who cook there, there will be strong community support for our programs.

Quantitatively, what does that mean? We are not running a profit-making venue.

the big picture: we have revenue flow from 4 different sources. Wheat café lunches and dinners.

Monday and Tuesday dinners from classes.

We  sell through our retail venue, the Market, some of our student made products. In 2014 our revenue stream from all of that was 138,000.

In 2015  134,000.

Bear in mind, all of this is course related — not looking to maximize revenue, looking for student opportunities.

So we run at about 135,000 of revenue.

I am anticipating for the upcoming year — the fall semester is cast. Students have registered. Monday and Tuesday classes are set.

This coming year we are looking at approx. 145,000.

If in 2017 we work with the 10 % increase we are looking at 151,000. This is not a substantial increase in revenue but there is some increase to offset the concerns we would have about this use vs. other uses of the space.

I do not see the number of credits being offered. I do not see this changing. The ICCB is clear- we are a two year college. We have to get the students through this in two years.

We can build new courses but then we will have to revise old courses.

We are looking at a revenue increase of about 15,000 but this does not take into consideration of any revenue developed through a quick-serve facility.We would need to write that course and we haven’t yet so we cannot venture a guess.

There are a number of concepts — grab and go, or breakfast service — this would all be for the Wheat. All that would be offered through this new use of the Wheat café would be based on courses, based on curriculum. We would need to write these courses.

In talking with faculty — they are interested in some flexible spaces for advance students who want special topics sources. They would like to have a venue to execute those special topics courses.

Also venues for new faculty and faculty retirement spaces. This is the perfect size for that kind of event, that kind of celebration. SRC 2800 is cavernous and too large.

Special events for hospitality would be there — the hospitality industry is really hot right now and we could use the venue for special events.

Any questions?

Trustee Bernstein: What kind of timeframe are you looking at to come up with some very concrete, fleshed out proposals?

Stewart: As soon as possible.

Bernstein: A listing of courses perhaps, specific courses, and whether or not this would be open to the public?

Stewart: Open to the public? That would be a year and a half out. That is in the future. For the fall we could transition to a couple events.

Bernstein: Would a month be realistic to have something that is actually very specific? Is that enough time?

Stewart: The faculty is looking at doing some good, intensive research through the fall semester, develop curriculum in the spring semester.  This might take several months to get to the point of new activities. We could use it in a small way this fall for courses. We could transition to special events in the fall semester. We could transition existing courses into that space for spring semester, before we actually get new courses written.

Bernstein: So you could have specific proposals by when? You tell me? Or do you need to think about it? Or should people in the finance department work with you to develop revenue projections?

Stewart: We are an academic program. I don’t see huge changes to our costs. That would not change dramatically. The revenue flow would not change until we open it to the public.  For what the academic team is visioning for use of that space — I don’t know that our budget would change much. If we asks faculty — what do we need for capital needs? What travel money? What instructional supplies?   If we serve 10% more meals, that number would tick up a bit but not much. We would continue to ask the faculty, what capital do you need? We have state grants. Our budget for the related programs would not change dramatically.

Mazzochi: Can you walk me through the process that faculty and staff would use to go through this process?

Stewart: Several steps. Faculty would develop their curriculm ideas. Then share with their advisory comittees. All programs have those committees. Then the Divisional curriculum review would take place, then an all-campus, then down to the ICCB for approval. We have been working carefully with our faculty over the course of this summer to be ready for this process. This is for all our programs in our Division. We have a long queue of courses that need to be moved through. Moving curriculum through the process — this will take at least a semester or more.

Mazzochi: If you want something approved by ICCB for Spring term, how long would that take?

Stewart: It would have to be approved by last spring. We can do some things creatively already in the spring semester by using new concept courses as special topics courses. We can offer them three times as special topics. The faculty team is clear that they want to do some thorough research before presenting. It’s a lengthy but a good process.

Mazzochi: As a Board, there is nothing we can do as a Board to expedite that, regarding the ICCB.

Stewart: I don’t think that’s a problem because we can do some special things in the spring term. We need a realistic and a larger venue. Even without changing a course. We would see benefits in year two and year three.

Mazzochi: Have you done further investigation to see if this would really distinguish the COD program from other area community colleges? Would we attract non-district students by our special offerings?

Stewart: No, we haven’t. We would need to.

Napolitano: Does the contract with Sodexo allow students to cater the special events such as retirements that you mentioned could be held

Ellen Roberts answers the question — Student run events are excluded from the Sodexo contract. We do believe we could negotiate with Sodexo about of the catering.

Hamilton: Any more questions? I find your vision wonderful. Thank you very much for your work.

Hamilton: This is our second presentation about the Waterleaf. We are narrowing in on this. How does this Board see our voting on this in a strategic manner for our next meeting?

Mazzochi: Some of the numbers we see on the Wheat Café, with an academic focus — we see that being a net positive for the school. Unlike the Waterleaf which has lost so much. This could be a model.  Possibly with some income from leasing. IT seems that using the Waterleaf for that could be positive, and offer students some new courses and activitites. I like that we could shift some existing programs into the Waterleaf Space.

Napolitano: I am in favor of expanding the student activities into the

Birt: I will sound redundant, but I think that when those involved in it present the numbers, I think it would be an appropriate thing to do.

Bernstein: Student Trustee Roark: I had the chance to talk with Tim Meyers this week and he reinforced how wonderful this would be.

Trustee Wozniak: I would like to invite the chef to the next BOT meeting to see what her take on this is. Would she welcome the students, or support leasing out the space?

Hamilton: We should put this up for a vote next month. Hopefully we will have some great numbers to look at.

Hamilton: We will skip the citizen’s report and move on to New Amended Board Policies.

Mike McPherson

My name is Mike. I have a couple issues. There was a rumor going around that the previous president allowed department heads to inflate the budget so that the new board could slash it to make themselves look good. The second issue is Homeland Security.  There is nothing in this area to serve Homeland Security pilot training to have handguns in the cockpit.

John Kraft. I’ve got a couple items. First you probably already know that the Breuder bill passed both the House and Senate and is waiting for the governer to sign it. It will hopefully put the stop to having taxpayers bend over to elected officials. Second I kind of agree with Ms. Birt that you have to put agenda items in a way that it is clear. Personnel actions — if I am interested in those I will know to show up for the meeting. It has to be more involved than that. What is it? Will people get raises? Get fired? Get rid of the union? I wasn’t saying they should, I’m just saying people need to know. Maybe you could attach this to the Board packet.

Kirk Allen

Thank you Chairman. From the Community College act — the only way a measure should be approved is by majority of the board members approve it.  No individual member of the Board has the power to speak out unless authorized by the Board to do this.

Erin Birt approved Breuder’s membership in the Max MxGraw Foundation. There is nothing indicating that the Board approved her to do this in legal session, required by the Community College act. Board members cannot approve expendistures on their own. Last year, Ms Birt, Trustee Hamilton raised her concerns about Max McGraw.

Ms Birt, illegal expenditures have gone on under your watch. Breuder bringing in a firearm into a public place where alcohol is served. Glaser entering contracts without approval. You led the charge to cover all of this by hiring Res Publica. Your push for the most disgusting severance package in the history of the state is now your badge of honor. We will make sure that this follows you wherever you go.  Ms. Birt, please resign.

Haroon Atcha

I am a recent COD graduate. I left the last BOT meeting in a guardedly optimistic mood. You appeared to be ready to take action on the Waterleaf — turning it into a student-run restaurant.  I am optimistic again today that you will do this.

First, I hope the discussion around Waterleaf was dignified. There was calm and reasoned debate surrounded by fact . Students interests became the focus. The deliberate and methodical discussion is important. Channel your zeal into productive discussion. Disregard political expediency as a way to decide which actions to take.  True reform is a painstaking and time-consuming process. But your six year term gives you time that the average COD students do not have.  So when you decide the fate of the Waterleaf tonight or the next meeting, please take this into consideration.

Richard Skoda

Much has changed in the last year. Last year at this time we were in a much different room. Joe Wozniak, in the 8 years you were here you hardly offered the public any seat. You had six police officers here. You couldn’t do the Pledge of Allegiance. And you never had a question. What difference did it make if you had the packet two weeks or two days in advance? And Trustee Birt, you mentioned extravagant spending on legal matters. Well, before the election you charged Trustee Hamilton with violating Board policy by spending on an election and campaigning. This campaign against Hamilton has no basis.

Homeland Security — no way gets Breuder’s name on it.

Linda Burke

A personal family story about COD that shows how COD impacts on people in this community.

My youngest son needed a Physics class one summer in order to get his med school applications in on time.  COD got him into a class, the faculty were from Argonne and Fermi, and the syllabus equivalent to any four-year college. Students and faculty, I want to warn you about what has happened to COD now.

This same group that has taken over this Board took over the Board at the Hinsdale School District.  From our experience we know exactly what this majority will do. The first move the new COD Board is making is to spend down the reserve this school has. This will begin the destruction of this college. This is in the name of an extremist ideology.

COD is in trouble. Wake up and mobilize.

Jerome O’Connor — I am an adjunct instructor in Continuing Education. I wrote to Ms. Hamilton on June 24th asking to address the Board but you did not reply. I am not new to education in the public sector. Since I have such a short time to speak I will skip my credentials in order to tell you that I am very concerned about adult enrichment at COD. There have been 4 years of administrative neglect starting With Dean Joe Cassidy and AD Melissa Finella.  I presented course proposals to CE. They were not posted in the catalog, but did not get answers to e-mail. It is apparent that the dysfunction in CE is like living in a house with a leaky roof with household members who will not talk to each other until the roof falls in over the dining room table.  Some people who work for COD don’t even know that COD offers classes to older adults.  Classes that get cancelled aren’t even announced.

I am in the process of writing a complaint to the Higher Education Commission. At the other end of the evening someone will read my complaint statement.

Meeting Called to Order

Pledge of Allegiance

Secretary Napolitano takes roll.

All trustees present. Trustee McGuire is absent, all others present.

Motion to approve agenda. Motion made by Trustee Mazzochi. Seconded by Trustee Napolitano.

Comments: Chair Birt notes that the agenda is sparse and there is very little on it and that it was first available on Tuesday. It was prepared by Attorney Elliot after review. Why has college business been delegated to an expensive attorney. Attorney Elliot delivers the agenda on Tuesday after review and so certain Board members are not receiving the agenda.

Mazzochi: Are you suggesting that you did not get the agenda 48 hours before?

Birt: No, I did not say that.

Chair Hamilton: The package by policy must be presented 48 hours in advance and that has always been the case. We meet now twice a month and for those of us who can make it, it seems some meetings have less and others seem action-packed.

I did talk to someone [community college expert] about how other community colleges prepare their Board pack. She said it is not advisable to prepare a packet a week in advance. In fact I have with me a packet from the past and it is filled with place holder after place holder. So if you prepare it in advance you actually have to prepare it twice. And so it becomes burdensome to the Administration. When we prepare in advance it is not complete.

Birt: Joe Collins ,didn’t you say that Board members cannot due their due diligence if they get the packet on Tuesday before a meeting?

Joe Collins: If the Board has an issue about the packet, Maryann Millush and others at the college do our best to follow the Board’s wishes.

Discussion ensues about how to prepare Board packets in advance (Birt, Mazzochi, Hamilton)

Trustee Wozniak- I would like to have the packet more than two days in advance so I can prepare.

Hamilton: Didn’t I call you twice this week to talk about it? Didn’t you have nothing to add to it?

Mazzochi: Haven’t you received the packets on time? Weren’t they always complete? Are there any items on tonight’s agenda that you are not prepared to discuss.

Wozniak: I’m just saying I would like it more than two days in advance.

Hamilton: Any more discussion regarding this?

Hamilton: May I have a motion to approve the agenda.

Motion made by Trustee Mazzochi, seconded by Napolitano. Voice vote.  Birt votes no.

Chair Hamilton opens up public comments portion of the agenda.

Glenn Hansen, President COD Faculty Association

Good evening, I’m Glenn Hansen. President of the Faculty Senate and Faculty Association.

Fighting is easy, finding peace is hard. It’s a lot easier to accuse someone than to resolve issues. A secret to success is to put aside the labels and listen to the other person without preconceived misunderstandings. Truly listen.

What is happening here at COD, is that members of the college community are trying to repair the damage that has been done during the last decade. There are some who will say that is not so, they are welcome to that perspective, but I would note that they were probably active participants in the misguided process that focused on money and stature. I will remind you that the attitude of self-aggrandizement contributed to the Faculty saying enough is enough and clearly stating we had no confidence in the direction the College was going. That attitude is not welcome on this campus.

We are now seeing receipts released in black and white almost constantly. While arguments are made as justifications, those arguments cannot stand up to the scrutiny that is ever present. We cannot accept these expenditures on excess, nor should have anyone condoned the behavior. There now needs to be action that brings this to a conclusion. It’s time for everyone to say that’s enough.

What has been lost in the last year’s discussion is the damage that has happened to people. When people feel abused, they are not empowered to preform beyond what is required. People must be treated with respect and dignity. It’s time to act not talk.

With the departure of Bob Breuder, I have witnessed a great improvement in employee morale and heard a huge sigh of relief rise up from the campus. I have witnessed people making statements in meetings and asking questions they never would have before. But, there needs to be final steps taken to change the sigh to a cheer.

The citizens of the district voted to fix the problems. So tonight, to the henchmen and handmaidens of Bob Breuder and the status quo, I say it is time to acknowledge things have changed. It’s time to join the process by working constructively and being part of the change not an obstruction. Bob is gone, those days are gone, and he’s probably not even thinking about you. Change is coming; don’t be left behind.Thank you.

Richard Jarman, Vice President CODFA

Taxidermized cock pheasant, $185. While I admit to enjoying a well-hung pheasant, provided the shot are removed, I would not dream of presenting an invoice to the Foundation to pay for it. Yet this was apparently common practice with our soon-to-be-former president. While this item was one of the more modest purchases detailed by the Tribune in yet another, yes yet another, front page expose, it is somehow emblematic of the egregious and embarrassing excesses enjoyed by a select few. I was reminded of Babylon by the list and, like Belshazzar, the writing on the wall was not understood.

Honestly I had wanted to move on from this era but when this came out I could not let it go. I was angry. I still am. The president was not alone in these bacchanalian festivities. $722 for dinner with college trustees; a further $341 bar tab (that same evening). $292 at Carlucci’s after a board meeting with “sitting trustees” former trustees and others. And some trustees have been complaining about possible curtailing of travel expenses. In this light perhaps they should be more aware.

And of course you have to ask the question why the Foundation paid for any of this anyway? Well of course we know the real answer.

The Tribune in its follow-up editorial asked the question, how many students could have been helped with that money? Simple math: $102 K would supply 204 $500 scholarships. Over 200 students could each have taken a 3-credit class. Instead pheasants were shot and Michelin star restaurant dinners consumed. This president has demonstrated contempt for the institution, contempt for the vast majority of its staff and, above all, contempt for the student population we are here to serve.

Let’s be clear, there must be unanimous separation from the past; none of this can be justified. There is no defense on the grounds of it being “interest” or “normal college business.” There is no parsing the language here.

The seeds of this regime lay in the flawed search for the president back in 2008. It is time to begin the search for the new president. The lessons from 2008 must be heeded. The search must be thorough, be inclusive, be careful and be national. The clock is ticking.

We anticipate another exciting College of DuPage Board of Trustees meeting this week at 7pm on Thursday, July 16, in the Student Services Center. The board packet will be posted sometime Tuesday (usually we see it in the late afternoon, close to 5pm) at this link:
http://www.cod.edu/about/board_of_trustees/index.aspx

For audio/video streaming, see this link:
http://www.cod.edu/multimedia_services/botmedia.aspx

Bloggers will be on hand for the meeting, but we also encourage in-person turnout! Please attend the meeting if you can.

Kirk Allen: I am making two complaints about use of public funds for private use, as acknowledged by Breuder in COD This Week. Breuder used public funds for his Max McGraw hunting lodge. The second complaint has to do with trustees using Res Publica, as well as misuse of public property for elections. These two complaints are in your policy.

Mark Misrowski: US dept of education published new regulations directed at community college through Title IV funds for gainful employment, is COD staff prepared for the implementation of these new regulations? Is COD staff prepared to discuss this with the HLC? Is the BOT educated on? On SEC, in 2014, was the BOT informed of the new SEC initiative by staff? IF so when? In 2014, did COD staff allow the SEC deadlines to lapse?

Linda Burke: Ms Hamilton, you have spoken of collaborative effort, open process, and give and take, but your behavior is the opposite. You have repeatedly interrupted other trustees. The hypocrisy is so glaring that even the CT might take notice. Some of the antics of the present board majority might violate the OMA. Your political group has a track record in Hinsdale. One of the tactics of your group is to squander money with no concern for students and teachers. COD teachers have not done their homework on the agenda of your group. You are already talking about program cut with all the rhetoric of wants and needs.

John Kraft: I’m glad this new majority has stopped some of the bleeding, some of the drinking of the alcohol.

Chairman comments: none

Trustee discussion

McGuire: I want to compliment Bob Hazard for his ideas, and doing things about adjuncts. I’m concerned that we have not seen any information about the presidential search. I’m counting 9 months, we should have somebody in place. We have not encouraged the auditor general to come and do the audit. We have not seen an RFP for the lawyer we’re going to hire in August. I’d like to see the RFP proposal. That’s about it.

Hamilton: on the presidential search, I did talk to Narcissa Paloma and Dr Collins and I will meet with Dr Heider. And these discussions will kick off our presidential search. The RFP is currently being converted to an RFQ, one is an evaluation on qualification as opposed to other parameters.

Mazzochi: you don’t want to be too narrow. We might want someone with experience on labor and employment and we wouldn’t want to lose someone with those qualification, especially if we want firms run by women or minorities.

Napolitano: the censure of then Vice-chair Hamilton, I’d like the lawyer to tell us what authority the board had to do that.

Lawyer: I can provide information on that at our next meeting.

Mazzochi: (1) trustee Roark, I’d to start getting your input on some of these issues, as we get into Fall, even as action items; (2) RFP / RFQ, I wanted to see the original RFP that went our for the MAC, and make sure people can access them more easily; (3) the regulations, I’m on page 298, I’d be interested in looking at reports, these have to do with truth-in-marketing and COD has not had that on a systemic scale, (4) Bill Hillman, I’d like to donate 2 copies of his books to the library, and donate them in the name of Professor McGrath.

Napolitano: there is a dedicated page to the RFP but it’s only the bids.

BOT goes into closed session at 10:55pm. They will adjourn after that.

Item #17 For information

Item #18 – motion passes

Item #19 – motion passes

Item #20: the administration requested that the item be deferred, because of an issue with the RFP. The RFP is going to be re-issued.

Diana Martinez: there was a discrepancy between what went to the public and what was put online.

Collins: I emailed you the entire thing yesterday.

Mazzocchi: I’d still like more explanation.

Martinez: we based the RFP on what we had planned at that time. One of the bidders misunderstood what website updates meant. They underestimated the scope of the project on inventory management as well. I don’t think they thought through all of these things.

Hamilton: so, we have an item that we’re supposed to be considering. The administration would like to withdraw. You’re telling us there are errors. For us to decide anything, right now, we don’t have clarity of thought. We need to see next time. Go back and fix it with Carol Fox. Rather than listen to how it’s wrong, we’ll listen to why it’s right.

Mazzocchi: there were some fundamental issues with the RFP. With only 2 responses, it may be the scope of the proposal was not clear, did not explain the scope of the work. We might resolve these issues with a better RFP.

Martinez: I agree. According to purchasing, because they met the criteria, we’re stuck.

Hamilton: without any objection, I’d like to move on to the next item.

Mazzocchi: we can vote this down, and they can re-issue the RFP.

Hamilton: do we have to vote it down?

Lawyer: you need to vote to reject all bids but the administration wants the opportunity to fix it.

Napolitano: when I go to the website, the RFP is not online, a notification is online. Something this complicated would have required a pre-bid.

Martinez: we offered it.

Napolitano: you could require it in the future. 11 people requested the RFP, only 2 responded.

Mazzocchi: should we just do a motion to table.

Lawyer: there was no motion brought, it can just not be considered.

Bernstein: we’re not considering it then. Is it our intention to consider it at our next meeting?

Hamilton: when she’s ready, she’ll tell us.

Bernstein: I don’t want to send someone away without telling them why. Does Ms Martinez know what she needs to do?

Martinez: the errors were their misunderstandings of the RFP, they own it.

Item #21

Hamilton: for FY16, we have a cost of $30,000, there’s no projection. There’s no detail. So, I think we need to see more details on something like this.

Motion passes. Hamilton abstains.

Item #22

McGuire: are there funds available?

Bruce Schmiedl: at the moment, no. Until the Legislature makes the appropriations, there will be no money allocated. What I’ve heard from my contacts at ICCB, this project has been inching its way up the line. At the end of the year, they’ll report how many projects were approved and how much money was allocated.

Mazzochi how many times have we made this request?

Bruce Schmiedl: since 2006.

Mazzochi: for storm waters, etc., are there any private homes impacted. Have we done any work?

Bruce Schmiedl: our work has been to improve the nature component of the ponds.

Mazzochi: if we were to take this item off the list and we tried to submit it again, would it be treated as new request?

Bruce Schmiedl: it would.

Mazzochi: but it’s unlikely we’ll get it this year. Is there any other way than chemicals to keep the algae under control.

Bruce Schmiedl: chemicals are far less expensive than any type of oxygenation.

Motion passes.

Item #23 – Motion passes

Item #24

Bernstein: why vote if it’s required by law?

Mazzochi: my understanding is that we could do an independent investigation or we can adopt the IL dept of Labor publication.  I’d be interested to hear from someone with institutional memory whether we ever investigated it.

Bruce Schmiedl: I am not aware of anything like that. It would be pretty intensive to try to take a poll to get a fair representation. Our policy has been to accept the policy the county adopted.

Lawyer: we vote to approve the schedule. We’re required by law to pay prevailing wage.

Napolitano: so, this is another unfunded mandate. The mandate is to pay it. They can’t tell us how to vote.

Mazzochi: we are saying we understand we have to abide by the prevailing wages and we are using this schedule rather than conducting our own investigation.

Lawyer: this is not an unfunded mandate. If we did not accept this and came up with our own rates, these rates would be examined. It never occurred to me that this would be an issue.

Mazzochi: not doing this would expose to liability issues.

Motion passes, Napolitano votes no.

Item #12

Dischner: I encourage you to approve this but I got an email that they (Marsh?) did raise a concern on some of the media attention regarding the policy stuff. We’ll be able to get this through. Our firm is known to them.

Bernstein: in the text, it says that Marsh solicited bids through a consortium, 77c per 1000 on th larger bonds, outside, it would be 1 per 1000.

Dischner: that’s a typo. $1 per 1000 of coverage.

Motion passes

Item #13

Motion passes

Item #14

Motion passes

Item #15 – no action needed

Mazzocchi: can we get some information on these numbers? I want to try to understand these reports better. How does this information get reported to you?

Brod: it’s recorded in our database.

Mazzocchi: Is there a person responsible for the intake or donations?

Brod: there is a grant accounting team in the finance department. We have centralized how all the grants come to us.

Mazzocchi: how can we get information about the donations made to the school by vendors?

Brod: it does not go through us. It goes straight to the college.

Mazzocchi: explain what a pledge is.

Brod: a pledge is a commitment. A donor signs a form in our office.

Mazzocchi: is there a reason they’re combined with stocks?

Brod: it’s the format of the report. It’s the same report we provide our board.

Mazzocchi: if someone makes a pledge, they don’t have to pay.

Brod: it’s rare. as part of our budgeting process, we have a contingency for that.

Mazzocchi: how are gifts in kind valued.

Brod: they are valued by the donors up to $5,000, beyond that, there needs to be an appraisal. we are required to report pledges at full value. This particular commitment is by a former foundation board member. He has already given $50,000. We’re trying to monitor with our donors because of the publicity, that they still have confidence in us.

Mazzocchi: For gifts that size, the BOT might want to provide their own independent by us. When it comes to the grant reports, under allocated grants, we have this MR Bauer appearing again. If there is an academic study going in, why is it through finance?

Brod: this was not an academic study. It’s a pass-through grant, MR Bauer is unable to be the holder of the grant and entered an agreement with Tom. This would have benefited at least two students and the findings would have been available to the Homeland Security program. I don’t think I would have accepted it?

Mazzocchi: who has the authority over academic grants?

Brod: the president’s office.

Mazzocchi: did you help develop this one?

Brod: no. Our director of grants files the report.

Mazzocchi: could you forward that to dr Collins? How were the students selected? Only Mr Glaser know? Do we know if they get a stipend?

Brod: I don’t know.

Mazzocchi: what kind of quality control is there to ensure that grants have academic value?

Brod: I would say that this is a one-off, all of the other grants have strong control. It’s unusual for someone else to have a contractual relationship.

Mazzocchi: who decided this was permissible? Shouldn’t it have gone through you?

Brod: I would have guessed that it was Tom Glaser.

Napolitano: who approved the exception?

Mazzocchi: Would it have been Dr Breuder?

Brod: possibly.

Mazzocchi: who has control over the Philharmonic funds?

Brod: the foundation.Our grant developer will help.

Motion passes.

Item #11

Hamilton: Dr Collins, would you have trouble running the college based on this resolution?

Collins: No, no problem.

Hamilton; the draft budget does not reflect the priorities of this board: repossession of the Waterleaf, reduction in tuition and taxes. That is why we have Alix Partners. These steps are basic for a budget. The budget respects the educational mission of the college.

Mr Dischner, would there be any difficulty operating the college under this resolution?

Dischner: no problem. No concern.

Hamilton: I want to emphasize that these are scenarios. This is part of a process, something this board is not used to. I hope you enjoy seeing this process going on. Mr Dischner has worked for 8 business days. I want to open the floor to questions on this matter.

Bernstein: it came as a surprise to me as well that the CT said we are drafting a new budget.

Hamilton: this is a collaborative revision of the budget.

Bernstein: are there particular areas of the budget you’re looking at?

Dischner: I would hesitate to call it drafting a new budget. We’ve run some sensitivities.

Bernstein: was it at the departmental level? The line item level?

Dischner: both. Some areas might have been forecasted, looking at sensitivities in student enrollment and running several scenarios. It’s not re-drafting a budget.

McGuire: I’m concerned we don’t have any report. I’m just very disappointed.

Dischner: we’re looking at ways to make it more in line with what the board might find more readable.  The board would then choose to approve or not. I would think you would be curious as to what you would be approving. I can assure you the record-keeping is going on.

McGuire: I can’t do my due diligence without a report.

Dischner: that’s a valid question. I’ll talk to President Collins about this.

Mazzocchi: do the current reports give an accurate view of the investment schedules?

Dischner: I might choose to present to the BOT in a different format, but if you look at the internal number, it is backed up. I do think the information presented to the board is in a different format, so, there might be some confusion. So, we might want to make this more transparent.

Napolitano: 5/21 is when the budget was made available. There was a public budget meeting on 6/5, in accordance with the OMA. Members of that budget committee are myself, Paul Lefort, Claire Ball, and Charles Bernstein. The question was to separate the needs and the wants. we are trying to satisfy as much of the wants as we can, while reducing property tax and tuition. we’ll be sharing comments and ideas with Alix Partners.

Mazzocchi: [to Napolitano] needs v. wants. Were there any requests that had been turned down?

Napolitano: no. Both Glaser and Sapyta said that Breuder said that administrators can never be told no, as opposed to faculty.

Mazzocchi: what would be the process for faculty to get things through?

Collins: I would encourage faculty to continue to work through their associate deans. If the trustees have concerns, I would work with them. Even though Dr Breuder did not take specific action regarding FY16, but the SMT will do this. We will start looking at these new requests on Monday.

Wozniak: whose idea was it to have members of the public at a budget committee meeting?

Hamilton: this is not a productive question. What difference does it make?

Wozniak: none of us were asked.

Hamilton: thank you very much, Joe.

Mazzocchi: because we have these ongoing investigations, I want to make sure the budget includes a fund for that.

Hamilton: my understanding is that this is happening.

Mazzocchi: I’d like to see if we can also try to spend down bonds.

Hamilton: our preliminary discussions on that, because of the duration of the bonds, we need a better handle on the revenue stream. It’s a bigger question than an annual budget. It’s definitely a valid question but it’s part of the strategic plan. We’re gonna do that next. If you go back, you’ll see that there is a failure to look at projected v. actual and look at any variance, year after year. That’s why we have the big surplus. The point of a budget is to act as a tool but it has to be an accurate one. That’s why we’re changing our budget. That’s why we need variance analysis, so, we know where we’re going.

Item 11 – motion passes.