Unnecessary tension on the College Board?

When we finished our monthly Board meeting last night, I realized something about the way we function that contributes to an atmosphere of contention and stress on the part of the Board and the College or members of the public. Unlike other governmental bodies like the School Board or the Board of Supervisors, the College Board has traditionally operated without active committees. Yes, we have had committees with chairs and members for the entire time that I have served on the College Board; however, until this year when I instituted new committees and called for these committees to meet as committees (rather than as the full Board) and to make recommendations to the Board for action.

I am pleased that the new committees and committee structure have been embraced by the entire Board, and that some of the committees have been particularly committed to their heightened role.

But, not every resolution is referred to a committee, and some of the resolutions proposed by the District -- as opposed to those proposed by Trustees -- are seen for the first time by the Board just a few days before our meeting. Often, we are asked to make a decision without delay, and that has caused problems when some of us feel that we have not been given enough information on which to base a rational decision.

Similarly, resolutions proposed by Board members (noticeably increased in number and in content since the Board added two new members in January), have not until this year gone to committee. In fact, few of the Board sponsored resolutions (other than Policy changes that require two readings) are referred to committee and most of the Board is unaware of the existence of the resolutions until the Board packet arrives the Friday night before the meeting the next Thursday.

With both the District and Board sponsored resolutions, there can be significant pressure to adopt them at the upcoming meeting. The stress and contention I spoke of at the beginning of this post result from: 1) the legal requirement that less than a majority of Board members can discuss a resolution prior the meeting in keeping with the requirements of the Brown Act, 2) the "political" strategy that a sponsor of a resolution may be employing in timing the introduction of a particular resolution, 3) the concern/fear that members of the College community or of the general public may have about the consequences of a resolution that became known to them with such a short time before a vote will be taken, and 4) the history of non-functioning committees, few policies guiding the introduction of Board sponsored resolutions, and strategic introduction of resolutions to score political points or to use the pressure of a deadline to force a decision.

I joined with my colleagues, John Rizzo and Steve Ngo, in drafting some Policy changes to bring order to the College Board and to reduce the stress that too often taints our meetings. More on those proposed changes in another post.