Item 8: Presentation — Faculty Response to the HLC Report

Chair Mazzochi  talks about her pleasure in turning the floor over to CODFA to report on this. No time limits will be imposed because we rely on quality faculty to deliver quality instruction. It is important for faculty to speak as long as they need to.

Glenn Hansen – -before continuing with his presentation, Hansen requests that Elizabeth Anderson be invited to the Closed Session at the end of tonight’s BoT meeting, together with Faculty Association representation, especially since members of the Administration will be in the Closed Session. (Mazzochi consults with COD attorney but answer is not given)

Glenn Hansen’s comments

Good evening,

I’m Glenn Hansen, president of the Faculty Association and Faculty Senate.

We have been invited by the Board of Trustees to present the Faculty Perspective on what are the most important issues facing the College of DuPage in the present. Specifically, COD on probation, Higher Learning Commission’s Report, COD’s response, and where do we go from here. Thank you for this opportunity.

We need to recognize that we are at point of heightened anxiety within the institution. Nerves are raw and tension is high in some areas. We are all hearing what is being said except through the filter of our own perspectives.

The materials that we are presenting tonight have been approved by Faculty Senate or in the case of the VNC by a vote of full-time faculty. This is not an attack on individuals by Glenn and Richard. In all honesty, that is a misunderstanding that lies beneath many of the internal problems at COD. Too often the question is asked of us “who do you represent?”.  It is a larger voice speaking, not a few individuals. In preparing this presentation, we began creating a document in response to the HLC findings during winter break. The work of that committee was given to Faculty Senate 2 weeks ago. The Senators then reviewed and provided input via commentary on the discussion board. Tonight we are focusing on the academic issues where faculty are mentioned.

As a point of clarity though, let me say that not everyone will support what is being presented or positions taken in the past. We are not a monolithic unit, we are diverse; including how we view what has happened and will happen. Some faculty say we are all wrong and we are too harsh on administrators, other faculty say we need to be more militant and demand more.

During the last few months the full-time faculty have held a series forums that shared individual faculty member’s vision about Moving COD Forward. A diverse selection of our colleagues have spoken from their hearts and their intellect. The words were not couched in gentle phrases. I know it was difficult for Administrators, who faithfully attended, to sit and listen to a serious critique of where we are.  I commend them for their strength in attending all three sessions. I hope they heard what was being said and thought about the critique provided.

If it helps, consider this presentation an evaluation, yes it can hurt. Tonight is a call for more evaluation. Not only should there be a new formal evaluation of process and people, but we each need to be our toughest critic and more closely examine what we do.

At the end of the day, only administrators decide many issues that operate the institution and have the authority to do so. Even  SCG, which has moved back towards the better Leadership Council model, makes recommendation to the president not decisions. If have you have the power, you are accountable for the outcome.

That brings us to tonight.

Timeline and process of VNC

It’s important to share with you how we reached a vote of no confidence.

For years various faculty members had called for a vote of no confidence, on Dr. Breuder, the BoT, the BoT Chair. Each time that came to Senate we formed a committee to look at the charges. A VNC is never taken lightly and circumstance must be appropriate. Each prior time we decide the choice was not yet. The frustration was there and growing for most of his 6 years at COD.

In June when the e-mail story broke the faculty were outraged, not by the politics but the challenge this was to our institution values of Integrity and Honesty. We held a Senate meeting with an open forum where the idea of a VNC germinated. We again formed a committee to investigate the pros and cons, with a different outcome this time.

In July a preliminary recommendation from the committee came forward with a document that was deep and impressive. It moved Senate to asked for a final document by Aug 18.

On the first afternoon of summer InService, Senate met and voted unanimously to move to a full faculty Vote. We announced the Vote to all faculty at our Fall assembly 2 days later.

Prior to the September 10^th Vote, we held forums, met repeatedly with IEA Legal Counsel, and held a lengthy discussion on our private discussion board. On Labor Day I sent an e-mail to all faculty about the VNC election. It reached administrators eventually. That e-mail coupled with the results of the Vote tore apprt our relationship with administrators putting it into the deep freeze or the fires of Hell.

We notified the Chairman Birt on September 18^th after the vote was certified by Faculty Senate.

What followed was silence except for the inevitable eruption of denial from Dr. Breuder.  There was never any discussion of the VNC details with the Board. Not until the day Dr Breuder announced his retirement was there a meeting scheduled with Birt and McGuire. That meeting was cancelled before the announcement.

We now find our VNC document referred to as motivation to retire Dr. Breuder, But, there was never a discussion of detail with a Trustee. Thank you for tonight’s opportunity, but at this point the document is most valuable when used to measure the health of our current culture. Breuder is gone.

COMMENTS CONTINUE BY 

Richard Jarman- VP, CODFA

reviews the VNC, pointing out most important aspects.

FINANCIAL

-Misuse of the referendum money and consequences ($20 MM e-mail)

-Unecessary revamp of the 2008 FMP carpark/bioswales ($16 MM)

-Excessive tree planting program and attendant costs of maintenance ($100 K water bill in summer 2012)

-Contempt for sustainability in landscaping and use of resources (elimination of community education farm)

-Appearances over education in eliminating the east side prairie ($9MM in 2012)

-Vanity projects (Waterleaf) intead of intructional space

-The chronology wall and presendential suite (over $200K)

-Executive changing room in PE Center

Substantive issues:coercive, not collaborative

-Diversion of educational funds to build unnecessary balance fund (underspending of all educational budgets)

-Inappropriate conduct and statements (“shucking and jiving” directed towards Vilalge of GE)

-History of diminishing faculty (qtd as saying he would replace FT by PT and save money)

-Pbstructive bargaining and use of College resources agains the faculty

Sharing confidential negotiation information with the Press

-Climate of fear

-Retribution against the Courier advisor

-Coercive workplace identified in the PACE survey 2014

COMMENTS CONTINUE BY GLEN HANSEN

 Pace Survey

As part of the Trustees plan to rehabilitate Dr. Breuder, Dianne Mcguire called me twice in January 2014. She had a five point plan including addressing the faculty issues reflected in the PACE survey. Full-time Faculty results were significantly lower in many categories. These 4 were the worse.

The directive was given to Dr. Breuder, who gave it to Dr. Collins, who contacted me and asked me how I wanted to handle this. He offered to let pick representatives from Administration as well as Faculty. My choice was to select the elected Senators and asked him to select the Administrators he wanted.

The small group of 10 or 12 began meeting on Friday mornings. Faculty compiled and shared 110 pages of faculty responses, attempting to drill down to why were the negative answers given.

The committee talked of the document as a possible description of the New College of DuPage.

Agreement was found around some concepts such as COD should not be talked about as a business but instead as College and that Dr. Breuder was a problem for all.

Some of the recommendations include:

• Committees should follow the continuous improvement process
• Shared Governace should include the President and all constituencies.
• Giving representation to Non-Cabinet Administrators.
• Stop saying the problems are only coming from a small faction of the faculty
• Stop blaming the past negotiations as the source of our anger.
• Replace the President’s Communication Committee with Senate
• Elevate the importance of Academic Affairs in relation to other divisions.

The results were not earth shattering but they were a start at improving relations.

Regrettably we have slipped into an environment where we may be viewed as small group of malcontents again.

Moving Forward

(Discusses the problems involving SLEA and Continuing Education — a poaching of credits by CE –a crossover not viewed as positive by the faculty. Hansen explains why  faculty guard the credit-bearing classes carefully. He indicates why there needs to be a clear distinction between credit-bearing classes from those offered in Continuing Education and asks for a clear vision of the difference,. The faculty do not want that kind of crosswalk between credit and non-credit bearing classes. We must make sure that we evaluate the process and assure the HLC that it will not happen again)

RICHARD JARMAN CONTINUES

HLC Letter — Issues and Recommendations

Criterion Two, Core Component 2.a

-Administration should demonstrate ethical practices by:

addressing the issues with integrity and fairness such as responding to grievances in a meaningful way

1. • Follow through on negotiating the MOUs agreed to negotiate in October 2015
   • honor, respect and use existing college structures and faculty-led committees
   • -Administration/HR alone should not be in charge of ethics training
   • -Implement a new administrator evaluation process modeled on the process used for faculty. Administrators cannot continue to select their evaluators.
2. • Criterion Five, Core Component 5.B
   • Full participation in shared governance
   • Bargain an objective matrix for fair coordination loads
   • Implement faculty chairs where needed
   • Institute faculty directors for instructional programs like Honors, Learning Communities, Service Learning, etc.
   • Reorganize the upper administration and redistribute work to faculty chairs (recommended by ACE survey committee) No reorganization implemented until the new president is installed.
   • Develop and provide training for academic administrators that will also be attended by faculty, especailly on the IELRA, contract interpretation, and collective bargaining matters.
   • Reimplement the Administrator Recruitment program
   • Evaluate academic administrators for their abilities to teach in the modern classroom and provide training as needed.
   • Charge the Counseling faculty to conduct a thorough evaluation of RESET/ESEIP amd present their recommendations to their administration and to the Board
   • Criterion Three, Core Component 3.a
   • Develop an administrative model that clearly defines and delineates the Continuing Education program as distinct from the academic program
   • The Board Academic Committee should have a role in establishing distinction between Academic and CE programs to ensure there is no overlap and confusion
   • Develop a Continuing Ed Advisory Committee that would report to the President and to the Board Academic Committee.

GLENN HANSEN:

(background slide reads:

EVALUATION
RESPONSIBILITY

ACCOUNTABILITY
ACTION)

Where are we today? Relationships need repairing. My comments in the Tribune on December 18^th were heard as an attack on “his team” and moved us back to square one. Discussions of a retreat are on hold and the Administration has withdrawn from the agreement to craft 4 MOUs that would benefit both sides until things have settle down.

I’m proposing meetings of 2 Trustees, Administrators, and Faculty Leadership for a frank conversation.

If we are to move forward we must evaluate what we have done and how we got to this point. WE must examine why. WE cannot simply say it was one person and all is good now. WE cannot say everything is fine, we’ll be good in two years.

We must evaluate the processes that allowed us to reach probation.

We must evaluate the discussions that lead us to the decisions.

We must evaluate the personnel. We evaluate students, they evaluate faculty. All classified and managerial staff members are evaluated. All administrators are evaluated. However, there is a weakness here. Their process allows administrators to select the 8 people evaluating them, unless the process has changed and we’ve not heard. Four years ago in one of my first meetings with then VPAA Collins, I asked for there to be a robust evaluation process of administrators based on the model applied to Faculty. Two years ago I sent VPAA Kartje, documents Faculty Senate drafted as a suggestion. To date there has been no change that we are aware of. Having a better evaluation process may actually improve relationships.  But it will also lead to responsibility and accountability.

Responsibility is Shared Institutional Value. It is about owning your actions. We all make mistakes, we have to admit there were errors in judgment and decisions to ourselves and others. We would not be on probation if someone had said these HLC cited activities were not a good idea, “I will not participate or do that”. Today, you might be surprised at the positive reaction and results, if someone said “I should tried to stop the excessive abuse of house accounts for non-college business or I said that while it was legal it was not right”

Accountability a companion to and is the outcome from responsibility in our culture. Everyone makes a choice and is accountable for their action. Having a sense of responsibility for what we do makes accountability a natural component of our Shared Institutional Values.

We have outlined actions in our presentation and many more in our documents. We have called for various actions in other presentations. I have always stated that I believe the actions, not proposed actions or changed outcomes were expected by HLC. We need to evaluate the broken processes and redesign them so there is no doubt we are serious about getting off probation and these things will never happen again.

Thank you.

Public Comments continue

Paul Lefort, 47 year DuPage County resident. I have a few ideas about the HLC report. The HLC wants to make sure that the culture and structures that caused the problem cannot happen again. 3 suggestions — 1)agreed upon and diligently BoT protocol, such as living in the present not the past. Trustee Discussions in a round robin formation, no out of turn comments. last BoT meeting was dominated by one trustees lengthy problems with a previous problem.2) proving that policies and procedures are such that the mistakes that happened cannot happen again.

3) Communicate all policies as no-bid contracts. Make it clear and simple. Publish a running list on all no-bid contracts. I wish COD good luck in removing the probationary status. It is the most important thing you can do.

Kirk Allen — Change orders — names criminal code that governs this. States that a state or unit of local government must  determination in writing that 1) circumstances was not reasonably or forseeable. Names other stipulations that pertain to change orders and public institutions.Class 4 felony to violate this. Discusses one of the change orders made for Herricane Graphics. Notes that one change order was “owner-requested change.” This does not meet the standard laid out by the law in the criminal code. Asks COD attorney to look into all change orders especially those for companies owned by COD Foundation members.

Elizabeth Anderson, Professor of English. Faculty member named in 6B. I want you to see me as a real person and not just a name on paper. I want to thank my colleagues. They make this a wonderful place for me to work. I am grateful for the opportunity to address issues.  I have been here 10 years. Only the last 18 months have been negative for me. I ask you to reconsider item 6B and gather all the important information needed to make this decision.

John Staeck, Professor of Anthropology

I am here as a parent. Notes that two of his three children have been at COD.  One is already a senior at Western Illinois after transferring form COD. The third will be here.  I encourage you to spend the money you have for the right things. For education.

To the two colleagues who are not here — show up or get out. If you can’t show up, leave the post. We should not operate this way.

Think deep about this personnel issue discussed here tonight. Dig into it. That’s not micromanaging. That’s doing your job. This issue is going to hurt this college and the community unless you do the right thing, dig into it.

Public Comments ended.

There are new items/information that have been submitted today.

We are trying to hold ourselves accountable.

Consent Agenda

Wozniak — wants to pull 6B, 6D, 6E, 6F and 6H

Dr .Collins — wants to withdraw item C.

Only 6A and 6G remain from the Consent Agenda.

Asks for motion to approve 6A and 6G –Napolitano moves, Olsen seconds.

All Trustees present vote yes.

Chair Mazzochi — Asks for motion to approve 6B.

Napolitano — moves. Seconded by Bernstein.

Discussion — Requests going to Closed Session to discuss 6B.

Bernstein — is it under the rules to table this for one week.

Mazzochi — there would be legal implications. We need to discuss those in Closed Session.

COD Attorney — move to table it till the end of the agenda. We are saying we would discuss it in Closed Session but then need to reconvene to vote on it afterwards.

Napolitano — table it until following the closed session.

COD Attorny: It will become item 13A on tonight’s agenda. You will vote on it after Closed Session.

Moved and seconded. All Trustees present vote yes except Wozniak, votes no.

Next —  DIscussion of Item 6D, hiring of  Robert Dickeson for  consulting hours.

Paul Lefort is brought back to discuss this hiring. Explains the volume of work that had to be done to go through the applications. There will probably be about 12 people who will be ready for the final search. We required that Dickeson be here more than originally planned because of the volume of work. We need to get to 3-5 final candidates to present to the BoT. We hope to be able to do that soon.

Napolitano — I remember Dickeson described as someonw with a deep Rolodex. I don’t remember there ever being a discussion of his firm doing the interviews. I thought he was just hte Rolodex, not the one doing the interviews.

LeFort — Part of his attraction and help to us was his Rolodex. But his initial contract did indicate he would be using the Rolodex and interview. We did not anticipate the volume of work that he would need to do.

Napolitano — will these 40 hours reduce the number of hours that Williams and Haynes will do?

Lefort — we are also looking for non-traditional candidates, form non-profits, military, etc. Dickeson has helped with this.

Napolitano — the travel expenses are for Dickeson or for whom?

Lefort — travel expenses for candidates

Napolitano — Hayes does have to interview all candidates anyhow?

Lefort– volume activity was the issue. We got more response than we had anticipated. We had a large number of applicants. On Monday night we will be presenting the results.

Napolitano continue to question why this is necessary and if this should be the end of the extra services needed.

Lefort speaks to the valuable service he has provided.

Olsen comments: I appreciate the context Mr Lefort. Olsen expresses his concern about the item. One of the trustees not in attendance tonight things that 15,000 was chosen to avoid BoT approval so he is concerned about transparency. But the presidential search is critical.

Bernstein- doesn’t see a transparency issue. Knows the people on the committee. Will vote for it.

Wozniak — why should we spend thousands of dollars on a search committee like this.

Mazzochi — From the outset we did vote to approve the retention of an educational search term. The committee thought it would be helpful to hire a firm with educational background and experience.  Former Chair Hamilton thought at that time that if we did go over 15,000 it would have to come back for BoT approval. We have to decide now if we think it is important to spend an additional 15,000 for this.

Wozniak — The previous hiring the BoT was involved 100% of the way (audience laughter).

Chair Mazzochi asks the audience to refrain from laughing.

Wozniak — the BoT should be involved more.

Mazzochi — The BoT is not abdicating its responsibility. It would be hard for the BoT to review in detail the 300 plus people who have submitted their resumes. A committee needs to do that work. Now, if you don’t like the results, you will retain the ability to say you do no like any of those candidates. They are going to give us a range of applicants, 3-5. But there is nothing keeping any BoT member to look at any resumes. Mr. Hayes is open to Trustees looking at any resumes. But in contrast with what happened last time, we want to make sure we have a wide range of stakeholders so that we have support form the community. Our entire college community can get behind the candidate. I appreciate you concerns Trustee Wozniak. Please come to the forum on the 29th so you can have comfort that the process is working the way it should.

Trustee Roark — only candidates from Higher  Ed?

Lefort: Yes.

Trustee Wozniak votes no.Motion passes.

6f — motion to discuss hiring of Perkins and Will for architectural services

Bernstein — do we know of any situation where the firm has had bad reviews?

Committee member Schmiedl– no one on the firm feels there was an issue with this firm.

BErnstein — do you know of any situations where the company had a dissatisfied company?

Napolitano asks a similar question. Have we done due diligence, extra step to check references.

Trustee Roark- what is the ICCB recommendation?

Committee member Schmiedl— they come in every 5 years to review the operating conditions of all community colleges in the state. They study documents including a Master Plan to see if a college is complying with all ICCB regulations.

MAzzochi — what is the deadline for a replacement if we do not approve of this firm tonight?

Committee Member Schmiedl- — the ICCB will notify when they are coming. The school ten has 90 days to submit all documents in support of that. Not knowing when that will happen, and given that the assignment is a 5 month assignment, if we don’t take care of it we might risk being out of compliance.

Napolitano–What are the ramifications if we are out of compliance?

Collins — SImilar to HLC, they do a recognition visit. They could cite us for being deficient.

Olsen — expresses concern about timeline, especially given current sanctions by HLC. This is in our control. It’s too bad the Board could not meet earlier to approve this. I’ve heard of concerns form community members that the firm is monitored and does only what they are hired to do. Does not go above that scope.

Mazzochi — expresses concern about timeline. Is in favor because of the timeline.

Napolitano — I have had mutual customers who have used this firm. I am in support of this.

Roll: All yes except Wozniak, abstains. Motion passes

6F — Perkins and Will hired for architectural services. DIscussion.

Olsen — similar discussion as to previous item and looks forward to approving it.

Mazzochi — this is also a facilities needs analysis. So I suggest to Administration that before expending fees for this, this will be presented at Shared Governance and input happens there.

Schmiedl — it is going to go in front of a committee that is similar to Shared Governance.

Roll- All Trustees vote yes except Wozniak, abstains. Motion passes.

6H  1 and 2. Wozniak votes no. Others vote yes, Passes.

Item 7. Approval of independent investment management firm for college funds.

Trustee discussion and questions on pricing and why this choice of firm was chosen. Five minutes of question and answer ensues.

Roll call: All trustees vote yes.

Acting Chair Mazzochi calls the meeting to order.

Pledge of Allegiance

Roll Call:  Missing Trustees Birt, McGuire

All others present

Public Comments

Dilyss Gallyot, Professor of Nursing

Speaking for myself and for a group that is often not talked about– the students. I was also a student here once.  You BoT members are the guardians of this institution. What has happened in the past has to be corrected. Our students are not front and center. I feel that academics and the students are collateral damage here. As an alumni, faculty, community member, I find this very disturbing.

Bob Hazard, Professor of EnglishGood evening:

I’m here to ask you to pull agenda item 6. b. -Approval of non-renewal of faculty appointments- from tonight’s board agenda.  The faculty member in question, Elizabeth Anderson, is a hard working, inventive, compassionate professor on the cutting edge of online education and has earned her tenure, despite what you’ve been told.

She was the outstanding part time faculty member for school year 2012-2013.   She was a presenter at the January 2014 in-service days sharing her knowledge of computer programs to make online teaching easier. She was a presenter at the 2015 fall in-service days for a program to raise faculty awareness of veterans issues and she was a co-organizer for the fall 2015 Veterans Day Read in.

I understand your impulse to not micro manage this level of administrative decisions, but, please remember, the people who are telling you Elizabeth does not deserve tenure are the same people who have been telling you that there was nothing amiss at Waterleaf, that there were no problems with faculty other than 30 malcontents, that the SLEA debacle was nothing to worry about, that the problems we have are only caused by faculty leaking information to the press, that the yearly audits prove COD has appropriate controls on spending, that there was nothing wrong with Breuder’s email that outlined a plan to embarrass a sitting governor to give the college 20 million dollars for a building we didn’t need. And, most recently, that all the concerns the HLC have, have been taken care of.  Why would you continue to take their word without question?

For years faculty representatives spoke out about these issues and those boards ignored us just as those administrators ignored us.  Don’t make that same mistake with Elisabeth.

Despite the fact that her evaluation process has been terribly flawed this past year, Elizabeth has been strong, engaged and active in the life of our college. She continues to do the hard work of teaching, of mentoring students, of service on committees.

Don’t fire her.  Elizabeth is a valued colleague and a valuable asset in the COD community and there is no reason to let her go. We will all be diminished by her absence.  Please pull agenda item 6.b. from tonight’s agenda.

Thank you for your time.

Karin Evans, Professor of English

Good evening:

I’m here to ask you to pull agenda item 6. b. -Approval of non-renewal of

faculty appointments- from tonight’s board agenda. The faculty

member in question, Elizabeth Anderson, is a hard working, inventive,

compassionate professor on the cutting edge of online education and

has earned her tenure, despite what you’ve been told.

She was the outstanding part time faculty member for school year 2012-

2013. She was a presenter at the January 2014 in-service days sharing

her knowledge of computer programs to make online teaching easier.

She was a presenter at the 2015 fall in-service days for a program to

raise faculty awareness of veterans issues and she was a co-organizer

for the fall 2015 Veterans Day Read in.

I understand your impulse to not micro manage this level of

administrative decisions, but, please remember, the people who are

telling you Elizabeth does not deserve tenure are the same people who

have been telling you that there was nothing amiss at Waterleaf, that

there were no problems with faculty other than 30 malcontents, that the

SLEA debacle was nothing to worry about, that the problems we have

are only caused by faculty leaking information to the press, that the

yearly audits prove COD has appropriate controls on spending, that

there was nothing wrong with Breuder’s email that outlined a plan to

embarrass a sitting governor to give the college 20 million dollars for a

building we didn’t need. And, most recently, that all the concerns the

HLC have, have been taken care of. Why would you continue to take

their word without question?

For years faculty representatives spoke out about these issues and those

boards ignored us just as those administrators ignored us. Don’t make

that same mistake with Elisabeth.

Despite the fact that her evaluation process has been terribly flawed this

past year, Elizabeth has been strong, engaged and active in the life of

our college. She continues to do the hard work of teaching, of mentoring

students, of service on committees.

Don’t fire her. Elizabeth is a valued colleague and a valuable asset in the

COD community and there is no reason to let her go. We will all be

diminished by her absence. Please pull agenda item 6.b. from tonight’s

agenda.

Thank you for your time.

Jackie McGrath, Professor of English

My name is Jackie McGrath, and I am a teacher in the English department. I am speaking about item 6.b. I would like this board to know that in 2013, when Elizabeth Anderson was hired into my department, after a long hiring freeze. She had worked as a COD adjunct for several years, and her reputation within the subdivision was extraordinary. The coordinator and associate dean at the time regular praised her ability, her work ethic, and her willingness to take any assignment, at any time, and to do it with excellence. If there was a last-minute need because someone abruptly quit teaching a class, the first phone call went to Elizabeth Anderson. They knew, as an experienced COD teacher, that she could step into any class, re-establish a classroom community, and ensure the students would learn the material. Her teaching experience was vast, and she was enrolled in a doctoral program in educational technology—a skill set that is, to be honest, needed, in my department and across the college. Naturally, when the hiring freeze ended, and the department hired three people, she was one of the top choices.

As a new full time faculty, she is especially generous with her colleagues. Her knowledge of classroom technology makes her a leader and driver of our curriculum, and she is always ready and willing to share with other faculty. She has a way of sharing information with an eagerness that makes it easy to learn from her, and just today a colleague in another department told me she regularly refers other faculty to her for advice and support.

It is disheartening to me that throughout her tenure-track period, the current administration has been more focused on finding ways to dismiss her than to develop and utilize her abilities, and it seems clear they have not evaluated her for the entirety of her contribution to the college community. So because I believe that Elizabeth Anderson fully and unreservedly deserves tenure, I respectfully ask that this board tables this item, and takes more time to investigate this recommendation. As some people know, there was an error in the board packet that was released yesterday. It has since been fixed. But I must ask: how can this board be sure Professor Anderson’s process wasn’t riddled with similar administration mistakes and oversights? Quite simply, the reckless and sloppy disclosure of personal information in an earlier version of tonight’s packet is symptomatic of the thoroughly faulty nature of the entire process. Ultimately, I implore you: as the board, I understand that your role is to review and vote on recommendations from the College administration. But I ask you, very sincerely, to consider that the probability that error is just another mistake in a long string of poor judgment and sloppy work. The outcome is that the recommendation you are considering tonight is wrong.

David Goldberg, Professor of Political Science

comments to be included

Deborah Adelman, Professor of English

reads a petition signed by more than 70 COD faculty to protest the firing of Elizabeth Anderson, item 6B. Calls for the BoT to pull the item.

Noel Manley — gives his time to Roger Kempa

COD graduate of ’72. I would also like to request that these items be pulled from the agenda: 6e and 6f and ?? concerning financial advisor being hired. Kempa questions recent hirings as well as the appointment of David Olsen as the 7th trustee – clearly a political appointment.

APPROVAL of Resolution to Hire In-House Counsel commencing July 1, 2016.

BIrt raises issue of timing – this counsel will work with new president. Mazz responds that we need to establish the position now because of the budgeting cycle. Agrees that the board should take its time. Needs to be the right person filling the role. But long term the position should help address concerns about legal fees.

Exchange between Birt and Mazzochi about who does the hiring for this position – does the President hire, or does the Board hire? Counsel states that the Board has always retained Counsel although the person would report to the President.

McGuire says that there is not enough information. She wants to look at cost, benefit, risk.

Olsen comments on his experience with in-house counsel with Village of Downers Grove. Supports the concept overall of having attorney on site, dedicated to the College and available to staff, particularly President. Better litigation management.

Mazzochi says that the motion can be passed and more of the details can still be discussed later, including salary, timing, reporting roles.

McGuire protests again that an in-house counsel can’t be made to report both to the BOT and the President. Insists there have to be separate functions.

Counsel makes comment that the ultimate relationship is to the BOT. On a day to day basis, issues should come up that don’t rise to board level, these should still be able to go to in-house counsel and be managed by the President. General reluctance to take the smaller matters to outside counsel anyway.

McGuire argues that the issue should be tabled until more information can be developed.

Olsen speaks again in favor of the idea but says that he is not opposed to gathering more information.

Bernstein says that there should be no conflict of interest – what frightens him is the prospect of an attorney who serves only the president. Good points made about getting more information, could be tabled, but let’s get it done soon.

Mazzochi asks for more input on what people want to learn/discuss before making a decision. Trustees make various suggestions.

Motion to table the motion to Feb 25th for more information. Motion passes unanimously.

The next portion of the meeting is supposed to be a closed session.

McGuire objects to the closed session. BOT should not be interviewing financial executive, job of President. Also objects in detail to discussing legal bills without invoices to review (really a big rant here).

Mazzochi points out that there are other personnel matters to be addressed in closed session and that the financial executive will also be the Board Treasurer.

Counsel reacts defensively to being called “deceitful.” There is a long contentious exchange involving Counsel, Birt, McGuire, and Mazzochi. A lot of speaking over each other and disagreeing about who is telling the truth and who isn’t. Bernstein calls out McGuire for her disrespectful language, says there is an HLC microscope in the ceiling.

Motion to go into closed session passes 4-3. Mazzochi says that the session will last approx an hour.

This is the end of tonight’s blogging coverage. To continue viewing the meeting live following the closed session, monitor this link:
http://www.cod.edu/multimedia_services/botmedia.aspx

APPROVAL of Request for Proposal—Board ethics and governance training

Olsen makes the first comment, says this is his area of expertise professionally, important signal to HLC to proceed with this.

Birt raises issue of ignoring ACCT and ICCTA. Mazzochi says that this is not germane to the RFP, can take it up during trustee discussion.

McGuire says she will support this. Hopes that ICCTA will respond.

This motion passes unanimously.

Agenda item: APPROVAL of Request by Illinois State’s Attorney’s Office for copies of verbatim record of closed sessions of the Board of Trustees from February 2014 and March 2014.

McGuire argues that there has to be a subpoena or court order to justify release of closed session records, since there are confidential records involved. It will open the college to further liability/litigation. There must be a protective order.

Bernstein asks for Counsel to comment. Counsel states that the protective order is already in place and that is provided by statute.

Lengthy exchange follows with Birt and Counsel taking haughty tones. Split vote on this item, 4-3 with the boycotters voting no.

Birt pulled Item D and McGuire pulled item L from the consent agenda.

All other items pass unanimously. Olsen mentions his pleasure that his first vote includes granting faculty tenure.

Item D is on the table, Curricunet contract. Birt asks for counsel to comment on tying the hands of future boards, considering that this is a 3-year contract with automatic renewal. Counsel says that issue does not apply to services or commodities. Only applies to contracts in employment agreements.

Item D is then approved by unanimous vote.

Item L, external audit services RFP. McGuire raises some issues with RFP language, corrections. Also raises issue of three-year contract with auditor, is this a problem? Counsel says that it is services, not an employment contract. Other details are discussed. This RFP is urgent, Dishner says. They agree to amend the motion so that language can be corrected and the RFP issued without needed further BOT action. Amendment passes unanimously. After more discussion, the main motion passes.

Long exchange on information item 7b, financial statements. McGuire raises questions about investments, disposal of depreciated equipment, responses from Alix Partners consultant who has been cleaning up accounting practices.

7d McGuire asks about money remaining in construction contingency fund for Naperville Center. Response from Schmeidle. There are some needs for new handicapped signage then the rest will be turned over.

7g McGuire very excited about the new farm program.

Chairman’s report: a quick rundown of future meeting topics and plan for getting board business back on track.

Student Trustee report: Black History Month statement. Invited speaker Princess White, sophomore English major, recounted history of Black History Month. Acknowledges hard sacrifices that made her own opportunities possible. Calls for unity of one race, the human race.

President’s report: establishment of task force to address HLC probation, enrollment numbers holding up well in light of overall decline in community college enrollment statewide. Return to regular employees in Finance Dept.

Presidential Search Committee, Lee Daniels: Reviewed committee’s work so far. So far 385 applications received, very wide variety of applicants. Consultants reduced to 64 qualified, now down to 20 after phone interviews. These will be interviewed by consultants, the committee does not have the names of the final 20. Continuing to review new potential candidates as well. Next round will be 12 candidates presented to the committee confidentially. Interviews in closed sessions, following Open Meetings protocol.

McGuire expressed concerns about Hay & Co being the search firm, not qualified, inappropriate, will have a problem with any candidate brought forward by this firm. Some search committee members too close to former chair. Questions whether a subgroup of the committee is operating as a committee of the whole.

Daniels says that the committee so far has been very pleased with what they have gotten from the consultants. Also names committee members and states their commitment to the betterment of the college.

McGuire brings up language of contract in which Hay agreed to terms based on hiring other execs in addition to president. Repeats that she does not trust process, does not trust this firm.

Daniels tries to placate her, says please wait for the recommendations of the committee before making a judgment. There is no preconceived notion of who the president should be.

Exchange between Mazzochi and McGuire about the contract with Hay and the multiple searches. McGuire worried about the expenses outlined in the RFP for the other searches, which are now not being conducted by that firm. Mazzochi tries to shut down the question saying that the contract would have to be discussed in closed session.

There are a few other exchanges between Daniels and trustees.

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

Tonight is an important night for many of our colleagues, on behalf of the full-time faculty I would like to extend our congratulatory wishes to the faculty members who are being recognized by being awarded tenure by you tonight. While there are state laws that govern tenure of college faculty, it is the recognition of this significant milestone by you that is very important. It is an achievement that all faculty members strive for.

This evening is also an important night for COD. We have again seven trustees. We hope this guarantees a quorum for every meeting moving forward. Thank you Mr. Olsen for accepting this important position. Welcome to COD.

We hope that tonight also marks the end of the bad public behavior that has led to probation for COD. When members of the Board abdicated the responsibility to select the 7th trustee, you lost your right to complain. It is time to sit down and conduct business. Agree on the College business that is prepared and brought forward. Leave the partisan politics at the door and when appropriate agree to disagree, politely and professionally. Please.

RIchard Jarman, VP COD Faculty Assn.