Last night I attended the CCSF Board of Trustees meeting virtually, hoping to hear them address the warning the ACCJC gave them and further elucidate the report given in the SF Chronicle, but there were just bits and pieces except for a presentation by the SFMTA on the Frida Kahlo Quick Build, which the campus is rejecting.
I was surprised that the chancellor wasn't there, and neither were Shannell Williams or Murrell Green. Shannell was quoted in the article Nanette Asimov wrote, "Errors by CCSF board could save Chancellor."
They never really got to anything substantive about how they were going to deal with the ACCJC's warning.
I like Anita Martinez' manner. She speaks very civilly and seems to know what she's talking about. She always makes a point of taking notes on what complaints are in the administration's purview.
I never understand the budget, but Susanna Atwood spoke convincingly on that subject, using her CPA expertise.
Madeline Mueller's reading from a paper about a conflict going on in 1982 was quite interesting! So were the comments by Taeko (last name?) of Japan, comparing the destruction of Hiroshima to Gaza.
I was impressed that both Fanny Law and Harry Bernstein spoke in a conciliatory way instead of whetting people's appetite for descension and seeing The Other as evil.
So the chancellor's report came only as an attachment?
I heard Sheri Miraglia, pesident of the Academic Senate, which changed their "No Confidence" resolution to "Censure," speak with a couple of other members from the Academic Senate beside her.
I didn't understand what classified was talking about. Or SEIU, but it seems that SEIU was excluded from decision-making and furious about it.
The second time Madeleine spoke, warning about Lumina, I did understand! Her comment was funny that "Being the chair of the Theater Department, I don't like the term 'bad actor,'" which the Lumina Foundation seems to be, giving money to educational institutions run like a business.
I knew there was resistance to the SFMTA's Quick Build on Frida Kahlo Way. I know how important moving away from our car-centric country is, and CCSF is in an ideal spot for public transportation, which 2/3 of the students take. (I think it's 2/3 of the staff and instructors who drive.) But I doubt that SFMTA really found that most people really favored these changes. I didn't stay to see how it turned out or whether there was a vote taken on it. I do know that I sometimes get home faster on public transit than I would have if I'd accepted the ride in a car that I was offered, and our transit system is getting better and better. But who am I to talk? When I taught at CCSF, I always drove!
It's fascinating that HEAT has come up with an alternate plan, if I understood correctly!
But what does the BOT plan to do about the ACCJC's warning?
No comments:
Post a Comment