OHLONE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

Ohlone College

Video Conference Room / Fremont Campus

43600 Mission Boulevard, Fremont, CA 94539

 

 

 

Minutes of College Council

February 25, 2005 ADOPTED

 

MEMBERS PRESENT: Doug Treadway

Kathleen Johnson Patrick Lane

Connie Teshara Leslie Buehler (for Richard Grotegut)

Wayne Takakuwa Tom Holcomb

Elizabeth Silva Linda Evers

Ban-Jin Tan Susan Myers

Saad Siddiqui Ron Travenick (for Debbie Tucker)

 

MEMBERS ABSENT: Dennis Keller

Additional staff and student rep needed


OPEN MEETING:

 

  1. Approval of Minutes (February 11, 2005)

·       Elizabeth Silva again requested clarification of language regarding implementation of Reorganization. That is, were the LRC changes and Cheryl Lambert’s position taking effect immediately or not until July 1? D. Treadway replied that the LRC changes are included in with the Library, and that none of the classified positions are part of the approval process. There are several job descriptions (new and revised) that need to be presented to the Board. Implementation can still take effect now.

·       Elizabeth posed a second question regarding the task force budget allocations summary. She wondered if the Community Service mini-grants proposal had been “bumped” to $5K. After some discussion, it was agreed that this upward adjustment had not been approved and that no amendment to the budget summary is necessary.

Motion: Moved/Evers; Passed to approve the
February 11, 2005 College Council minutes. No amendment necessary.

  1. Arming sworn officers

·       Groups involved in shared governance have taken votes and surveys.

·       Results:

o        CSEA 30% yes 70% no

o        SEIU 24% yes 76% no

o        ASOC vote “yes”

o        Students 45 yes, 55 no

o        Admin 73% yes 23%no 4% abstain

o        Faculty 39% yes, 55% no 6% abstain


 

·       Dr. Treadway provided a summary of his meeting with Fremont’s chief of police, including the following points:

o        Fremont PD has had a “severe reduction” in their force. They have an order of magnitude code. For a “Code 1”, Fremont PD commits to a 5 or less minutes response time (all resources available for threat to life, life in danger).

o        In contrast, no commitment on timing for other codes.

o        There’s no question but that their resources are limited, as are ours.

o        Fremont chief says they perceive our campus as a safe environment. Don't perceive our campus as problem area or area of concern. Chief thinks one sworn officer for Ohlone is enough, with 5, 6, or 7 security officers. Validated our current level of force.

·       Additional Treadway comments:

o        Current assessment is that campus has been well protected, city PD is available, and we are in an "okay" status.

o        Some campuses have contracted with police, and we may want to investigate that option.

o        At this point, Treadway asking whether Council wants to take independent action or if Council feels that various groups have already spoken.

·       Council comments, questions, discussion followed, including:

o        Silva: Is it Treadway recommendation not to move forward the chief's proposal? Treadway reply: it's Council's job to advise me (administration).

o        Meyers: If Council is going to make a recommendation and vote, am I to vote my constituency? Treadway reply: You are not here to vote personal opinion, you are here to vote your constituency.

o        Wayne: As a representative body, more accurate to just leave it as it is.

o        Grotegut; When would this topic be revisited? Treadway reply: We'd go back through the process again, if conditions change. The matter would be settled, at this point, but could be revisited at any time.

o        Walston: We've learned a lot in terms of our support of our security team. We need to review night time coverage and perhaps fill the next vacancy with a sworn officer to assist with coverage.

·       Patrick Lane then introduced and distributed a “counter-proposal” document from the Classified Senate. Per Lane, Classified Senate feels it’s unclear what ASOC voted on. Language subject to interpretation. The proposal itself would not arm officers. Friction between Classified Senate and bargaining unit (CSEA) has resulted. If this was just meant to be a survey of opinion, that should have been stated.

·       Treadway reply: This proposal asked a specific question regarding change of policy. If yes, we would move forward, if no, leave as is. Just wanted to get a sense of the campus' feeling. Not willing to withdraw proposal.

·       Lane: If this was a proposal to take action to arm officers, then it is a collective bargaining issue and not an issue for the Council. Vague as to whether or not this was a proposal or survey.

·       Evers: The Union never advised classified not to vote through Classified Senate.

·       Treadway clarification: When discussing board policy, some aspects do not affect working conditions of staff or faculty, and collective bargaining does not implement. The College Council will be asked to respond to all policies.

·       Lane comment: The net result of this process was that many classified staff had no opportunity to vote and that detracts from shared governance.

·       Treadway: Do Classified staff want to give an opinion at this point?

·       Lane: Recording objection, but no classified senate input at this time.

·       Motion: Council recommends to administration not to support proposal. Moved/Evers Seconded/Johnson. Motion failed, due to recommendation for substitute motion.


·       Discussion:

o        Takakuwa expressed preference to leave voting feedback as it is

o        Meyers: Would also rather let these numbers speak for themselves without additional recommendation from Council.

·       Substitute Motion: Moved/Silva: Substitute motion to let stand representative voting, Seconded/Travenick. Motion passed (Lane: abstained)

·       Treadway commented that he will not recommend to the Board a change in arming policy.

 

  1. Budget Assumptions

·       Deanna Walston and Joanne Schultz distributed and reviewed reserve assumptions for the general “Fund 10” 2005-06 preliminary budget. Discussion points included:

o        Handout assumes we make enrollment cap this year (7,974) and assumes we will continue at that level next year (no growth).

o        District at risk of not making enrollment cap, falling a couple hundred below. A number of colleges in this area planning to have a "monster summer" (competition). We would have to generate an 1100 FTES this summer.

o        Swing of approximately $800K in revenue side, depending on successful enrollment

o        Adjusted rainy day reserve to remain at $450K

o        Treadway: basing this on the Governor's proposal -- this is a worst-case scenario.

o        Long-term structural problems with budget. Prudent to plan on the worst-case and have contingency.

o        Possibility that that the 3.9 COLA may not "stick". If COLA reduced, those funds could come to us in another form (equalization, growth, etc.)

o        Could see increase in partnership for excellence.

·       Registration fee proposal to ASOC: $2-3/semester

·       Parziale comment: Marketing is key

·       Chancellor's office considering funding nursing programs differently.

·       Program-based budgeting with cost differentials for certain vocational programs, augmented for high-cost (nursing, etc.).

·       Salary increases not included at this time – have to be negotiated and will be reported later.

·       Looking at salary savings of $100K

·       STRS increase to 10.25%

·       Budget planning calendar - first projection will be brought back to Council 3/11

 

  1. Academic Probation Policy

·       Wayne Takakuwa distributed documents for review and discussion at 3/11/05 meeting.

  1. Report on Fremont Campus Frontage Property (held over to 3/11/05 agenda)

  2. College Council Meeting Schedule for March

·       Agreed we will hold one 2-hour meeting on March 11 (10:00 a.m.noon).

 

  1. Future Meetings

·         March 11 (10:00noon / Video Conference Room)

·         March 25 (no meeting – Spring Break)

·         April 8 (10:00 – 11:30 a.m. / Video Conference Room)

 

Adjournment: Meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m.