7. Receive and Discuss Initial Assessment Regarding Whether Redistricting is Required for Board of Trustees Districts Considering the New 2020 Census Data

[7. Receive and Discuss Initial Assessment Regarding Whether Redistricting is Required for Board of Trustees Districts Considering the New 2020 Census Data]

WE WILL HAVE DAVID MENDEZ FROM BICKERSTAFF HEATH DELGADO ACOSTA TALK ABOUT REDISTRICTING.

>> I'M HAPPY TO BE HERE WITH DAVID MENDEZ.

HE'S HERE TO ADDRESS THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT OF THE DISTRICTS AND WHETHER REDISTRICTING IS REQUIRED.

>> GOOD EVENING, BOAR MEMBERS, CHANCELLOR.

[00:30:03]

DAVID MENDEZ FROM BICKERSTAFF.

I'M PLEASED TO BE HERE TO LAY OUT THE RESULTS OF OUR ASSESSMENT OF THE 2020 POPULATION FOR DALLAS COUNTY AND THE DALLAS COLLEGE DISTRICT TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT THE BALANCE AMONG THE POPULATION OF THE VARIOUS SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS.

IF Y COUPLE OF MINUTES, I WANT TO REVIEW FOR THE FOLKS AT THIS MEETING, FOR OBLIGATION THE COLLEGE DISTRICT HAS TO UNDERTAKE THIS ASSESSMENT EVERY DECADE.

THE WHICH WE CONDUCT THAT REBALANCING OF THE TRUSTEE DISTRICTS.

AND THEN, I'LL REVIEW THE NUMBERS.

BUT BEEN A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF GROWTH IN THE COUNTY WELL OVER 245,000 FOLKS WERE ADDED THIS DECADE HERE TO THE COUNTY.

AND COUNTY WAS SLIGHTLY SLOWER THAN AT THE STATE PACE.

IF TEXAS WAS THE FASTEST GROWING, LARGEST STATE IN THE COUNTRY, AT 60% RATE, THE COLLEGE DISTRICT GREW AT ABOUT 11% RATE.

SO WE'RE KIND OF GROWING AT A GOOD PACE, BUT NOT AS FAST AS THE REST OF THE STATE.

THE SHIFTED SOME.

I COMMEND AN ARTICLE THAT WAS IN THIS MORNING'S "NEW YORK TIMES".

IT WAS A GUEST COLUMN IN THE OPINION SECTION WRITTEN BY AN ECONOMIST OR A WRITER ON ECONOMICS.

IN REVIEWING HOW THE SORT OF 8 MILLION PEOPLE THAT WE'VE ADDED TO TEXAS OVER THE LAST TWO DECADES, GREW BY 4 MILLION PEOPLE THIS DECADE AND 4 MILLION PEOPLE AS A STATE LAST DECADE.

AND THAT ARE MOVING INTO TEXAS, ARE MOVING INTO URBAN AREAS LIKE DALLAS.

90% OF THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE COME -- THAT WE'VE ADDED, THESE 8 MILLION PEOPLE WE'VE ADDED IN THE LAST TWO DECADES ARE, ARE PEOPLE OF COLOR.

SO T CONCENTRATION OF -- A TREMENDOUS SHIFT IN THE DEMOGRAPHICS.

YES.

>> WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THAT GROWTH HAS BEEN PEOPLE OF COLOR DID YOU SAY?

>> 90%.

>> OF THE 8 MILLION IN THE PAST TWO DECADES?

>> IN THE PAST.

>> WE'LL SHARE THAT.

I READ IT THIS MORNING.

>> SO IF WE CAN GO FORWARD, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW WITH THE COMMUNITY AND WITH YOU GUYS, IS THE REASON WE ARE EXAMINING THIS.

YOU, LIKE CONGRESS OR STATE LEGISLATORS OR STATE LEGISLATORS FOR DALLAS COUNTY AS IT RELATE TO SAY THE COLLEGE DISTRICT.

TO THE EXTENT YOU'RE SELECTED FROM SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, EACH ONE HAS A MONEY PERSON, ONE VOTE OBLIGATION, WHICH WE'LL GET INTO.

ONCE BALANCE, YOU HAVE TO MAKE THE ADJUSTMENTS IN A MANNER THAT PROTECTS PEOPLE OF COLOR THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.

AND THERE ARE OBLIGATIONS UNDER SECTION 2 THAT APPLY.

THERE ARE OBLIGATIONS FOR THE REST OF OUR SOCIETY, THE ANGLO SOCIETY HAS PROTECTIONS UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT.

THERE ARE LIMITS HOW WE USE RACE.

WE HAVE TO BALANCE THESE PRINCIPLES.

AND CHANGES IN THE LAW WHICH I'LL REVIEW RELATING TO HOW THE CHANGE IS IMPLEMENTED.

IN T THIS DECADE AND, YOU KNOW, SEVERAL OF YOU GUYS ON THE BOARD HAVE SERVED WITH US AS WE'VE BEEN THROUGH PRIOR REDISTRICTINGS, WHAT WE WOULD DO IS ADOPT THE CHANGE.

TAKE IT TO WASHINGTON OR SEND IT TO WASHINGTON FOR PRE-CLEARANCE UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.

SO THE DEPARTMENT CAN PASS ON WHETHER WE MADE THE CHANGE IN A NONDISCRIMINATORY MANNER.

THE LAW CHANGED.

I'LL REVIEW THAT BRIEFLY.

THE THE ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE OBLIGATION.

THE IDEA IS EACH OF THE SEVEN DISTRICTS HAS TO BE ROUGHLY THE SAME SIZE.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE MATHEMATICALLY EQUAL TO THE PERSON.

BUT CAN BE -- DEVIATE FROM EACH OTHER 10%.

I HAVE A SIMPLISTIC EXAMPLE HOW YOU ARRIVE FROM THIS

[00:35:01]

DEVIATION AND WHETHER WE'VE SURPASSED.

IN T EXAMPLE I HAVE, I HAVE FOUR-BOARD MEMBER DISTRICT.

IT HAS 40,000 POPULATION UNDER ITS CENSUS RESULT.

EACH OF THE FOUR TRUSTEES WOULD HAVE TO HAVE 10,000 PERSONS IN THEIR IDEAL DISTRICT SIZE.

THE SHOWS DISTRICT A HAS 11,000 PEOPLE, SO IT'S 10% OVERPOPULATED.

DISTRICT B HAS 8,000 PEOPLE, SO IT'S 20% UNDERPOPULATED.

SO THE MAXIMUM DEVIATION, THE WAY YOU CALCULATE MAXIMUM DEVIATION IS THE CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF THOSE.

WE'RE 30% OUT OF BALANCE IN THIS EXAMPLE DISTRICT, WOULD HAVE TO REDISTRICT.

WE'R SITUATION.

I'LL REVIEW OUR NUMBERS IN A MINUTE.

I WANT TO EXPLAIN WHERE WE GET THE DATA AND HOW WE USE IT.

SO I EXTENSIVE REPORT THAT IS DERIVED FROM THE PL 94-171 FILE DELIVERED TO THE STATE OF TEXAS IN AUGUST.

AND IT HAS AT THE CENSUS BLOCK LEVEL, WHICH EQUATES TO A CITY BLOCK, THE TOTAL POPULATION OF CITIZENS IN THIS DALLAS COUNTY AS OF APRIL 1ST OF LAST YEAR.

IT A ALL OF OUR CITIZENS THAT ARE 18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER.

SO WE USE THE TOTAL POPULATION FOR THAT ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE CALCULATION.

WE THEN WILL USE THE VOTING AGE POPULATION TO MEASURE THE STRENGTH OF VOTING DISTRICTS OF EACH OF THE TRUSTEE DISTRICTS AS WE LOOK AT THEM.

AND REPORT THAT YOU ALSO HAVE INFORMATION AS TO THE RACE AND THE ETHNICITY OF THE POPULATION.

SO A WE'RE GOING USE THAT TOTAL POPULATION TO MAKE SURE OUR DISTRICTS ARE IN BALANCE.

AS WE MAKE ANY MODIFICATIONS -- I'LL SHOW YOU EXAMPLES OF THE THINGS I'M WORRIED ABOUT AS I GO THROUGH IT OR MY CONCERNS AS I GO THROUGH IT AS A LAWYER TO MEASURE THE VOTING RIGHTS ISSUES.

SECT RIGHTS ACT STILL APPLIES TO THIS.

IT'S BEEN IN EFFECT SINCE 1965.

AND IT IS A PROTECTION FOR OUR CITIZENRY THAT HAD HIST DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN THE UNITED STATES.

SO H AMERICANS, ASIANS, NATIVE AMERICANS, OTHER RACIAL GROUPS TO DERIVE PROTECTIONS.

WE AS A BOARD HAVE AN OBLIGATION AS WE REALIGN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T PACK OR CRACK CONCENTRATIONS OF MINORITY VOTERS.

OVER SINCE THE DISTRICT HAS HAD SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, THE DISTRICT HAS WORKED HARD TO MAKE SURE ITS COGNIZANT OF THE OBLIGATIONS IT HAS TO CITIZENS.

AND THEN, DRAW ON CHANGES IN THE DISTRICTS TO PROTECT THOSE VARIOUS GROUPS.

THE SHIFTED OVER THE DECADES.

TRUSTEE DISTRICT 5, I THINK IS THE ONE -- YES.

5 HA PREDOMINANTLY HISPANIC DISTRICT OVER DECADES.

AND NOW HAS 50% VOTING AGE HISPANIC POPULATION.

THER AND CHANGES THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT.

AND SO WE'RE COGNIZANT OF THOSE AND WILL REVIEW THOSE AS WE PROCEED.

SO T AND THE TIGHTROPE YOU GUYS HAVE TO WALK IS AS YOU MODIFY THE DISTRICTS IS RACE IS AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT, A COMPELLING STATE INTEREST, IF YOU WILL, IN YOUR EXAMINATION OF THE LINES TO AVOID DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THOSE PROTECTED GROUPS.

BUT THAT'S THE END OF IT.

FROM THA PURPOSE OF THE REDISTRICTING IS TO ALIGN US AS TRUSTEE DISTRICTS AND TERRITORIES WITH OUR CONSTITUENCY GROUPS, THE VARIOUS COLLEGE CAMPUSES THAT ARE WITHIN YOUR TERRITORIES, THE COMMUNITIES, THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS FROM WHICH YOU DERIVE YOUR ENROLLMENT.

THOSE ARE THE IMPORTANT ISSUES FOR YOU ALL.

AND AS YOU'RE DRAWING, THOSE ARE THE TYPES OF INTERESTS THE COURTS ARE LOOKING TO SEE THAT YOU ARE LOOKING OUT FOR IN DRAWING THESE DISTRICTS.

SO I WILL EXAMINE IT FOR THE NARROWLY TAILORED PURPOSE MAKING SURE WE DIDN'T DIVERSELY IMPACT THE PROTECTED GROUP.

BUT THEN, WE'RE MOVING ON FROM THAT.

SO A WORKED AND WHAT COURTS FIND TO BE RACIAL GERRYMANDERING IS THE TOP PICTURE HERE.

THIS IS A MAP OF HARRIS COUNTY FROM ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO, IN WHICH THE LEGISLATOR HAD DRAWN THE UPPER LEFT-HAND SIDE PICTURE UP THERE IN IN AN ATTEMPT TO DRAW SOME CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS.

THE RED ONE WAS SUPPOSED TO ELECT AFRICAN AMERICAN REPRESENTATIVES IN

[00:40:02]

THAT COMMUNITY.

THE GREEN ONE THAT IS ALL AROUND IT, WAS TO BE DESIGNED TO -- OR ENGINEERED TO DESIGN A HISPANIC REPRESENTATIVE OR REPRESENTATIVE OF THEIR CHOICE.

THE RACIAL GERRYMANDERING IN VIOLATION WITH THE 14TH AMENDMENT.

IT REDREW THE DISTRICT TO THE ONE ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT.

THE ACCOMPLISHES FUNCTIONALLY EXACTLY THE SAME THING THAT THE ONE ON THE UPPER LEFT DOES, THE RED DISTRICT ELECTS AN AFRICAN AMER REPRESENTATIVE OF AN AFRICAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY'S CHOICE.

THE GREEN ONE ELECTED THE CHOICE OF THE HISPANIC COMMUNITY.

BUT IT WAS MUCH MORE COMPACT AND RESTRAINED HOW IT WAS DRAWN AND EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND.

SO W TO AVOID THAT KIND OF BIZARRE DRAWING ON THE UPPER LEFT, BECAUSE IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S FOUND TO BE UNLAWFUL.

SO A STANDARDS IN IF MIND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO BELABOR IT, THOSE ARE THE POLICIES THAT WERE ADOPTED BY YOU GUYS AT OUR LAST BOARD MEETING.

WHEN WE MET A MONTH AGO AND I KIND OF DID THE PRELIMINARY SETUP FOR THE WORK ON THE CENSUS, WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR THE CENSUS RESULT, YOU GUYS IMPLEMENTED A POLICY THAT CONSIDERS CRITERIA THAT AUS TO FOLLOW THESE BASIC RULES.

SO IF WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

THAT SAYS WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW IDENTIFIABLE BOUNDARIES AROUND THE COLLEGE DISTRICT.

LOOK AT MAINTAINING COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST SUCH AS NEIGHBORHOODS OR SCHOOL DISTRICTS OR OTHER THINGS THAT YOU GUYS AS TRUSTEES AND YOUR CONSTITUENTS FIND IMPORTANT IDENTIFYING YOU AS A REPRESENTATIVE.

WE'R VOTING PRECINCTS IF POSSIBLE TO REDISTRICT.

WE'RE GOING TO USE THE EXISTING DISTRICTS TO TRY TO DRAW THE NEW ONES BUT MODIFY NECESSARY TO BRING IT INTO LINE.

WE'RE GOING TO ADOPT THE DISTRICTS FOLLOWING THE POPULATION IN THE CENSUS AND THEN DRAW THEM AND COMPACTLY AND CONTIGUOUSLY, NARROWLY TAILORING THEM TO PROTECT THE MINORITY GROUPS.

SO W ARE TWO CONCEPTS I WANTED TO MENTION.

ONE IS SECTION 5 REQUIREMENT THAT WE USED TO FOLLOW WAS WE WOULD ADOPT THE NEW DISTRICTS 60 DAYS BEFORE WE NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT THEM, BECAUSE WE HAD TO GIVE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 60 DAYS TO REVIEW THEM IN WASHINGTON BEFORE WE COULD IMPLEMENT.

IN 2 SHELBY COUNTY VERSUS HOLDER.

THE SUPREME COURT SAYS THAT NO LONGER APPLIES, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT.

THE BUT THE LAW IS THE SAME.

WE CAN'T DISCRIMINATE.

WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.

WE'RE ON OUR HONOR TO DO THAT.

WE DON'T NEED TO GO TO WASHINGTON TO GET PERMISSION.

WE'RE-ON OUR HONOR TO DO IT.

THE REDISTRICTING IS THE OLD LINE.

WHAT I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU IN TERMS OF NUMBERS, I'VE TAKEN YOUR EXISTING TRUSTEE LINES AND I'M PLYING THE 2020 CENSUS DATA TO THAT.

AGAI THIS PROCESS.

WE ADOPTED OUR BASIC POLICIES FOR HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO IT.

WE TALKED AT THE LAST MEETING ABOUT A PROCESS FOR US TO PROCEED UNDER.

AND WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED TO THE NEXT SLIDE AND REMIND YOU OF THE DATES WE HAVE FOR HOW WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED.

I'M HERE, THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT.

GIVE YOU TIME TO DIGEST SOME OF THAT.

AND THEN, WITH THE IDEA THAT I COME BACK AND WE'RE SCHEDULED TO BE AT A WORK SESSION WITH YOU ALL FOR A FEW HOURS ON NOVEMBER 9TH IN THE AFTERNOON TO DRAW WITH YOU.

I'M GOING TO TAKE A STAB AT AN INITIAL, PLAN THAT I SAW.

I'M GOING TO ASK YOU IF YOU WANT TO GIVE ME MORE INPUT

[00:45:02]

OR IF YOU'RE READY TO PROCEED TO THE 9TH OF NOVEMBER.

AT T PUT UP A MAP HERE IN THE WORK SESSION ROOM MUCH LIKE THIS.

ALONG WITH DATA.

IT'S AN INTERACTIVE MAP.

WE CAN MAKE ADJUSTMENTS SO YOU COULD SEE HOW THE DISTRICTS COULD BE DRAWN.

YOU COULD TALK AMONG YOURSELVES HOW YOU WOULD LIKE THE CONFIGURATIONS TO WORK.

WE W SEPARATE WORK SESSION SO THAT YOU CAN DIGEST WHATEVER YOU DRAW ON THE 9TH.

WE'LL COME BACK THE BEGINNING OF DECEMBER TO HAVE ANOTHER SESSION.

ONCE YOU VISITED WITH YOUR CONSTITUENTS AND DIGESTED CHANGES, IF WE WANT TO MAKE FURTHER MODIFICATIONS.

WITH AN IDEA BY THAT POINT, YOU MAY HAVE A FEEL FOR WHAT ADJUSTMENTS YOU WANT TO MAKE.

ON DECEMBER 7TH, WE WOULD BE SCHEDULED TO ADOPT.

I'LL ELECTIONS ARE IN MAY OF '22.

YOUR CANDIDATE FILINGS DATE BEGIN IN THE MIDDLE OF JANUARY FOR SOME OF YOU GUYS THAT ARE UP IN THAT CYCLE.

THESE NEW NOTICES WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED AS THE TERMS IN YOUR -- AS YOUR CURRENT TERM EXPIRES.

WE DON'T ELECT THE WHOLE BOARD WHEN WE START THE PROCESS.

WE JUST FILL THE POSITIONS AS THEY EXPIRE UNDER THE NEW PLAN.

NEXT SLIDE.

WE'R GET ONTO THE DATA FIRST.

THIS IS A MAP OF THE EXISTING DISTRICTS.

AND I'M GOING TO COME RIGHT BACK TO THIS.

WE MAY GO BACKWARD AND FORWARD ON THIS SLIDE A BIT.

LET'S GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

THIS IS THE MEAT OF THE ASSESSMENT.

THE DISTRICT -- OF THE COLLEGE DISTRICT IS 2,613,539.

THE IDEAL DISTRICT SIZE FOR EACH DISTRICTS IS THE POPULATION DIVIDED BY SEVEN FOR 373,363 IN EACH OF YOUR DISTRICTS.

SURPRISINGLY...

SURPRISINGLY, THE COUNTY GREW IN A VERY BALANCED WAY.

I MEAN, TWO DISTRICTS ARE BASICALLY THE ONES THAT ARE OUT OF BALANCE.

DISTRICT NUMBER 2 IN THE NORTHWEST, WHICH IS ALWAYS BEEN A FAST GROWTH AREA, GREW AT A PACE THAT PUT IT ABOUT 45,000 PEOPLE OVER THE IDEAL SIZE OR 11.49%.

TRUS SLOWEST PACE.

IT'S IN THE FULLY MATURE, DEVELOPED AREA OF DALLAS COUNTY.

AND THERE WASN'T AS MUCH GROWTH THERE, BECAUSE KIND OF BUILT OUT, SO IT DIDN'T GROW AS FAST AS THE OTHER DISTRICTS ON THE OUTSIDE.

SO IT WAS UNDER ABOUT THE POPULATION.

SO I POSSIBLE -- WELL, THERE IS A 2.6 MILLION PEOPLE IN THE COUNTY, IT IS POSSIBLE TO FIX THE IMBALANCE AMONG THE TRUSTEE DISTRICTS TO GET THEM FROM THAT MAXIMUM DEVIATION RIGHT THERE, 24.38, YOU SEE THERE? THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DISTRICTS 2 AND 6.

IF WE GO BACK TO THAT OTHER MAP.

2 AN EACH OTHER.

IT IS POSSIBLE TO FIX ALL OF THIS BY MOVING FIVE PRECINCTS AT THE TOP END TOWARDS CARROLLTON INTO DISTRICT 6 TO ADD 40,000 SOME POPULATION THERE.

IT'S A PREDOMINANTLY HISPANIC DISTRICTS.

I'LL EXPLAIN WHY THAT MATTERS TO SOME EXTENT AND HOW I ARRIVED AT THAT, IN A MINUTE.

AND ALMOST BALANCED, EXCEPT FOR A PERCENTAGE I CAN'T FIX BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM.

SO I VERY TOP, UP WHERE IT TOUCHES ON DISTRICT 2, IT IS POSSIBLE TO MOVE ONE PRECINCT UP THERE.

I'LL PROVIDE THE NUMBERS IN A MINUTE WHEN I COMPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE AND WHY I WOULD APPROACH IT THAT WAY.

THAT WOULD GET THE IMBALANCE UNDER 10%.

IT WOULD BE LIKE 8% IMBALANCE.

AND WE'D BE DONE IN TRYING TO FIX THE TOTAL REDISTRICTING PROBLEM.

AND FROM EXPERIENCE, SOMETIMES THESE ENDEAVORS CAN BE EXTREMELY COMPLEX AND

[00:50:04]

DIFFICULT.

THERE MAY BE OTHER COMPELLING CHANGES YOU WANT TO MAKE TO THE TERRITORIES, AND THAT'S DOABLE.

YOU'RE OUT OF BALANCE, YOU CAN FIX ANY OF THESE DISTRICTS.

BUT AS A STARTING POINT FOR THIS, I CAN FIX IT WITHOUT ANY ADVERSE VOTING RIGHTS ISSUES WITH THAT.

SO L FORWARD.

BECAUSE I WANT TO SHOW SOMETHING.

THE REASON I PICKED THOSE AND I DID THAT, WAS BECAUSE IF YOU WILL LOOK AT -- THESE ARE VOTING AGE NUMBERS.

AND YOU'LL NOTE THAT DISTRICTS 4, 5, AND 6 HAVE PRETTY SIGNIFICANT HISPANIC TOTAL VOTING AGE NUMBERS.

AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE AFRICAN AMERICAN -- OR BLACK COLUMN THAT'S NON-HISPANIC BLACK COLUMN, DISTRICT 7, MISS COMPTON'S DISTRICT HAS A SIGNIFICANT AFRICAN AMERICAN POPULATION IN HER DISTRICT.

THAT DISTRICT HAS BEEN LIKE THAT FOR 20-30 YEARS.

NOW, ON 5 AND 6, BECAUSE I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT NOT DECREASING IN HAD ANY SIGNIFICANT WAY, THE VOTING AGE HISPANIC COMPOSITION OF THOSE TWO TRUSTEE DISTRICTS.

AND SLIDE.

THIS SCHEMATIC.

IT SHOWS RANKINGS OF PRECINCTS IN DALLAS COUNTY BASED ON THE PROPORTION OF HISPANIC POPULATION.

THE EXISTING DISTRICT AND THE POINT I WANTED TO MAKE -- IT'S HARD TO SEE ON THIS LARGE SCALE.

YOU CAN SEE IT ON THE PACKET YOU HAVE RECEIVED FROM ME EARLIER, IS THAT THERE ARE THREE OR FOUR PRECINCTS -- THERE ARE FIVE PRECINCTS THAT GO UP TO THE NORTH OF TRUSTEE FLORES'S DISTRICT 6 TO THE NORTH, THAT WOULD TAKE TERRITORY OUT OF 2, THE OVERPOPULATED DISTRICT, AND PUT IT INTO 6, AND NOT ENDANGER OR DILUTE THE HISPANIC VOTING STREAMS OF THAT DISTRICT.

NOW, DISTRICT, WE HAVE THE SAME ISSUE.

IT'S 50 -- IT'S LESS THAN 51% VOTING AGE HISPANIC ON THE OTHER CHART.

SO IF I ADD -- IF YOU LOOK ALONG THE TOP EDGE OF YOUR DISTRICT AS IT TOUCHES ON DISTRICT 2, THERE IS A PRECINCT UP THERE WHICH IS 50% HISPANIC, WHICH IS 4626, DALLAS COUNTY PRECINCT 4626.

AND IF I MOVE THAT PRECINCT INTO DISTRICT NUMBER 5, WE GET UNDER THE 10%.

WE'LL BE AT 8% SOMETHING IMBALANCE.

HER TRUSTEE DISTRICT WOULD CONTINUE TO BE OVER 50% HISPANIC VOTING AGE.

>> I THINK YOU MEAN TRUSTEE BOYD.

I THINK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 5, YEAH, TRUSTEE BOYD.

>> TRUSTEE BOYD, 5, BECOMES -- GETS PROTECTED AT THAT LEVEL.

SO I LEVEL.

AND CORRECTION OF THE IMBALANCE WITH AT LEAST AS A STARTING POINT.

WHAT I DO IS DEVELOP A PLAN, BRING IT FORWARD AND LET THE -- OTHER MODIFICATIONS THEY WANT TO DO.

MAYBE THERE ARE CORRECTIONS THAT YOU WANT TO DO TO THE BOUNDARIES TO GET THEM MORE ALIGNED WITH SCHOOL DISTRICT LINES, BECAUSE YOU REPRESENT CONSTITUENTS FROM DIFFERENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS OR THINGS LIKE THAT.

BUT AGAIN, THAT'S MY REPORT.

THERE ARE TWO WAYS WE COULD GO FORWARD FROM HERE.

WHAT I'VE BEEN DOING WITH CLIENTS -- THIS HAS BEEN AN ODD REDISTRICTING CYCLE.

WE'RE DOING ABOUT 100 EVERY CYCLE.

AND WE ARE IN THE PROCESS.

IN HAD THE LAST THREE DECADES, THERE HAVE BEEN THREE CLIENTS THAT HAVE BEEN IMBALANCED WHEN YOU DID THIS ANALYSIS.

[00:55:01]

THEY DIDN'T -- THEY WERE UNDER 10% DEVIATION BEFORE, YOU KNOW -- SO THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO REDISTRICT.

THIS THE FIRST -- THIS IS JUST MY SECOND WEEK OF DOING INITIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR CLIENTS OF THE GROUP.

WE'VE HAD FIVE CLIENTS SO FAR THAT WERE IMBALANCED, INCLUDING TARRANT COUNTY NEXT DOOR.

2 MILLION POPULATION COUNTY.

THE FOUR COMMISSIONER PRECINCTS ARE WITHIN 1% DEVIATION OF EACH OTHER.

TARRANT COUNTY GREW UNIFORMLY THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY OVER THE DECADE IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE FOUR QUADRANTS OF THE COUNTY ARE WITHIN 1% OF EACH OTHER TOTAL POPULATION.

500,000 PEOPLE IN EACH, AND THEY'RE ALMOST MATHEMATICALLY EXACT.

SO KIND OF AMAZING HOW OUR SOCIETY IS BECOMING MORE AND MORE INTEGRATED AND MORE AND MORE GROWTH THAT IS MORE AND MORE UNIFORM.

BUT THAT'S MY REPORT.

ARE THERE QUESTIONS OF ME? OH, THE OTHER WAY I APPROACH IT, I CAN SEND YOU A QUESTIONNAIRE.

I'M TRYING TO AVOID, AS I MENTIONED LAST TIME, THERE'S A WALKING QUORUM ISSUES.

IF I START DRAWING WITH ONE OF YOU GUYS AND THEN I HAVE TO DRAW WITH FOUR OF YOU, IT COULD BE AN ISSUE.

WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IF I CAN SEND A WRITTEN QUESTIONNAIRE TO YOU AS A LETTER FROM YOU AS YOUR LAWYER.

I HAVE SOME LEGAL QUESTIONS THAT I CAN ASK YOU THAT WILL PROVIDE ME WITH SOME IDEA OF HOW TO GET TO THE FIRST DRAWING.

OR I CAN BRING THAT DRAWING I DESCRIBED TO YOU AND WE CAN START WITH THAT.

SO, YOU KNOW, HOWEVER YOU ALL WANT TO PROCEED.

EITHER I CAN SEND OUT A QUESTIONNAIRE OR I CAN COME BACK WITH A PLAN LIKE THE ONE I DESCRIBED.

AND WE CAN MEET AT THAT FIRST MEETING AND TALK ABOUT IT.

>> ANY QUESTIONS?

>> I NOTICE YOU HAD THE VARIOUS WORKSHOPS, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM.

AND THEN, ALSO WE HAVE TO HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS, RIGHT? WILL THEY COINCIDE WITH THOSE DATES OR NOT?

>> YES, SIR.

WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO WAS PUT A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE SECOND WORK SESSION.

SO WE WOULD DRAW THE FIRST WORK SESSION.

AND IF YOU CAME UP WITH AN IDEA THAT YOU LIKED AND WANTED TO SHOW THE PUBLIC, WHAT ROB AND I HAVE THOUGHT WAS WE WOULD POST IT ON DISTRICT'S WEBSITE AND PUBLICIZE IT.

AND THEN, WE'D HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE DECEMBER 2ND WORKSHOP.

AND YOU COULD HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC IF THEY LIKE IT OR DON'T LIKE WHAT WE'RE HEADED.

ANY CRITICISMS OR SOMEBODY WANTS TO GIVE YOU THEIR OWN IDEA.

AND THEN, YOU CAN TALK ABOUT IT AT THAT WORK SESSION AND PROCEED.

>> WE'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE ONE PUBLIC HEARING?

>> THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT THAT YOU HAVE ANY.

IT'S JUST A TRANSPARENCY FOR THE COMMUNITY.

AND THIS IS TYPICALLY IN DALLAS COUNTY AN ISSUE OF GREAT PUBLIC INTEREST.

YOU'RE LIKELY TO GET INPUT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> DAVID.

>> YES, SIR.

>> THERE'S A GREAT RELIANCE FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW ON EXISTING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES.

AND IF WE WERE TO TAKE THE APPROACH YOU SUGGESTED, WHICH IS BASICALLY A SWAP OF A FEW PRECINCTS BETWEEN THE OVER BALANCED AND UNDERBALANCED DISTRICTS THAT WOULD PRESENT MINIMAL LEGAL EXPOSURE UNDER THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT UNDER SECTION 2 AND NOT CAUSE RETROGRESSION?

>> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

I CAN SHOW YOU A MAP THAT OVERLAYS THE SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES ON THE COLLEGE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES.

I'M THINKING THAT AT SOME POINT IN THE PRIOR DECADE, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS TEN YEARS AGO OR 20 YEARS -- THIS WILL BE MY THIRD ONE, BUT AT SOME POINT, WE WENT THROUGH THAT EXERCISE AND WE ALIGNED EVERYTHING.

WE TRIED TO ALIGN THE TRUSTEE DISTRICTS TO THE EDGES OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AND SEE, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO SEE.

>> YEAH.

>> I'M CURIOUS, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE WORKING WITH OTHER COMMUNITIES AROUND THE STATE OF TEXAS, WHETHER A DISTRICT IN THE SITUATION THAT WE FIND OURSELVES IN HAS EVER FOUND A COMPELLING REASON TO COMPLETELY REDRAW? IN

>> NO, SIR.

NO.

I HAVEN'T.

IT TYPICALLY IS A FLAG FOR A COURT.

WHAT YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT IS PAIRING INCUMBENTS.

ONCE YOU START DRAWING FROM SCRATCH, THE MOST LIKELY THING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO FIND IS THAT TWO OF THE TRUSTEES OR MORE -- TWO OR MORE TRUSTEES WILL END UP IN HAD ONE DISTRICT BECAUSE OF THE NATURAL ALIGNMENTS FOR SOME OF

[01:00:01]

THAT KIND OF DRAWING.

SO THAT'S THE MAJOR PROBLEM WITH IT.

BUT, NO, ANYBODY WHO JUST THREW THE OLD DISTRICTS OUT THE WINDOW.

YOU'VE GOT HERE THROUGH SOME INSTITUTIONAL EVOLUTION, AND PEOPLE DON'T DISCARD THAT LIGHTLY, I DON'T THINK.

>> ONE OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS I HAD, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN I ENTERED THE RACE A YEAR AGO, THE CITY OF DUNCANVILLE 67 SPLITS THE CITY TO A DEGREE.

I HAVE ALL OF THE CITY OF DUNCANVILLE.

NOT ALL OF CEDAR HILL.

BUT ALL OF DUNCANVILLE EXCEPT FOR MAYBE TWO PRECINCTS.

AND I HAD A LOT OF CONFUSION WITH PEOPLE WHEN WE HAD OUR -- THEY GOT UPSET WITH THE ELECTION PEOPLE, BECAUSE THEY WOULD TELL THEM I'M IN DISTRICT 5.

AND THEY'D SAY BUT I LIVE IN DISTRICT 4.

THERE'S A LOT OF CONFUSION WHEN YOU SPLIT THE CITY.

SOME OF THE LARGER CITIES YOU CAN'T DO MUCH ABOUT, URBAN YOU CAN'T DO MUCH ABOUT THAT, OR DALLAS.

BUT THAT'S ANOTHER AREA WHERE THERE'S A COUPLE OF PRECINCTS IN DISTRICT 5, IF I'M GOING TO GIVE UP OR GAIN OR MOVE IT COULD BE A POSSIBILITY THAT WE AT LEAST CONSIDER ALIGNING THAT.

>> YOU CAN SEE WHAT CITY ALIGNMENT LOOKS LIKE.

>> CITY ALIGNMENT LOOKS LIKE.

THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IS PRETTY WELL ALIGNED.

DISTRICT 5, DUNCANVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT IS PRETTY ALIGNED.

BUT THERE'S AN ELEMENT OF CEDAR HILL THAT'S NOT.

IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO SEE THE OVERLAY OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.

>> I THINK WHAT I'M HEAR SOMETHING A QUESTIONNAIRE MIGHT BE HELPFUL.

>> WELL, QUESTIONNAIRE TO EVERYBODY.

MAPS.

AND I'LL DO THESE.

AND THEN, I'LL HAVE ANOTHER ONE THAT WILL SHOW WHERE THE FACILITIES ARE, WHERE THE VARIOUS EMPHASIS ARE IN RELATION TO THE VARIOUS TRUSTEE DISTRICTS.

YOU KNOW WHAT'S IN YOUR DISTRICT.

JUST SO THAT THERE'S A GENERAL MAP LIKE THAT.

>> YEAH, BECAUSE NOT EVERY TRUSTEE HAS A FACILITY IN THEIR DISTRICT.

>> AGAIN, SOMETIMES YOU IDENTIFY WITH THOSE.

SOMETIMES YOU DON'T.

DIFFERENT -- I DO THIS FOR A NUMBER OF MAJOR COLLEGES AROUND THE STATE, SO EVERYBODY HAS THEIR OWN PHILOSOPHY ON THAT KIND OF STUFF.

BUT THINGS YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT WOULD HELP YOU LOOK AT IT?

>> NO.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> IT WAS A PLEASURE TO BE WITH YOU GUYS.

I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU.

I'LL SEND A QUESTIONNAIRE OUT AS QUICKLY AS I CAN.

>> THANK YOU.

WE APPRECIATE THAT.

>> HAVE A GOOD EVENING.

[8. Consent Agenda]

>> OKAY.

WE WILL GO TO ITEM 8, THE CONSENT AGENDA.

WE HAVE 8.1, 8.2, 8.3.

DO WE HAVE ANY MOTIONS?

>> SO MOVED.

>> SECOND.

>> I'VE GOT QUESTIONS ON 8.2-A IT'S A POLICY ITEM THAT HAS HAD NO DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD.

>> OKAY.

ARE YOU WANTING TO PULL IT FROM THE MOTION?

>> WE'VE NOT HAD ANY POLICY -- THERE'S BEEN NO CONVERSATION WHATSOEVER.

AND IT SAYS IN THE WRITE-UP ON IT MR. RITTER AND MR. BOYD WERE THE ONES WHO BROUGHT THIS FORWARD.

>> LET ME CLARIFY THAT.

AS A NEW BUDGET CHAIRMAN, I HAD SOLICITED THE PRIOR BUDGET CHAIRMAN MEET WITH ME IN ONE MEETING WHICH I WAS LEARNING KIND OF THE PROCESS TO GO THROUGH.

THIS WAS AN ISSUE I BROUGHT UP.

THAT'S WHY THE NOTES SAY WE HAD THE MEETING.

IT WAS NOT A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT TO CHANGE ANYTHING.

WE DID HAVE IT ON THE AGENDA LAST MONTH AT THE LAST MEETING.

NO ONE BROUGHT QUESTIONS UP.

>> IT WAS PART OF THE PACKET OF LAST MONTH.

THERE WAS NO FORMAL PRESENTATION ON IT, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

>> YEAH, AS FAR AS GOING INTO THIS.

BECAUSE KNOWING FULL WELL WE HAVE BEEN REORGANIZED, WE ARE LOOKING AT HANDING A $400,000 CONTRACT TO SOMEONE WHO JUST HOURS BEFORE US APPROVING THIS COULD ONLY DO A $250,000 CONTRACT.

MONEY GOES AWAY TOO FAST AT $400,000 A CONTRACT.

WE CAN GET OUT $1 MILLION REAL FAST.

THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE GENERAL AS FAR AS WHO COULD DO WHAT CHANGES AND HOW MUCH MONEY PER CONTRACT, WE ARE A NEW ORGANIZATION.

WE ARE STILL HIRING PEOPLE TO DO THESE JOBS.

WE DON'T KNOW HOW THEY THINK.

THE WE DON'T

[01:05:01]

HAVE ANY IDEA IN A LOT OF CASES -- THE WHOLE IDEA OF HANDING AWAY OUR AUTHORITY OF CHECKING AND LOOKING AND BEING AWARE OF WHAT IS BEING SPENT, I WAS SHOCKED TO SEE IT WENT FROM $100,000 TO $250,000.

THAT'S A BIG JUMP.

CONSIDERING WE ARE STILL HIRING PEOPLE THAT WOULD BE AUTHORIZED TO DO THIS EXCESSIVE SPENDING.

$1 MILLION GO AWAY REAL FAST.

>> SO THE POLICY YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS CF LOCAL.

>> YES.

>> THE $400,000 EXPENDITURE RELATES TO CONTRACTS FOR EDUCATIONAL SERVICES.

I'M GOING TO ASK JOHN TO SPEAK TO IT IN MORE DETAIL RECORDING REVISIONS.

>> OKAY.

>> CLARIFICATION BEFORE THAT HAPPENS, WE HAVE SEEN THIS IN A FIRST READING, CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> IT WASN'T BROUGHT ON FOR APPROVAL TODAY?

>> NO.

>> WE DID NOT RECEIVE QUESTIONS OR SO ON ABOUT THE POLICY.

A CO PROBABLY GETTING CLOSE TO THREE OR FOUR, BECAUSE I'M GETTING OLDER, WE BROUGHT THIS POLICY.

IT WAS A REQUEST WE HAD AT THAT TIME TO RAISE THE LIMIT TO SAY $250,000.

THE BOARD ASKS US TO CHANGE THAT.

WE REDUCED IT TO $100,000.

THE WAY WE NEED TO GET THIS POLICY GOING IS BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE, WE HAVE PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT LEVELS OF AUTHORITY AND DIFFERENT LEVELS OF SIGNING WHAT THEY CAN SIGN.

FOR STILL MAJORITY OF EVERYTHING RESTS WITH THE CHANCELLOR AND THE CFO.

WHICH IS THE ONES WHO HAVE BEEN CONTROLLING THE PURSE STRINGS FOR LONGER I'VE BEEN ALIVE.

WELL, THAT'S NOT TRUE.

BUT WHAT AND SPECIFICALLY GOING TO THE $400,000, THE $250,000 BEFORE FOR EDUCATIONAL AGREEMENTS ARE TYPICALLY TRAINING CONTRACTS WE HAVE WITH VARIOUS INDUSTRY SOURCES -- OR INDUSTRY FIRMS AROUND.

WHAT WE LOOKED AT THAT WAS THE BREAK EVEN -- NOT BREAK EVEN BUT A BREAKING POINT IN WHICH MOST OF THE CONTRACTS NEEDED TO BE ABLE TO SATISFY THE PROVOST CAN SIGN OFF ON HAD A SEGMENT GOING AT THE $400,000 LEVEL.

THAT IS NOT A CONTRACT FOR NECESSARILY PROCUREMENT OF $400,000 OF GOODS.

THAT'S PROVIDING THE SAME SERVICES THAT WE CURRENTLY PROVIDE TO ALL STUDENTS WHO SHOW UP IN OUR CLASSES.

AND THESE TRAINING SESSIONS PAY TUITION AND SO IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT WAY OF LOOKING AT HOW WE DEAL WITH THIS AND SEGMENT THEM OUT.

WE CAN GO BACK TO $250,000.

BUT QUITE FRANKLY, OUR ANALYSIS SHOWED MOVING THE $400,000 WAS THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL WHERE TO GO TO.

WITH THE NEW ORGANIZATION AND ALSO THE DELEGATION OF WHO CAN SIGN THESE, THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD.

BECAUSE THIS OLD POLICY DOES NOT FIT OUR NEW ORGANIZATION.

>> SO HOW MUCH OF A DELAY IS IT WHEN SOMETHING LIKE THAT --

>> I MEAN, NEW FISCAL YEAR HAS STARTED, AND WE COULDN'T DO A -- WE WANT TODAY HAVE TWO READINGS ON THESE POLICIES BECAUSE OF THE CHANGES, SO IT WASN'T ONE WE WERE TRYING TO PUT THROUGH IN ONE READING.

BUT WE'RE UNDER THE NEW FISCAL YEAR RIGHT NOW.

AND WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THESE CHANGES MADE BECAUSE WE HAVE THE NEW ORGANIZATION AND THE CORRECT PEOPLE IN PLACE.

>> NO.

THAT WASN'T MY QUESTION.

MY QUESTION WAS ABOUT WHEN -- OUR LIMIT IS 250 RIGHT NOW.

HOW MUCH OF A DELAY IS IT WHEN IT HAS TO BE BROUGHT TO THE BOARD WHEN IT'S OVER 250 BUT UNDER 400, LIKE HOW -- THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR DR. MAY.

>> YEAH, I THINK THE ISSUE OF MANY OF THOSE ARE MANY OF THESE ARE BASED ON USAGE AND OTHER ISSUES THAT ARE OUT THERE.

SO WHILE WE PUT TOGETHER THE BUDGET BOOK EACH YEAR, WE PUT AN AMOUNT OF DOLLARS IN THERE.

WE MAY GO UP TO THAT.

WE MAY NOT.

AND THE COURSE OF IT.

BUT I'M THINKING BLACKBOARD.

I'M THINKING SOME OF THE OTHER ASSESSMENT TYPES OF INSTRUMENTS WE ACQUIRE ON THE INSTRUCTIONAL SIDE.

SOME OF THEM ARE BASED UPON ENFOMENT THAT WE WOULD HAVE IN THE CLASSES AS WELL.

>> MOVING FROM $100,000 TO $250,000 PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS IS AN ADDITIONAL 50 CONTRACTS, APPROXIMATELY, OF EITHER DR. MAY OR MYSELF WOULD BE SIGNING.

>> I CONVERSATION WITH MR. BOYD WHEN THIS

[01:10:04]

CAME ABOUT.

THE I WAS QUITE FRANKLY SURPRISED HOW LOW THE AUTHORIZATION LEVEL IS FOR AN ORGANIZATION OF THIS SIZE.

WHAT ARE WE A $500 MILLION OPERATING BUDGET AND HAVE THAT LEVEL OF $100,000 FOR THE CEO, IT STRIKES ME AS LOW.

THIS IS NOT AUTHORIZING PEOPLE TO SIGN CONTRACTS WILLY-NILLY.

WE APPROVE THESE CONTRACTS.

THIS IS PURSUANT TO APPROPRIATIONS, IF YOU WILL, THAT HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE BOARD.

BUT IT'S WHO ARE WE DELEGATING THE QUITE FRANKLY MINISTERIAL ROLE OF APPROVING CONTRACTS TO.

WELL 250.

IF YOU CAN'T TRUST THEM AT THAT LEVEL FOR AN ORGANIZATION THIS SIZE, WE HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM, WHICH I DON'T THINK WE HAVE.

BUT APPROPRIATE CHANGE TO MAKE AND I FULLY SUPPORT IT.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS YOU DON'T SEE AS A BOARD IS THE INTERNAL CONTROLS WE HAVE THIS, WHETHER THERE'S LEGAL REVIEW OF THESE CONTRACTS, THERE'S A BUSINESS REVIEW.

IN EDUCATION, THERE'S AN EDUCATION REVIEW.

BUT THE NECESSITY OF THESE ISSUES.

AND THEN, ITS IT'S NOT IN THE BUDGET BOOK AND EXCEEDS OUR AUTHORITY, WE'RE VERY STRICT ABOUT BRINGING THOSE THINGS TO THE BOARD.

>> HOW MUCH INSTANCES IS IT MALFEASANCE, IS THAT THE TERM, HAVE WE HAD SINCE YOU'VE BEEN CFO? WE'VE NOT HAD ANY I REMEMBER.

>> IF YOU DO, I WOULDN'T BE YOUR CFO.

>> YOU WOULDN'T BE HERE.

>> IN OTHER WORDS, TH INTERNAL CONTROLS THAT WE HAVE AT WHATEVER AMOUNTS --

>> VERY TRUE.

I'M GOING TO TELL A STORY HERE.

I'M GETTING TO THE AGE WHERE I GET TO TELL STORIES.

WHEN I FIRST CAME TO DCCCD AT THE TIME, I WAS AMAZED HOW STIMYED WE WERE WITH THE SIGNATURE LEVELS AND HOOPS WE HAD TO JUMP THROUGH TO CONDUCT BUSINESS, ESPECIALLY WITH THE LEVEL OF BUDGET WE HAVE.

FAST FORWARD FOUR OR FIVE YEARS, DR. MAY COMES IN AND SAYS WHY ARE YOU SO RETICKETIVE ON WHAT YOU'RE DOING WHEN YOU'RE SITTING ON $500 MILLION BUDGET? AND THINKING WE HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT WE HAVE IF WE WANT TO BE RESPONSIVE.

I THINK YOU HAVE A GOOD TEAM AS YOU ALL TALKED ABOUT, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE DOING VERY DUE DILIGENCE.

AND WE TAKE OUR FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO THE BOARD VERY SERIOUSLY.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> I'M SURPRISED THIS IS HERE.

BECAUSE IT WAS FOR THE LAST READING, THEN WE WOULDN'T HAVE HAD MOST LIKELY -- I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING IT.

AND WHEN I FIND THAT WE HAVE SECTIONS THAT ARE LEFT OUT BECAUSE TWO SECTIONS ARE DUPLICATED, I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT I MISSED IT.

I'M NOT SAYING I'M PERFECT.

BUT THIS -- IT JUST CONCERNS ME THAT IT'S NEW, AS AN ORGANIZATION THAT WE ARE, WE'RE STILL HIRING PEOPLE.

WE TALK ABOUT PROVOST IN HERE.

WE TALK ABOUT ALL OF THE DIFFERENT PEOPLE AND THE CHANGES IN PEOPLE THAT WE'RE AUTHORIZING TO SPEND MONEY.

I'M SURE WHEN WE HIRE PEOPLE, THEY'RE ALL WONDERFUL AND THEY'RE ALL GREAT AND ALL TRUISTIC AND WE CAN EXPECT THE MOST OF THE PEOPLE WE HIRE.

WE DON'T KNOW THESE PEOPLE YET.

BRAND-NEW PEOPLE INTO A BRAND-NEW OFFICE.

THIS MONEY.

AND IT CAN GO AWAY VERY QUICKLY.

$400,000, THAT'S A BIG CHUNK OF $1 MILLION.

SO TO ME, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE MAYBE WE ARE REDUCING OUR FIDUCIARY REQUIREMENTS BY HANDING IT TO SOMEONE ELSE.

ONCE WE HAND IT OFF TO SOMEONE NEW, EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, CHANCELLOR, PROVOST, VICE CHANCELLOR OF WORK FORCE AND ADVANCEMENT, OR DESIGNEE.

DESIGNEE IS WHO?

>> THAT IS IN THE LETTER FILED WITH THE GENERAL COUNSEL OFFICE THAT IS TYPICALLY ONE LEVEL DOWN FROM THE POSITION.

SO IN MY CASE, IF I DO DELEGATE TO SOMEBODY,

[01:15:02]

I DE (INDISCERNIBLE)

>> THAT WOULD GO --

>> IT'S NOT I'M DELEGATING TO SOMEBODY FIVE LAYERS DOWN IN THE ORGANIZATION.

>> RIGHT.

BUT PROVOST.

HOW MANY NEW PROVOSTS?

>> WE HAVE ONE PROVOST.

>> YOU'VE GOT ONE NEW PROVOST.

VERY GOOD.

OKAY.

>> I WOULDN'T CALL HER NEW.

SHE'S BEEN IN THE POSITION.

>> YEAH, YEAH.

AS IT GOES.

BUT NO.

JUST SEEMS TO ME THIS WAS ONE OF THOSE THINGS IN A CONSENT AGENDA.

IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE DOING AN AWFUL LOT WITH A LOT OF MONEY.

>> OKAY.

SO WE HAVE A FIRST AND SECOND ON THE MOTION.

SHOULD WE PULL 8.2 OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA, OR DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A VOTE? ALL RIGHT.

WE'LL TAKE THE VOTE ON IT, THEN.

ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE CONSENT AGENDA, SAY AYE.

ITEM 9, INFORMATIVE REPORTS.

[9. Informative Reports]

ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON 9?

>> JUST A QUESTION.

MAYBE I OVERLOOKED IT, WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE GETTING A MONTHLY REPORT ON THE HIRES THAT, YOU KNOW, WE -- CONTRACT HIRES WE NO LONGER APPROVE.

IS IT IN HERE? NO, NO, NO.

THAT'S THE DEMOGRAPHY.

(INAUDIBLE SPEAKER)

>> LET ME CHECK IF THAT WAS THERE.

IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN.

THOSE HAVE BEEN GOING OUT.

>> COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? NOPE.

THERE IS NO EXECUTIVE SESSION NEEDED TODAY.

AND SO IT IS 5:32, AND WITH THAT, MEETING IS ADJOURNED.

(ADJOURNED)

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

Oct 05, 2021 Regular Meeting

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item