An attorney representing a group of students, faculty, and college donors addressed the Santa Barbara City College Board of Trustees Thursday evening with allegations that the board violated an open meetings law in the process of evaluating SBCC President Andreea Serban.
The board ended a closed session on June 8 — their fifth meeting to evaluate Serban — with “no reportable action” on the matter. Take Back SBCC, which formed about a month ago in response to the actions of the four new trustees, moved to make allegations after Trustee Marty Blum revealed in a June 12 article of The Independent that the board would be sending a letter to Serban regarding her evaluation. “Such an action fits within the definition of those things covered in the Brown Act and would have to have been reported at the end of the closed session,” said Robert Ostrove, the attorney representing the group, in a written statement.
The Brown Act prevents undisclosed meetings of public governing bodies by requiring policy discussions and documents be open to the public. Even actions and votes taken in a closed session must be entered into the record. As the board has not met in a closed session since, the allegations offer two possible violations, according to Ostrove: that the board came to a decision on June 8 and failed to report it, or that trustees met informally (and illegally) to write the letter.
“During last year’s election campaign, harsh criticism was directed against Dr. Serban for a ‘lack of transparency’ relative to her decision-making,” said Take Back SBCC president and chemistry professor Ray O’Connor, addressing the board. “I find it more than a little ironic that the trustees who included this charge in their campaigns have resorted to an elaborate scheme to avoid publicly disclosing the results of Dr. Serban’s evaluation.”
The group also released a 16-page letter sent to the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, detailing purported “illegal, unethical, and unprofessional actions and behaviors” by the new trustees, which amount to unwanted micromanagement and reaching beyond the shared governance processes of the college.
According to the letter, trustees have attended several meetings of the College Planning Commission, Academic Senate, Continuing Education Consultation Council, and other groups, offering opinions and speaking uninvited. Trustees Lisa Macker and Marsha Croninger reportedly met outside of public meetings to develop a list of alterations to the 2011-12 budget, despite Serban’s insistence that such proposals be discussed through college governance processes. Croninger is charged with making unnecessary and time-consuming requests — a wait list report for every course and section for the last two years, taking 10 hours to prepare some 80 pages — without using the material. The board has also insisted on holding on-campus office hours in the library. “They’re so ‘rogue’ that they do what they want,” said O’Connor.
In a letter to Serban Thursday afternoon, the Accreditation Commission informed the board that it will conduct an investigation of these charges — potential violations of several accreditation standards — in the early fall. Although he doesn’t think the college will lose its accreditation, O’Connor suggested that a failure by the board to act could hurt the college’s reputation and ability to obtain competitive grants and funding.
Take Back SBCC, which is in the process of becoming a nonprofit organization, is footing its legal bills with the help of “longtime donors of the college” who are unhappy with the board. But, calling Serban one of the “greatest superintendant-presidents we’ve had for years,” O’Connor says the group won’t be happy until they’ve cut out the root of the problem — the four newest trustees.
Despite these allegations, Trustee Marty Blum says she doesn’t see any reason for legal action against the board. According to Blum, the trustees authorized the board president to write up the evaluation letter in a previous open session, and didn’t require any additional disclosure on June 8. “Dr. Haslund felt like he didn’t need to say that, but maybe we needed to,” Blum said. “But it certainly isn’t a violation of anything.”
Blum says members of Take Back SBCC have spoken frequently during public comment sessions but have not accepted invitations to meet one-on-one. “I’m very saddened by it, the idea that this group would go to the accreditation board instead of coming to us,” Blum said.
Related Links
- City College Gets a Budget…Sort Of [ June 12, 2011 ]
- A Campus Divided [ May 27, 2011 ]
- Serban Evaluation Update [ May 26, 2011 ]
- Extra Time Needed for Serban’s Evaluation [ May 24, 2011 ]



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace







Previous Month



Comments
Well of course they are silent. They are supporters of the complainer and whiner types who were just elected. Laws don't apply to them, silly, only to Dale, etc.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2011 at 1:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The alleged Brown Act violations are trivial, likely unprovable, and other than the notes or lack thereof regarding the June 8 meeting, don't involve a majority of Trustees, a crucial condition for violation.
I think the reporting and focus on the Brown Act is almost beside the point of the letter as written by Take Back SBCC. Reading that laundry list of accusations against the new board member is much more illuminating and has more teeth.
Chester_Arthur_Burnett (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2011 at 1:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
O’Connor is divisive not inclusive. The bully's are fighting mad now.
easternpacific (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2011 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
HOLD ON A MINUTE! A guy like Dale Francisco MERELY suggests changing the Brown Act & he gets chastised.
Marty Blum, et al, carry our a Brown Act violation & they get a slap on the wrist?
Oh, I see, they (Blum, et al) ain't labeled as "conservatives" so they must be right in doing what they did.
I get it now, do as we say, not as we do, nothing new there, silly me :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2011 at 6:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Henry. you can't say that cause in ain't true.
easternpacific (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2011 at 9:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Angry-man Ray O'Connor, is the ex husband of Angry-woman Kathy O'Connor, and both are disgruntled faculty who don't like the way the voters voted last election: unseating 4 long-time incumbents - which is a very difficult thing to do. Since they don't have the power over the board that they used to, they and other bully's like them are doing what bully's do: intimidate, threaten, degrade, etc, to try to get their power back. Thank goodness there are at least 4 members, and I think 2 others (Livingston is hopeless) who are intelligent and strong enough to withstand these tactics.
This accusation is baseless and the accompanying letter to Accreditation is riddled with untruths and inaccuracies. Their bellies were scraping the ground when they came up with this one.
whatsername (anonymous profile)
July 16, 2011 at 1:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry to disappoint my fans. I had a life to lead during the past 12 hours.
I know this is hard to believe, but just because the losing side of a political election hire a lawyer to write up something does not make the facts true.
Perhaps they should focus their attention on why they lost the election and how well the SBCC President is performing her job and how to make it better?
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
July 16, 2011 at 6:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jfklbj, Hank, there is no "egregious violation of the law"; there is simply an accusation of violating the Brown Act. If, in fact, the Act was violated, then fingers may and will point accusingly, but, until then, innocent until....
citti (anonymous profile)
July 17, 2011 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think we have a bunch of angry folks unhappy with the results of the election who are attempting to harass and intimidate the new board. They don't want the people's will carried out by the board.
Serban is just an employee and I trust the board to decide if she is doing a good job or not. Let's leave them to their job.
lbsaltzman (anonymous profile)
July 17, 2011 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To underscore what citti said, these are ALLEGED violations. Save your outrage for the Indy story that presents the results of the investigation.
And cool your jets, JohnLocke. You're starting to sound like the lug nuts who infest the joint..
SezMe (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2011 at 12:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, sir, SezMe. Whatever you say, sir. But I agree that there are many lug nuts in these pages. Alleged violations deserve investigation - SBCC, SBPD.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2011 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
O'Conner has growled at nearly every Trustee meeting and declared that he will personally lead the charge to unseat any Trustee who fails to praise Serban. His threats are backed by the angry chorus of union employees who hint at work "slow downs" and other punitive tactics.
This sour grapes gang has no interest in students and less knowledge of budget realities.
Trustees need to focus on the budget and their duties to the taxpayers. Their job is made almost impossible by Serban's refusal (or, worse, inability) to provide accurate fund accounting. It is unfortunate that this President must be removed in order for the Trustees to do their job.
Unfortunately Serban's pattern of padding union jobs and kicking out students is not what the Community wants or needs.
artfarm (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2011 at 6:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Conservatives et al; There is a difference; the difference is SBCC trustees' 'alleged violations' and yes Dale Francisco did lead the conservative block in an effort to do away with transparency at another governmental body, the City Council. I know it is difficult for conservatives to understand nuance and subtleties but this should be obvious even if you are following the narrow agendas of Murdochs' smokescreen school of tabloid journalism.
And no I wouldn't be an apologist for Marty Blum if she is proven to have done something wrong. Just because you may not like someone does not mean they're guilty, you know.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2011 at 10:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There's a well-written backgrounder by a longtime SBCC professor. It can be found at www.edhat.com.
Moonrunner (anonymous profile)
July 20, 2011 at 10:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lost in all this is the fact that, YES, SBCC is fledgling and something needs to be done. Who here thinks they could of saved some $ by putting on hold the press box and theatre projects? Or at least the press box. When was the last time you saw an SBCC sporting event fill the stands at La Playa? Yeah, exactly.
sqlappi (anonymous profile)
July 22, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)