The Board of trustees are in closed session for now. Blogging will resume when the meeting begins.

5-195

Student trustee Roarke asks the conditions of reimbursement over $300.

McGuire: you’re not taking a position of no limitation.

Hamilton: no.

McGuire: I think entertainment has to go.

Hamilton: I don’t care.

Mazzocchi: I think the concern that entertainment was being reimbursement.

McGuire: like what.

Mazzocchi: well, dinners at Waterleaf.

McGuire: but when we go to DC, we attend awards ceremonies, that includes some entertainment.

Hamilton: we don’t reimburse for entertainment anyway.

Wozniak: whose idea was it to put entertainment in there?

Hamilton: I don’t think it matters.

Wozniak: I’ve been on the board for 8 years and that’s never been a problem.

[Several speaking at once on changing language]

McGuire: what is your intent with this?

Mazzocchi: if we know what we want to go, it should come to the BOT for approval.

McGuire: there should be accountability, we need to bring stuff back.

Hamilton: if the expenses are reasonable and warranted, then, it’s permissible.

5-171

Roarke: will the chair or vice-chair hold office hours.

Hamilton: each trustee will determine that for themselves.

Roark: the current office of the BOT but, unfortunately, it’s the PLR and I’m wondering if they have enough space.

Hamilton: they were already going to move downstairs. We got their hand-me-downs.

Collins: yes, we had already planned to put them closer to Student Life.

Attorney will read in the record the changes made.

Motion passes on all policy changes.

8.B.2

Mazzocchi: I just want to go on record is that if we vote in aggregates, I am going to vote no, but if we voted separately, I would vote in favor of Schiff Hardin.

Hamilton: we can go ahead and vote for these bills even though they are liabilities we took on without knowing.

Mazzocchi: I am not voting for Franczet Radelet because of Res Publica and I object to the way the other one was retained.

Motion to approve legal invoices passes, only Mazzocchivotes no.

8.B.3 was taken off the agenda

8.B.4

No discussion

Attorney: we have three vendors and the board needs to pick one.

Mazzocchi: I would go with Global.

Napolitano: Global was lowest overall cost. I concur on that.

Motion passes.

9. Public comments

Kirk Allen: goes over Eugene Refakes , and receipts being used for reimbursement. We should look at receipts submitted by dr Breuder. I believe the college paid taxes on those. I raised the question of guns. Mr Brady is gone but is he buying used or new guns? Does he know? Mr Elliott, you are the first attorney who understands what an abstention means. That’s all I have. Have a good night.

Hamilton: I have no announcements except the dates.

Napolitano: when will trustees be able to add to the agenda. Let’s bring back trustee discussion.

McGuire: trustee Wozniak has something he’d like to share with the BOT

Wozniak: I am getting an award from ICCTA, on June 5th, in Schaumburg. I have the letter here.

Motion to adjourn.

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.

5-20

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

5-90

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

5-165

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]

Item 7.C.2

[Pretty much the same discussion as 7.C.1]

Hamilton: Any more comments?

Roark: , McGuire: yes, Napolitano: yes, Wozniak: yes, Bernstein: yes, Birt: no, Mazzochi: yes, Hamilton: yes.

Hamliton: Motion for change order on the donor wall in the SRC.

McGuire: The donor wall in place in the Mac.

Brod: This is for all the donors.

McGuire: Was it from Herricane Grpahics?

Brod: Completely differnet firm. They specialize in donor walls. It’s all they do.

Mazzochi: Why so many change orders?

Brod: More donors from the time we started the project to the time we implemented.

Mazzochi: But this is for the Foundation.

Brod: it’s shared and we came well under budget. This was competitively bid. We picked the 2nd lowest bidder who seemed to understand the concept of what we wanted.

Mazzochi: Do we have a copy of that?

Brod: Bruce [Schmiedl] would have that.

Mazzochi: Why isn’t this paid by the Foundation?

Brod: It is.

Mazzochi: Why is this coming before us?

Brod: Good question.

Mazzochi: it’s not our expense.

Brod: it is your project.

Napolitano: We’re not paying for it.

Brod: You’re paying for some of it. We’re paying for the change orders.

Hamilton: We should not vote on it.

Roark: no, Mazzochi: no, Birt: no, Wozniak: no, Bernstein: yes, Napolitano: no, McGuire: no, Hamilton: no.

Motion fails.

Item 7.D

McGuire: we saved #3.3 mil, this should be front page for the reporters in the room.

Mazzochi: we are just saying, these are the numbers.

[Item 7.B.4.d – continued]

Napolatiano: if things don’t work out, we can go do another RFP, correct?

Currier: correct.

Hamilton: any further discussion?

Roarke: yes, Woz: yes, Bernstein: yes, Mazz: no, Birt: no, Ham: no, McGuire: yes

Item 7.5.B, moved by Mazz, second by Nap

Roarke: yes, Mc: yes, Nap: yes, Woz: yes, Bern: yes, Birt: yes, Mazz: yes, Nap: yes, Ham: yes.

7.C.

Mazzochi: I’d like a presentation on this.

McGuire: When I saw all the change orders for HS 2 and the Naperville, I was confused. I did ask, after all the change orders, total construction costs for HS2 is about $8 million. That’s within the competitive range. But additional for Legat, it’s 14% increase in total construction costs. That’s a bit above what I’m comfortable with. My follow-up  sent to Joe, is that it’s above the norm but with specific buildings, like the shooting range, it happens, but for the Naperville Center, it’s not complex. So, Im going to continue to monitor these buildings.

Hamilton: I think you bring up a very interesting point. We have to have a way to keep track of change orders. We have to discuss that and see comparisons from actual to budget.

Mazzochi: let’s start with HTC2, so, what was the original budget for everything.

Schmiedl: where we are to date is high. About $12.5 million

McGuire: and we’re no finished yet. $8.5 spent so far.

Schmiedl: the remainder to the $16 mil is soft costs, professional services, furnitures, things like that.

Mazzochi: how much was spent to date?

Schmiedl: I don’t have that number.

Mazzochi: you wouldn’t be here asking for change orders if you were not already above 20%.

Schmiedl: no, they’re still under that total project amount.

Mazzochi: how much in change orders have been spent?

Schmiedl: 2.5% of the budget

Mazzochi: and those approved today are in excess of $35,000.

Schmiedl: correct.

Mazzochi: are you anticipating any more change orders with the soft costs?

Schmiedl: Not soft costs. Architects, county, etc.

Mazzochi: What the purpose of the getting the BOT ratification of the change orders?

Schmiedl: It’s to confirm and keep the project moving.

Mazzochi: It says “multiple change orders…. allowed under 20% of total costs”. You don’t have to come before the BOT until we get over 20%.

Schmiedl: We come to you for tranparency. So you know what’s going on.

Mazzochi: Are you obligated to do that?

Schmiedl:Yes

Mazzochi: Because that owuld be one contract that is over 20%.

[Going over some speciifc changes]

Mazzochi: The numbers don’t follow. Why is that?

Schmiedl: Some may be out of sequence because we were not satisfied with the information we got from the contractors. Some don’t require immediate action.

Mazzochi: How many outstanding change orders?

Schmiedl: For projects like this, there are months of change requests. We review them with the acting prez a week or two ago.

Mazzochi: The highest number I saw was 64. Were there at least 64 change orders.

Schmiedl: No, what we would do with all the PCIs, then, we would file a change order for the aggregate amount of PCIs.

Mazzochi: How many outstanding?

Schmiedl: About a dozen. Beyond that ,we have seen anytihng submitted by the contractors yet. It’s wait and see.

Mazzochi: A lot of changes were labelled as oversight by the architect and the engineer. I have a problem with that. It seems to reward mistakes by the architect and the engineer. If we don’t approve this, they will have to eat that loss, right?

Schmiedl: The architect does not have that relationship with the contractors. A 3% error is standard. On this project, we are under 1% error rate. That’s excellent professional service. It depends if it’s error or omission. Error we would not pay for. Omissions are different since they lead to improvements that we would bid.

Mazzochi: We’re gonna end up paying more for that error from the architect.

Schmiedl: What we do at the end of the project is look at the total amount of errors and hold payments to the architect. We make the assessment on how severe the errors or omissions are. If it’s omissions, we pay. Errors and we have to rebuild, we would deduct that from what we owe the architect. Within the industry, 3% is good performance rate. That doesn’t mean we’re not going to go back to them.

Hamilton: Any more discussion?

Mazzochi: I have questions about Naperville. You’re going to shut down vans on chemistry labs. I’m baffled by that.

Schmiedl: Because they were designed to run 24/7. They are loud nad disturbing.

Mazzochi: But they need to run all the time because of solvents or chemicals in the air. I have a real problem with doing that, because it’s a safety hazard.

Hamilton: Any more questions.

Roark: Abstain, McGuire: yes, Napolitano: yes, Wozniak: yes, Birt: no, Mazzochi: no, Hamilton: yes, BernStein: Yes

Chair Hamilton calls for motion on Blackboard Collaborate.

Chuck Currier takes the podium. My presentation is much shorter than Earl’s is. I am not sure what questions you have, but let me give you some insight about how we approach technology at COD. This is primariy a teaching and learning tool. Designed to work with our LMS.

We have encouraged our faculty to explore different software. You are probably aware that there are other products out there on the market. But at some point we looked to institutionalize . Today we have faculty who use Adobe Connect for meetings on line. But we have gotten to a point where we need a tool that can wortk with our current LMS. This allows faculty to cerate teams within their courses. Students within that team will have their own synchronous meetings.. We don’t know of a product that thas this ability to connect so deep with our LMS.

We have been using Collaborate IM. They carved it our for us so we could use it for language instruction on campus.  Now we would like to have the entire tool, not just the piece we carved out for language.

This can also be used for the administration to hold synchronous meetings.

Mazzochi: Did this emerge from a faculty request?

Currier: Yes. We discussed this with Brett Coup.

Brett Coup: Yes, faculty across the college have asked for this. They want something where students can talk when they are in an on-line class,

Napolitano — It’s like a virtual classroom, much more interactive.

Coup: It’s definitely a tool that faculty can use to make their on-line classes more interactive.

Mazzochi:  Is this something you are asking for in addition? Did you send out an RFP for this?

Currier: There isn’t really a competitive product that meets the functionality that this product has.

Coup: It’s made by Blackboard to connect to their other products.

Hamilton: Any more discussion?

Coup: We are getting a very good price.

Roll call: Unanimous yes.

Mazzochi: I’d like to make a motion to consider item 7B4

Hamilton: Why don’t we ask our questions and then they can answer them?

Mazzochi: What do these Internet Recruitment Advertising Agencies have to offer?

Linda Sans VanKerk– This tool is widely known and used to help distribute job postings widely.30,000 is a subscription fee payable at the beginning of the contract. We did renegotiate what we get from them last year so we are getting more bang for our buck. They do not post directly — they consolidate postings with various places. So they are a more efficient way to post. Instead of having to pay different places for job postings we just play Shaker, They coordinate with the other places. They also have expertise on how to post in ways to get good candidates for some of the specialized jobs we post for, in the health arena.

Mazzochi: In a typical year, how many open slots do you have and how many do you fill?

Sans VanKerk: In a typical year we fill 275-285  and 300 student employment positions a year. We pay attention to our diversity and we have their commitment from Shaker and Career Builder to pay attention to our diversity.

Right now we are not efficient in tracking where we fill jobs from. This tool will help us be more efficient in how we track this.

Roll Call: Birt- no.All others yes. Motion passes.

Hamilton calls for motion to purchase Arrow Systems Integration — Voice PBX Upgrade. Item 7B4d

Napolitano states that he works for a company that is a competitor to PBX Upgrade.

Currier is at the podium:

Napolitano questions the document that makes the case for this system by noting that he has seen upgraded phone equipment on campus.

Currier: We really feel we need to move our PBX forward and get more up to date.

I wasn’t prepared to talk about model numbers. etc. If you want more information I will gather that and we can have that conversation.

Meeting reconvenes at 9:43pm

Call for motion on: 7B3b

Item 3B On-line Steps-to-Enrollment Software tool

Presentation by Earl Dowling.

I urge you to accept this recommendation. I will answer any questions.

Mazzochi– It says there was an RFP. But I have not seen it so I cannot determine if it was properly crafted.

Dowling: We sent it to 12 vendors.

Mazz: How was it crafted?

Dowling –I will have to get back to you on this.

Mazzocchi: Is this new?

Dowlng — It is new. We are requesting $60,000 to purchase and implement this software. It is new.

Mazzocchi: Basically this software has how to videos for on-line enrollment.

Dowling: It does a lot more than that. Gone are the days when students enroll 9-5. This allows us to have registration 24/7. Our students can go on-line. We bought some other software last year — since then 35,000 students are using the software we bought that answered questions about registering on-line.  100 students chat a week on-line. This is what our students are wanting. It is a student-driven tool. It allows us to connect with students 24/7. It fits well with our student success council. Engaging with students early permits our students to be more successful.

Mazzocchi: What does this software actually do?

Dowling — A student receives a piece of paper. They get a form with a getting started checklist and financial aid checklist. But as much as we send papers to students, they often do not read it. What this software does is allow the student to take a time-out, and then come back to the software. So the student stays engaged in the enrollment process. It is managed. The student does not fall through the crack. The student stays connected. Now they complete the process and are ready for classes.

Mazzocchi: 90% of our students already enroll on-line.

Dowling: But it varies from 74% to 90% because the 90% number drops off because of some internal procedures we have, We have to help the students engage in the entire enrollment process so they don’t have to leave their work or their home. They can enroll in classes when they want to do it, not when we want them to do it.

Mazzocchi: But what does this software actually give them? I’m not getting information as to what this tool is supposed to do so I can evaluate if this is going to add a genuine value? Have you surveyed students? Do we have survey results about what students want.  It’s a very vague thing you are saying.

Dowling: Here is Jane Smith to explain.

Jane Smith — We are talking about the segment of the enrollment that is prior — it is the prospecting part of the process, placement testing, prerequisite checking — there are steps before they get to the registration process and then paying. So we have students complain about having to come to campus more than once. They find out that they come, then have to come back. What this tool does is much more engaging. That has been found by colleges who use it now. It is explained in an upbeat way and makes it more engaging.  In the meantime, it allows us to track them from the prospect stage as well as once they have already applied. If we see people who are not able to finish the process, we can intervene. We already do that in our support center — we see people who inquire but do not actually register.

Bernstein — Are we talking about a package form a company or are we talking about designing it?

Smith — It is a company that offers a package but the company comes in and brands it and customizes it.

Bernstein– So have you told the company what your specifications are? And what about maintenance?

Smith — $2500 a year for general support and $1800 for additional customization.

Smith — We will be trained on how to make changes ourselves so we can update general information. So lets say that if they need to redo a video then there would be a charge to update. But I think I can project that we will be good for about 2 years.

Smith — Students now get what they can from the website but they often come in very confused.

McGuire– They can already enroll form the website. So this makes it more attractive?

Smith — this allows us to see it even before they apply.

Napolitano- Today they can enroll on-line soup to nuts if they want. You already have a process to reach out to them if they abandon this process somewhere along the line. Is there a cost-benefit analysis to this? How will this benefit?

Smith: Right now we offer several programs on how to become a student at COD by coming to campus. This allows them to get the overview on-line without having to come to campus.

You might be confused about registering, which is a final step. There is a lot that happens before that. We are talking about all these steps involved that lead up to when a student can actually register.

Napolitano — Will this save any operating costs?

Dowling — It is not intended to save money. It is intended to generate. If students who start this process express an interest in COD don’t register, we’ve lost that individual. This would allow us to reach out to the student who may have inquired but doesn’t complete the process.

Mazzocchi: But you don’t have any data or hard evidence that if you have a tool like this it will bring that student. If somebody is not coming to COD because of something like that I’m struggling to see how a tool that gives them some on-line videos will bring them to campus?

Birt: Shouldn’t we be considering the convenience of the students?

Mazzocchi: I’m not getting that this tool is going to reduce the trips the student makes to campus. It seems it is going to track the student that might inquire about COD but then drops off. But then the tool offers some quirky tools that might attract.  I think they should be able to get all the information they need form the website?

Dowling — Well, we do this every day. We know that the slightest barrier can keep the student from coming. Today we don’t know who this individual is. Today with this software tool we know who this individual is.  In my ideal world, every student would see a person. That’s not realistic in today’s environment. We are building something for today’s student, To serve them in the environment they want.

Mazzochi– 60,000 is a lot of money for you to get some data.

Birt– What do you think, Student Trustee.

Roark: It’s not about saving money, it’s about helping the students.

Mazzocchi: That’s what I want to know — how is this going to help students in a real way, not a theoretical way.

Smith: We do call them and find out that they can’t keep coming back to campus. We did a research project 2 years ago where we got feedback form students about streamlining things.They can do this form there home, anytime day or night. It could even replace an on-line orientation session.

Bernstein: Do you have any references?

Smith: We have testimonials.

Bernstein: What do they say?

Smith — They wouldn’t know what they would do without it. They say it’s engaging. I have a list of community colleges that use it.

Napolitano: You were provided references but didn’t call them?

Smith: Correct. We have testimonials, but not references.

Napoiatno: Nobody called the references?

Smith: Correct.

Hamilton calls the vote:

Roark yes, Berstine yes, Birt yes. Mazzocchi: No. McGuire. No, Napolitano: No. Wozniak: No. Hamilton. Yes.

Napolitano / Mazzocchi: More discussion of the costs of the weapons. Discussion of the cost of the program.

Brady — the cost of the programs are comparable to other programs.

Vote: Birt -no Mazoochi -no Napolitano -no. Motion passes.

Hamilton calls for motion on the requests for proposal for managed print services contract increase and online steps to enrollment software tool Items 7B3 a and b on the agenda. Keith Seitz and Ella Roberts, COD employees, present on the print management team, put together in August 2013. Objectives were to reduce costs while meeting needs of users. Team included Tom Glaser and Chuck Currier. with members from Purchasing and IT. Why consider new options? Because significant under-utilization of printers. Information security concerns. transition to digital from paper-based environment — while this was happening there was still an increase in paper. No comprehensive data base on which to make good decisions. The team researched options — continuing as we were, leasing, etc. Team determined that we move ahead to a managed print-service project. It is a holistic approach to managing print assets in an organization. Generally done by an external vendor. Ellen Roberts discusses the benefits of this managed print service system. Looking for full-accountability. The speakers discuss the process by which this vendor was chosen. 31 vendors were solicited, 10 responded. 3 were disqualified due to non-compliance to the RFP. 3 qualified candidates were invited to present proposals. Final proposals from Xerox, Canon and another were entertained. Xerox offered an 21% reduction of total cost of ownership. 20 hour per week on site technician. Reduced number of print assets from 655 to 275. Finally a bid for 3 million dollars for 5 years was presented to the BoT. Recommendation that the BoT approve an increase to the 5-year project.

Napolitano — why did the committee add 17 printers to the number that Xerox recommended? Keith Zeitz — user needs, distance, 50-75 feet is what we were looking for. We wanted faculty not have to walk more than one hallway segment in the BIC.

Mazzocchi- If you knew this why wasn’t that in the original design? Speakers comment on why the company’s design came in first, and then got feedback from users. Trustees question why the process happened as it did — with Xerox coming up with their estimate but the COD team making revisions to it. 700,000 dollar difference between the proposal and the new one. Trustees note that there is a material change to the proposal at this point.

VPAA Jean Kartje adds that Xerox’s proposal was not geared to an academic environment. She describes how faculty need to have closer access to printers when working in their offices. Xerox was not looking at how COD would use it differently from a corporate environment. Most of the additions were made by faculty need to do their job.

Mazzochi — Why wasn’t this faculty need part of it at the outset? That’s a problem. Faculty should have access to printers. I’m concerned with the change in the proposal. I’m concerned that the faculty were not consulted from the outset. It’s a breakdown in the process. So now we have a design that might actually be useful in the academic environment. Why didn’t we get faculty output form the beginning?  How do we know that if we did this over again we might not get a better proposal (after realizing what the faculty needs are).

Napolitano —  We are going from 192 to 325 print assets? That’s a big difference.

McGuire: As a teacher I know how important it is to have a copier near you when you need it. Are we more, less or about the same with paper dependency?

COD team — we use about 60 million sheets a year.

More discussion ensues about what COD needs are, for what types of devices, volume, etc.

Mazzocchi- clarifies that the cost is for leasing equipment, not purchasing it.

Napolitano– points out that Xerox actually won the bid for lower numbers, but they underestimated the number of units we needed, unlike the other bids.

Wozniak — We should table this because we do not have all the information we need.

Hamilton — asks for a second. Roll call on the motion to table:

McGuire — Did we just hear you say that we have a signed contract? With equipment already in place?

Mazzocchi– motion to table on the floor.

Discussion:

Wozniak — is this time sensitive? Can we wait?

COD team — we have already installed equipment , including library  regional centers. The contract was already approved by the previous BoT. What is in front of you now is the additional print assets?

The previous BoT approved a 3 million 5-year project with Xerox. Tonight we are just looking at the addition.

Motion to approve the addition. Roark — abstain. Bernstein — yes.Birt-abstain. MAzzochi — no. McGuire -yes. Napolitano — no. Wozniak — yes. Hamilton — no.

Motion fails.

Napolitano clarifies –116 additional assets. That’s what we are voting on. That is a 25%

Library — Dean of Library. Ellen Sutton asks to speak.

A number of exceptions are from my unit — library. Because  Xerox did not ask us about our workflow., They looked only at maps. They did not look at how people in the library use the printers. Process after process was ignored — we have asked for 40 exceptions. Just to do our work efficiently day by day.

Mazzocchi — were you just ignored by the administration during the design process?

Sutton — they did not talk to employees about that their processes were even though they sent people around. Those people did not talk to us. Most of what we want are inexpensive devices that are simple printers. It is my understanding that also the ones in faculty offices that are also exceptions are also simple black and white printers.

Trustee– Do you think the card readers are necessary?

Sutton- I am not in a position to comment on those. It would certainly be a learning curve for students to use them.

Bernstein — It’s one thing to look at the cost side of it. This is a complicated issue. It’s hard to understand it. At some point we just have to trust our people. There is a cost side to it but there is a side that has to do with the people and the productivity of the people here.

Roark — yes. Berstein-yes, Birt–no. Mazzochi –a reserved yes. McGuire yes. Napolitano – no. Wozniak yes. Hamilton yes.

Motion passes.

Motion to take a brief recess — Birt.

All in favor.

Meeting goes into recess.

Consent agenda:

Hamilton wants to know which items are to be removed?

Items 7B2, B3 and B4, and all of 7C.

7B1 and 7B5 can remain (Mazzochi)

That leaves 7B1 and 7B5. That’s all that’s left.

Napolitano  7B1Aand 7B1 B1.

McGuire —  I would like to remove the Special Board Meeting  7B C and D.

To refresh (Hamilton)

7B2 7B3 7B4 7C &1A

7B5 and 7D are the only ones left.

Hamilton– OK, we will go through each one of them. There is no consent agenda.

7B1a– Minutes  for Regular BoT Meeting. March 19th.

Vote to approve minutes — roll call. Birt no. Mazzochi — abstain. Napolitano — abstain.

Motion passes.

Motion to March 19th minutes — closed session — CONFIDENTIAL for BoT only be passed.

No discussion. Roll Call. Roark-abstain. Bernstein abstain. Birt no. Mazzochi – abstain. Napolitano –abstain. Motion fails.

Counsel says the vote passes because the majority of people who voted said yes and abstentions go with the majority,

Motion passes.

Motion for Minutes for April 30 –Special Board Meeting. To be approved.

McGuire — I asked for these to be removed. There were comments made by Trustees McGuire, Birt, and Wozniak in 5A and 5B , and 6 for McGuire only, that were not included. [McGuire then realized with was in different minutes.]

Counsel — which meeting are you addressing?

Birt asks for the motion to be restated.

Hamilton — let’s do it over.

Mazzocchi — moves to approve April 30 Organizational Board Meeting minutes.

Vote: Birt — no. All others yes.

Hamilton — April 30 Special Bd. Meeting minutes be passed.

McGuire — 5a, 5b and 6 , and on 7 == comments made by McGuire, Wozniak and Birt are not in the minutes. I want them included.

Napolitano — we should table this because there are other comments by a resident that need to be included. There is too much to talk about here.

Counsel — do you want to table this to June 11th.

Napolitano — Yes, that is enough time to get the comments that need to be included in the minutes. Comments by some Trustees ad some members of the public.

Hamilton moves to table the vote on the minutes until June 11.

Vote: All vote yes.

Hamilton — Firearms for Homeland Security Training Center.

There is a presentation for this.

Hamilton — Motion to consider the firearms for the Homeland Security Training Center.

Tom Brady, Associate Dean of the HST Center at COD. Gives a brief overview.

The building being built now is considered Phase II of our attempts to train first responders.

Brady shows slides of the building as now planned.

There will be other programs.

24 position, 50 yards train center. Largest in the Midwest. Students and trainers must be certified and approved.

This is no longer for police departments. This is about tactical training. This large range allows us to do that. No longer training with paper, stationary targets.

Weapons will be used by law enforcement officers and private citizens who cannot bring their own weapons to campus. Armed security guard training, conceal-and carry. Personal protection at home, personal protection outside the home. Programs for private citizens to come and use the facility as well as trainees. SLEA takes in recruits, 4 classes, during the year. They have to qualify. With the new range we will be able to do more training. Use rifles. Police Departments now use long guns.  Departments who will use the facility have up to 300 officers. It’s hard for them to find facilities that offer tactical shooting like long guns and rifles. The indoor range here is long enough to accommodate rifles. Some departments train monthly. Our goal is to get Departments to become members. That way they can use the facilities. There is a great deal of interest to come out here and do the type of tactical traning they need to do.

Bid process for weapons — 9  known providers were contacted. Also put out publicly. 5 vendors requested info and 3 presented bids.

Clyde Armory, Keisler Policy Supply, Ray O’Herron.

Brady discusses the use of M-4s  (for Police Departments)and Smith and Wesson handguns — for the public. Members of the public may not carry their weapons in to the facility. We have to have the weapons on hand so that they can enroll in the programs.

We have a secure vault for the weapons.

We are confident in the security procedures we have put into place. Somebody will always be on hand — there will always be staff on hand. We will run this 24/7. This appeals to police departments because officers can come and train during their shifts.

McGuire — I visited the Federal site in Virginia. I didn’t realize we would run this 24/7.

Brady– There will always be a range master there, 24/7. He will be able to provide the weapons if the departments do not have their own. Departments do not have enough long guns to supply all 24 positions. We have to have the, if we want to be able to use the facility.

McGuire — safety was a concern for me. We are pretty sure these guns will not fall into the wrong hands. Also, to pick up on the question asked before, why not buy generic as opposed to brands?

Mazzochi — Did the rfp include the particular brand names?

Brady–yes, they are the weapons that most Departments used.

Mazzocchi: Is there a survey that shows what type of weapons most Departments use?

Brady: I don’t have a survey but from my experience, this is what departments use the most.

Mazzocchi: If some of those weapons are going to be used by the public why not get some other kinds of weapons that are not as expensive, or smaller calibers for women, for instance, instead of 11 of the same.

Brady: others would be more expensive.

Discussion ensues between Brady and Mazzochi about whether or not brand-name weapons should be in the proposal.

Professor Paul Sirvatka reports on the Storm Chasing Meterology program at COD.

We are the most comprehensive community college meterology department in the United States.. We are the only program that has a full-time faculty member.  We now have two full-time faculty members.

Professor Sirvatka discusses the courses offered in the Meteorolgy Department .

The program has a profession al website which is famous nationally and internationally.

We have our storm-chasing program. The first college in the country — now there are 30 to 40 in the country — but we started this program 27 years ago.

We have a new certificate, first of its kind in the nation on managing severe weather — courses such as climate change and emergency management.

52,000 users of the NEXLAB weather site.  A lot of traffic on the COD meteorology webpages — data that is freely accessible and a go-to website for professional meterologists.

Professor Sirvatka shows a FOX news program on the COD Meteorology Storm-Chasing program, with Tammy Souza, meteorolgist of the FOX news program.

Professor Sirvatka shows slides of COD students on the road in the college storm-chasing vehicles.

We have seen what quality does when our goal was to make students more prepared than any student who starts as a junior at another college. We already have three graduates who have PHDs. Other graduates working in the field in other places. Emergency management. COD has invested in our program and that is why it has succeeded. You can expect great things from our faculty and I am proud to be here. I have lived in Glen Ellyn all my life and I love this place.

Trustee McGuire– how safe is all of this? Have there been accidents along the way?

Sirvatka: We have had minor injuries, like hitting deer. Traffic, hail, Our goal is to get close and to observe. The storm chaser not from COD who was killed a few years ago had a different purpose.

Our vans are a mobile classroom. We have two vans. They are in radio contact with each other.

Trustee Napolitano — What professions for your graduates seek?

Sirvatka — We are aiming for a user-based program. We are talking about emergency management. Our people go into fire, police. We are reaching out to the hospitaliaty program to work on large-event preparedness. We also have computers  and programming. Meteorology is a great field that has a lot of connections with other fields.

Trustee Mazzochi — are you observing or collecting data?

Sirvatka — This year we are actually putting up weather ballons that offer data to the weather station in Norman Oklahoma. The data is available to anybody who can use it.