The Consent Agenda. The minutes of the last meeting were pulled. Everything else was read. The details of the consent agenda are listed in the Board Packet.

Chair Birt asked for a motion on the item for the meeting minutes. Trustee Svoboda asked that the Vote of No Confidence be listed as the point for Glenn Hansen and mentioned that it was the first time in history that such a vote was taken. Trustee Hamilton stated that the VNC is a very significant moment in the institution’s history that should be reflected on now and in the future. In the discussion, Trustee Hamilton asked that every word that Hansen said about the vote of no confidence should be entered in the minutes. Chair Birt said that something like this could be entertained at a different time. The minutes as corrected were approved.

Engineering Pathways presentation introduced by Dean Cameron and Tom Schrader, then two Engineering faculty, David Smith and Scott Banjavcic, spoke with great enthusiasm. Students have guarantee of admission to 4-year program at U of IL, takes away the most difficult process which is transferring. They have an orientation course which creates a cohort feel and pulls them together socially. COD has small class sizes, 35 or less for lecture classes compared with hundreds in lecture halls. Also far more affordable – save about $56k in four semesters. Available for all engineering majors except chem and bio engineering. Why UIUC? because top engineering school in Illinois with excellent job prospects for graduates. Why COD? we had sent them 600 students who had success rates over 90 percent, compared with typical one in three engineering students who don’t make it through. Students have to be full-time in our program because UIUC is saving them a seat (they have three years to finish here). Have to maintain a particular GPA and also log their study habits. COD faculty participate on admissions committee. No limit to number of students we take.

The program has had considerable growth in the number of applicants as well as the number accepted. Much credit to Admissions/Outreach for this. Working on getting high school students interested in engineering. Growing opportunities thru U of I for internships. Why is this program important? Shortage of engineers in U.S. to address issues of global population growth, medical needs, energy crisis, clean water.

Trustee McGuire asked if more women were entering the program. Yes. Started chapter of Society of Women Engineers. Looking at why women are more attracted to some majors than others.

Sec O’Donnell mentioned that she works with chem engineers and hopes it will be added so she could recruit for COD. There is interest from the dept at U of IL for this.

President’s Report. Financial Matters. Glaser introduced the staff of the finance department, led by Lynn Sapyta, who defended their integrity and accuracy against irresponsible statements. First point was to address the “10 oddities” list handed out at the last meeting by OpenTheBooks.com. Showed that the supposed duplicate accounts (with 1’s or spaces added) for vendors did not exist. Also showed that SMT travel reimbursements were not double-dipping, since some travel is within the district and covered by a stipend meant to cover their travel from one COD campus to another. Other payments are for travel out of district and are made based on expense reports. Next was discussion of the imprest account. The board’s role is strategic, not to micro-manage finances. A large amount of September imprest payments is pass-thru of student financial aid. There are no hidden payments or schemes in place. Extensive system of internal controls is in place. Several members of the department spoke and explained various procedures. Glaser summed up that the accusations against the college’s financial procedures are reckless and unfounded. He offered to meet with any members of the press to put any concerns to rest. He repeated the highlights of the audit results presented last month and defended the challenges made to the auditor. He remarked on the cost of responding to many FOIA requests from organizations working to raise their own profiles at no benefit to the students or the college. “We are THE model government in Illinois. Perhaps the state of Illinois or the city of Chicago would be better targets.” Our financial operations have been upheld repeatedly. He continued by quoting comments from reviewers who evaluated our budget presentation for a recent award He introduced a representative who presented the Government Finance Office Association’s “Distinguished Budget Presentation Award” based on 28 very demanding criteria. Photo op and handshakings ensued. Breuder kissed Sapyta.

President Breuder then commented that there will be an additional accounting firm hired to review the imprest fund at a cost of over $100,000. He also praised the financial team and hopes that tonight will be the beginning of the end of the attacks.

Sec O’Donnell congratulated the team on the award as did Trustee Svoboda and Trustee Savage. They all expressed thanks for the work of the financial staff. Trustee McGuire said she was thrilled with what she heard tonight because she has had to defend the college in her recent communications.

Trustee Hamilton said that she would prefer to make her comments during the trustee discussion.

Chair Birt said it was a proud moment for her, as was last month’s audit report, and that she has always been proud of the college. She regretted that the news following the last meeting focused on other things.

Breuder then gave Bente 40 seconds for good news. He reported on the Noel-Levitz survey of student satisfaction. Four administrations of survey 2004/2007/2010/2014.

Highlights: 83% of students say COD was first or second choice. Affordability and reputation were top reasons. He reviewed results on “loyalty questions” such as whether you would enroll again. Results are consistently strong and on upward trend for the past three years.

Instructional Effectiveness was rated very highly including quality of instruction and knowledge of faculty. Registration Effectiveness was also very high.

A low satisfaction area was academic advising.

In a number of areas, our results are at all-time high, including Admissions and Financial Aid, Concern for Individual, Responsiveness to Diverse Populations, Student Centeredness, Academic Services.

Another low is caused by parking issues (folded into Safety and Security category).

Overall highest level of student satisfaction ever reported in this survey.

President Breuder stated that the one piece of information that trumps everything else is academic quality.

The roll is called, the agenda approved, and the new policy on public comments is read.

Public comments by citizens:

Paul Lefort. Veteran of many boards, has never seen one so dysfunctional. Mentioned that he had one of five seats allocated for citizens in the room. Shameful and undemocratic attempt to muzzle Trustee Hamilton. Five questions asked at least meeting remain unanswered including why Hamilton removed from audit committee. Called for forensic investigation in several areas including audit of effectiveness of recent construction spending. Referred to recent League of Women Voters comments about dysfunctional board and lack of transparency.

Ed Franckowiak. Referenced board policies to seek input from community. A third of the budget is hidden from the board and from taxpayers. Searched for our paper vendors, was only able to find two of the three with online presence.

Glenn Hansen, President of the Faculty Association and Senate. I would appreciate a correction of the minutes to reflect that our comments were about the meeting and our Vote of No Confidence. Thank you.

Andrea Alvarez, attorney with Citizen Advocacy Center, based in Elmhurst. Commented on the First Amendment rights of citizens to make political speech before a governing body. Current policy has a chilling effect on citizens because the guidelines are too broad in limiting the content of speech. Too much latitude is given for subjective judgment based on terms such as courtesy and respect. Also violates Open Meetings Act. Therefore these are not legal.

Student Trustees report. Omar Escamilla introduced two adult students who gave wonderful brief speeches about their career transitions and accomplishments based on continuing their education at COD.

Tonight’s board packet can be downloaded from this page:

Board packet

The public comments have been split, as they were last month. Early in the meeting, comments must be agenda-related. Open comments will again be after the executive session.

The blogger who went home before it ended would like to thank the friend who stayed and took notes. The friend reports that at least 30 people stayed until the end of the meeting.

Laura Reigle. You have violated the Open Meetings Act. You read rules, yet you allowed some to violate the policy. You allowed a staff member to speak off-topic about a positive thing.

Paul Lefort. You should schedule public comments earlier. You should address the questions being raised. Are the facts about the impress account correct? Does the level of student demand support a new academic building? The public elected Trustee Hamilton because they wanted her financial expertise; she should be on the audit committee.

Jan Shaw. The last board meeting was the first I attended. In 2012, Waterleaf, the radio station, the MAC and the hotel lost over a million dollars. Why are these still being funded? Do students work in these programs? What is their educational value?

Roger Kempa. COD class of 1973. Public comments should be earlier. COD employees should sit somewhere else so that more people can be in the boardroom. Have the board meeting in a larger space, such as the MAC or the conference center. Supports Trustee Hamilton being on audit committee.

[Hansen and Jarman spoke next. Their comments are posted separately.]

Vikaas Shanker. Former editor of the Courier. Currently working in journalism, knows other former Courier staff who have gone on to journalism careers. Bring back real journalism to COD, it makes a difference.

Haroon Atcha, political science student, urges reforming Waterleaf. Referred to an email sent to COD employees offering rewards for referring potential new staff for Waterleaf. Students are here and the need jobs – hire students at Waterleaf.

James Rawdin. Did not speak.

Aira Aquino, student, thanked COD’s faculty for making a difference in her life.

Miguel Morris, student. Got into a conflict with one of the speakers at the last board meeting. Learned that sometimes conflict can be good, but we all need to be respectful.

Stephanie Torres, Student Leadership Council. Just attended Living Leadership Conference. Chastised public speakers for disrespect. Freedom of speech – with respect.

———

This ends our coverage of the September meeting. To suggest any corrections to these posts, please email codfaboardblog@gmail.com.

View from outside the closed session – approximately 9pm to midnight. Several students, including a former student trustee, waited along with faculty and other members of the community for three hours for the open comment period.

Boardroom view during the closed session

The closed session lasted until midnight, when public comments resumed. Community members, faculty, and students spoke. The meeting ended at about 12:45am. Richard Jarman, Vice-President of the COD Faculty Association, spoke just after midnight, following Glenn.

Good evening or rather good morning. My name is Richard Jarman, Vice-President of COD Faculty Association.

Just as Glenn Hansen has done, I wish to voice my concern about the rearrangement of the agenda to place constituent comments about non-agenda related items at the end of the meeting. I have read previously that this institution holds its fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers “sacrosanct.” I would like to think that a democratically elected board of a public body should hold its concern for constituent concerns equally sacrosanct. On the evidence of tonight it does not seem to be the case.

The motivation for this change is not difficult to discern, given that it comes after two meetings where many constituents made remarks critical of the leadership. I would suggest that it would be wiser to confront the issues raised directly, rather than attempt to shove them under the rug. I suspect that, much like the censure motion taken last month, this move will ultimately not reflect well on how this board performs.

That said, I am not entirely surprised. There has been manifest reluctance by the board to address issues that have been brought before it by the faculty leadership. In June, Mr. Hansen asked seven questions of the board during his comments. We are still waiting for answers. In July, Mr. Hansen wrote to the board to request an investigation of the May 9th email. Other than acknowledging its receipt, nothing further has yet happened.
On September 10th the COD Faculty Association took a historic vote of No Confidence in the President. You know the result: 189 faculty voted yes, in a turnout that was as large as that typical in a contract vote. No longer can we be dismissed as that small group of disgruntled faculty (20 or sometimes 30 depending on the time of day). Instead we are now diminished as the 10%. A healthy organization would act to resolve areas of conflict that this large turnout point to. We have yet to hear anything from the administration in response to this weighty action. The board has acknowledged receipt of the letter in which we brought to your attention the seriousness of our concerns, in the hope that you will take action to improve the situation.  We stand ready to work with you in partnership for the betterment of the College of DuPage. Thank you.

It is 11pm and this blogger is not a night person. The closed session is still going on. Glenn gave me his comments in advance. He and others who want to speak during the open comment period are still hanging in. So here is an advance copy of his remarks.

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

Steve Goodman, who sang here when I was a student, once wrote “I think this is where I came in, I’ve heard this song before”. There has always been chaos and turmoil in the Boardroom, but we have reached a new high. The change in public comments policy will not make it better. On my first night speaking to the Board, a trustee resigned, then later that year the facilities master plan architect resigned, then another Trustee resigned, then a president was fired, followed by employee (especially faculty salaries) needing to be posted, there was the ABOR debate, students attended a meeting with tape across their mouths, armed guards were at a new president’s press conference with barricades to keep everyone but the press out, 3 presidents were on the payroll simultaneously, a man in a black t-shirt and a huge check paraded around the room, and the list goes on.

Tonight, there were many speakers. There will be positive statements made in addition to more criticism. It’s rumored that administrators have been urging people to speak up to defend the besieged president and the administrators have started a surveymonkey.com for each individual constituency group to debunk the full-time faculty’s Vote of No Confidence. Buttons have been made to proclaim your loyalty. Regardless of the popularity competition that seems to be happening, our vote stands.

A Vote of No Confidence cannot be diminished or dismissed; you cannot blame it on the “union”, a 4-letter word in this room. You cannot blame it on a contract. You diminish yourselves by saying it is only 10% of the employees. Do you really want to say that only 10% of your employees are the full-time faculty? The ones who create and maintain the curriculum and teach our students? Yes, we have more than 1200 great colleagues who are adjuncts and they are reminded each semester that your commitment to them is only for that term.

A Vote of No Confidence by tenured faculty is very serious in the world of Higher Education. It means only one thing to those who understand its consequences and that is our expectation of you. Our evaluation of the College’s leadership is on your desk. It is your responsibility to respond. If you would like to hear the details, we are ready to meet and discuss them with you, the Trustees.

Thank you.