Skip to content

Adopted Minutes
August 26, 2002
Special Meeting

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 7:35 a.m.

Roll Call

Present: Heywood, Holden, Jeffries, Patterson, Pelleran, Rasmusson
Absent: Canady

Trustee Canady arrived at 7:50 a.m.

Limited Public Comment Regarding Agenda Items

Lynn Savage: I am Lynn Savage and I represent the members of Lansing Community College's Administrative Association. We are here to address the Board on a matter concerning members of our local. We have not yet received any response to the letter we addressed to you as chair on July 10, 2002. In that letter we demanded that the chair of the Board and certain members of the Board (inaudible) follow its own policies and issue an apology for the wrongs inflicted upon our members. We've not yet received that apology. Secondly, we are in support of the President of the College who has initiated an independent investigation on the matter at hand. Please understand that we believe that this should be the end of the matter. Neither the College auditors nor the State of Michigan performance audit have ever found anything noteworthy of exception. We feel that is enough proof that nothing is wrong. Thank you for your time.

Lynn Savage: Actually, I have another issue. Sorry to take up so much time. This is also a matter of the most urgent attention, needing your attention, and that is health care. I urge you as members of the Board to establish parameters within which we can come to a speedy conclusion with health care negotiations. As you know, our contract expires very soon. We went back to the table this morning and I urge you to establish parameters within which we can work comfortably, safely and solve this dilemma. Thank you.

Chairperson Jeffries stated that the Board received a letter from attorney Henry Nirenberg. He requested the letter be read into the record. Chairperson Jeffries asked Norma Mendez to read the letter.

Norma Mendez: Dear LCC Board of Trustees, I request that this letter be read into the record at your Monday, August 26th meeting of the Lansing Community College (LCC) Board of Trustees during public comment in regards to agenda item IV Chairperson?s Report, A. Fact-Finding Investigation 2. Board Update - Consideration of Resolutions A&B. This letter is written on behalf of my client, Glenn Cerny, an LCC executive who has been accused of improper actions in the handling of a certain purchase. This accusation by its nature is, related to your consideration of a general Board investigation into LCC purchasing policy. As context for my comments, I want to establish that Mr. Cerny has an impeccable reputation and has submitted full documentation establishing beyond any reasonable doubt that he was involved in no wrongdoing. See letter dated June 1, 2002 to Paula Cunningham, also previously submitted to the LCC Board. Further, the accusations brought against him were accompanied by no evidence whatever, that is the accusations were simply hearsay. Because of these unsubstantiated accusations, Mr. Cerny has been put through considerable stress and ultimately is having his career endangered. The accusing LCC Board member, David Patterson, has unfairly persisted in his crusade against Mr. Cerny, further, Mr. Patterson has made certain remarks to the Executive Assistant to the President/Board Liaison pertaining to Mr. Cerny?s character and reputation that were not only distasteful but are also threatening and retaliatory to the extent they have impugned the character and reputation of my client. The action the LCC Board is considering under the agenda item I am addressing may result in a Board investigation of LCC purchasing policies, despite the fact there is an independent and neutral investigation initiative into this matter by the College president, and a state audit that has been successfully passed. Nevertheless, because of the accusations of David Patterson, Mr. Cerny will in all likelihood be drawn into this matter, further endangering his reputation and adding to the antagonistic work environment he now endures. It is my understanding that the general accusations against LCC Purchasing Department mirror the allegations against Mr. Cerny again without evidence and totally predicated on hearsay. It seems impossible for this Board to miss the implications of going forth with yet another investigation. In addition to adding to the already substantial legal costs, you have potentially put forward causes of action by my client as well as by any of a number of employees. Lastly, because an individual of this Board, in regard to this mater, may have raised issues as to LCC Board bylaw 1.7.7 Conflict of Interest, and the related accusations by Mr. Patterson against Mr. Cerny, plus a related union grievance, this Board puts itself in the precarious position of ordering an investigation that is, in effect, policing itself. I respectfully request that you consider carefully the long-term ramifications for my client, who is blameless, other involved LCC employees, this College, its Board, and the community it serves before taking action. Very truly yours, Seyburn, Kahn, Ginn, Bess and Serlin, P.C. Henry M. Nirenberg

Barry Stearns: I have something that is not directly related to the agenda. It is a personnel issue. I can speak to that now or wait to the end.

Chairperson Jeffries asked Mr. Stearns if it pertained to any item on the agenda.

Mr. Stearns indicated it did not.

He was asked to wait until public comment at the end of the meeting.

Chairperson Jeffries pointed out that Mr. Greg McClelland was present; he is the attorney for Ms. Beard. Chairperson Jeffries asked if he wished to comment on anything.

Mr. McClelland: I really don't have anything to say. I think we have made our position clear. We do appreciate the response of the President to our request for the investigation.

Chairperson?s Report

Fact-Finding Investigations

Trustee Heywood indicated he would like to make a point of order regarding 1.7.7 on this section of the agenda. He stated he thought there was a conflict of interest, in terms of ethics. He asked Trustee Patterson to recuse himself from the dialogue when they discussed this section of the agenda.

Trustee Patterson stated that he would not do that.

Trustee Heywood then distributed a copy of a resolution that he offered. (A copy of this resolution is on file with the official Board materials.)

Trustee Pelleran asked if it was appropriate to offer a resolution at this time. She stated the last time she wanted to offer a resolution Trustee Heywood told her it was not appropriate.

Trustee Heywood stated that he drafted the resolution the night before the meeting. He read the resolution for the record:

?Whereas ample facts have been established to indicate that Paul Covert and S.O.S. are vendors of Lansing Community College; and

Whereas, by his own admission, C. David Patterson has admitted to having received free office design work from S.O.S.; and

Whereas, by his own admission, C. David Patterson has admitted to taking the side of Mr. Covert in an advocacy position; and

Whereas Board By-Law 1.7.7 (B) clearly states: ?Except in certain circumstances where the Board is selecting a consultant for its own purposes, Board members shall not normally communicate with vendors regarding the provision of products and services to the College, and shall refer any inquiries to the President. Board members shall avoid involvement in vendor-College relationship; any advocacy of individual vendors shall be regarded as a substantial conflict of interest,?

Be it therefore resolved, as provided under 1.7.7, the Board imposes the point of order forcing C. David Patterson to (b) absent himself from discussion regarding any issue which involves his role as a Board member and his outside activity and (c) refrain from voting on any such issue, namely in this case, the independent investigation into allegations of wrong-doing in the College's purchasing department.?

Trustee Heywood indicated that (b) & (c) both came from policy 1.7.7.

Chairperson Jeffries asked if there were any discussions or questions.

Trustee Patterson stated he wanted to respond and say that there had been a very organized effort to discredit him. He stated his relationship with Mr. Covert is one of absolutely nothing. He has never accepted anything that wouldn?t be offered to anyone in the room. He has never paid him a dollar. He stated that he has acted with total integrity to bring issues forth to people in the College. He stated because of these reasons he would not excuse himself. He stated that he is doing the job of those who have elected him. He further mentioned that he thought Trustee Heywood had been put up to this.

Trustee Rasmusson asked if there was a second on the motion.

Chairperson Jeffries asked Trustee Heywood if it was a motion.

IT WAS MOVED by Trustee Heywood and supported by Trustee Holden to accept the resolution presented by Trustee Heywood as written and read above.

Trustee Rasmusson said that he had concerns regarding the Board's authority to interfere with discharging the duties of an elected official. He stated that he felt Mr. Cerny is a very high quality person, and he is very impressed with him. He is also very impressed with Purchasing and the people there, and has no complaints. He wants to make sure the Board is doing the right thing.

Chairperson Jeffries pointed out that in December the Board reviewed and adopted a set of bylaws that specifically regulate Board member conduct in almost every facet of what it is they do. One of the provisions that the Board worked on was the conflict of interest provision. They did that so they could police themselves in situations that may arise from time to time. He stated this specific bylaw is very clear in terms of what a conflict of interest is, and if one is being found, then it also is very clear on what has to happen. He further stated that the College attorneys were present at the meeting and furthermore he thought the bylaw speaks for itself.

Thomas Hustoles of Miller, Canfield said from his experience the statute gives the Board the power to regulate itself. Conflicts of interest come before public boards from time to time in the course of doing business. If the Board didn?t have the authority to adopt bylaws and regulate conflicts of interest based upon the fact that officials were elected, than who could? He further stated that he was familiar with numerous instances over the past twenty-five years where elected boards, including the elected Board at the University of Michigan, and the elected Board of Wayne State University, where Board members either recused themselves or there were motions before the Board regarding conflicts of interest having a particular Board member recused themselves because of a perceived or alleged conflict of interest. It was his opinion that there were no legal questions in terms of interfering with the Board's elected ability.

Trustee Pelleran stated that if Trustee Rasmusson?s concern was strictly regarding conflict of interest then there was another issue and that is that the Chairperson of the Board has a conflict of interest with the entire scenario, which is politically motivated. She further stated if the Board were going to ask Trustee Patterson to recuse himself from the conversation, she would like to ask the chairman to recuse himself and to stop the politics that are interfering with Board action at Lansing Community College. She stated she agreed with Trustee Patterson that much of what is going on is contrived, and that she was tired of the smear campaign that is going on against her colleague. She said she would stand behind his right to speak and to serve on behalf of the constituents who have elected him to do so. She stated that is why she has never asked Chairperson Jeffries to step down as chairman, because he?s involved in a campaign that is a perceived conflict of interest, and from her perspective, it has been a conflict and has been motivated to do other activities that interfere with the Board and the College's work.

Chairperson Jeffries said he had absolutely no idea what Trustee Pelleran what was talking about.

Trustee Pelleran stated she thought he did know what she was talking about.

Chairperson Jeffries stated that no, he did not. He asked her to point out the conflict that she was referring to. The Board has a conflict with an allegation that there has been some work with a vendor by Trustee Patterson. In terms of initial interviews that have occurred with regards to the Glenn Cerny matter in particular, there was a particular discussion with a vendor, and the vendor actually indicated that there has been ongoing work between Trustee Patterson and that vendor. He stated the bylaw is very clear, if there is that type of interaction, there isn?t supposed to be. The other thing that Chairperson Jeffries wanted to point out is that in the exit interviews that were done, particularly with Hewlett Packard, there were some discussions with one of the vendors that did not receive that bid. He read information that the Board received. He stated that he did not want to identify by name the individual from IBM; the person indicated that Trustee Patterson contacted him on numerous occasions around the 13th to establish whether the purchasing process was fair to IBM. This individual made it very clear to Trustee Patterson that Mr. Cerny?s office had acted professionally and conducted the process in a fair and open manner. During conversations it became evident to Mr. Cerny that Trustee Patterson, through persistent questioning, was trying to persuade this person to question the process and protest the bid.

Trustee Pelleran stated that she found it curious that Chairperson Jeffries would have no trouble using someone else?s name, read off statements that are also alleged, and yet, protect the person?s name who has alleged to have made a mistake

Chairperson Jeffries stated that the documents have already been made public; they are part of all of the investigative material the Board has received

Trustee Pelleran stated that one of the things that Beckie Beard?s attorney had asked for was an informational review. That is one of the things that the Board has discussed and she finds it curious that each time the Board is asked to do something in closed session, it is under attorney/client privileged advice. So, the Board can't talk about it. But, in the letter from Henry Nirenberg, attorney for Mr. Cerny, he has information that was handled in closed session under attorney/client-privileged advice. She stated that one of the trustees must have shared the information, and it wasn't her.

Trustee Holden asked Trustee Pelleran which part of the letter she was referring to.

Trustee Pelleran said it deals with the President entering into an investigation. That was discussed in private session.

Trustee Holden stated that the information has been part of the Board packet since Friday. The Board packet is made public at that point.

Trustee Pelleran said she didn?t receive her packet until Friday after 7:00 p.m.

Trustee Canady stated that in looking at the bylaws, the provision in the last sentence that says advocacy of individual vendors shall be regarded as conflict of interest. He doesn?t feel Trustee Patterson has been advocating for any specific vendor or potential vendor. He felt Mr. Patterson should participate in the discussion, and the mere fact that he brought the complaints to the Board's attention should in no way disqualify him from participating in the vote.

Trustee Pelleran agreed that when the Board receives complaints it is imperative to bring those complaints forward and follow through with the President's Office and Board Chair.

Trustee Patterson asked for clarification as to whether the motion was dealing with only the Paul Covert issue or did it also include the Glenn Cerny issue.

Chairperson Jeffries stated that what was being discussed was the investigation process and purchasing policies.

Trustee Patterson stated for the record that his involvement with a designer at SOS was about a ten minute conversation before her computer screen to look at the size of a room that he has in a home to design some furniture for that room. He didn?t call Mr. Covert, didn?t talk to Mr. Covert. The designer would do the same thing for anyone. He didn?t speak to Mr. Covert until he was ready to leave and Mr. Covert asked Trustee Patterson to go to lunch. They used to be in a CEO group and hadn?t seen each other for three years. Trustee Patterson feels this has been trumped up into something that absolutely is nothing. He reported Mr. Covert?s complaint immediately upon leaving Mr. Covert?s office. He called the Board Liaison, Rich Howard, the person he feels he should have reported it to. At that point he requested, very innocently, to have the complaint reported to Beckie Beard. He stated he was denied that. Rich Howard told him that Mr. Howard had gone to the President and she said that he couldn?t do that; it should be reported to Vice President Barbara Larson. Ms. Larson was on vacation or away. He stated the long and short of it is that he partook as a private citizen and never purchased anything from Mr. Covert or SOS.

Trustee Pelleran wanted to point out, referring back to the letter from Henry Nirenberg; the letter was dated August 23rd, which was Friday. She stated that she felt there was attorney/client privileged information that was divulged to Mr. Cerny and his attorney in order to prepare this letter.

Trustee Holden responded to what Trustee Patterson called an attack. She felt from the very beginning of the Covert issue, which she feels has expanded to a chaotic, out of control situation, she maintains the position that the normal procedures would have been to report it to the President and then back out. The Board has seventy pages of materials, all of which they have received in the past, and as part of the current Board packet that indicate on-going advocacy, on-going concern. She believes there have been on-going discussions, dialogues, and concerns on Trustee Patterson?s part.

Trustee Heywood stated to Trustee Patterson that the resolution is about ethics and it is about trying to calm the situation down. He felt that there is an ethical violation.

Trustee Patterson stated all he has ever wanted was good, factual, timely, information so that he can make good solid decisions. He feels if given good information and he can make what he thinks are good decisions. He feels that over the past year and a half there has been a roadblock on getting information that he wants, needs and requests. He further stated that he has numerous e-mails and faxes to the Chair?s office and home that the Chair has never responded to. He also said the first question asked of Mr. Covert when he met with the College was a question from Mr. Howard regarding the fact that he was doing work for Trustee Patterson. The first letter that Paul Covert wrote to the Board sat in the President's office for almost two weeks before it was distributed. Mr. Covert called Trustee Patterson and asked him if he had received the letter. Trustee Patterson called and asked the Board Secretary if there was a letter and she said yes. He finally got the letter. Trustee Patterson stated that he does not feel the Board gets information.

Trustee Patterson presented a resolution that the Board meeting information is sent out at least three college business days to give the Board time to respond to information given. He stated that he did not get his information until Friday night at 5:30 p.m. via fax. The College is closed on Friday at 5:30 p.m. They are closed on Saturday. They are closed on Sunday. He felt that it put the trustees in a position to not be able to present questions or obtain information since the meeting was held on Monday at 7:30 a.m.

Trustee Canady stated that in looking at the bylaws, and looking at the last sentence it states, ?advocacy of individual vendors can be regarded as a substantial conflict of interest.? He further stated that Trustee Patterson has never said that Mr. Covert should get a contract. He said Mr. Covert has complaints about the process. If the Board were to invoke this provision now they would be telling trustees to put on blinders and wear earplugs and not to speak with the public. That is not the charge on this Board, and it's perplexing to him how we can advocate a position where someone raised a legitimate complaint, or at least what that person believes to be a legitimate complaint, to the attention of the Board and then the Board says it's unethical. He stated that for him it is about the process and he would not be supporting the motion.

Trustee Heywood stated if what Trustee Canady was stating was true then he would agree. But, what was sent to the Lansing State Journal contains letters and information that makes it clear that there is a significant on-going relationship between Mr. Paul Covert and Trustee Patterson. There is plenty of information in here that indicates that even after things were handed off to the President's office and Barbara Larson, Trustee Patterson continued to deal with it and continued to get in the middle of it.

Chairperson Jeffries responded to a couple of points that Trustee Patterson raised, in particular information going out to Board members and the timeliness and completeness of that information. He stated that since he has been chair of the Board and ever since President Cunningham has been president of LCC, it is the Board's practice to bring action items forward for consideration at least one Board meeting before the next in which action will be taken. The purpose for doing that is to make sure that there is sufficient information and enough time to ask questions and get all the information that one needs in order to make an informed decision. He further stated that for Trustee Patterson to say that he is not being heard and that information is being withheld, is simply not true. The current Board packet contains a lot of information; most of it is attachments that the Board has already seen, and clearly all of it within ample time for Board members to raise any questions. He stated again that he wanted to be clear on this point; information is given out way in advance.

Trustee Pelleran stated that she has also had a question on that issue. She also had concerns regarding a resolution that she wanted to bring forth and was told it was inappropriate, yet another Board member is bringing forth a resolution and not being told it's inappropriate. She stated that the Board wants information in a timely manner. She further stated that she didn?t want to see one of her colleagues smeared for no apparent reason, except just to make him look bad.

Chairperson Jeffries stated that he was unsure about what Trustee Pelleran was talking about but wanted to address her issue that she brought up about her purchasing policy resolution. He stated that the issue was discussed at the Board dinner, which is an open meeting, and the Board, at that time, decided that the policy bylaws committee would meet throughout the summer and would bring the issue back in the fall, and it is on the current agenda for discussion.

Trustee Pelleran stated that she disagreed with Chairperson Jeffries regarding the discussion at the Board dinner. She recalled that when she said she wanted to offer a resolution to deal with the purchasing issues, and at that point Chairperson Jeffries told her that there was a Board policy committee and her issue would be referred to the committee. She didn?t feel there was much discussion.

Chairperson Jeffries stated that Trustee Pelleran was not shy, and he was sure that if he had done what Trustee Pelleran accused him of she would have spoken out against it.

Trustee Heywood wanted to clarify to Trustee Pelleran that at the time that she was preparing to present that resolution in the last meeting and he mentioned that it might be a violation of the open meetings act, he was under the understanding that there had been several trustees that had been involved, in a round robin process, of putting that together.

Trustee Pelleran stated that it was not part of a round robin process. She had prepared the resolution herself. (Added to the minutes per Trustee Pelleran?s request at October 21, 2002 Board of Trustees Meeting.)

Roll call vote:
Ayes: Heywood, Holden, Jeffries
Nays: Canady, Patterson, Pelleran, Rasmusson

Absent: None

Motion failed due to lack of support.

President's Update

President Cunningham wanted to submit a response for the record, and respond to two statements that were made. The first was that although Beckie Beard has not received a written response, President Cunningham met with Ms. Beard and her representative to let them know the status of their request. That meeting was on behalf of the Board Chairperson. So even though the College hasn?t submitted a written response that was our response to the letter.

The second issue is a factual issue: the first communication that the College received from Mr. Covert was dated June 3rd. The College responded on June 10th. That can be proven as a factual issue.

President Cunningham went on to discuss LCC's Purchasing Department. They have averaged more than $20 million annually in the purchasing of goods and services for college operations. She reviewed how events have gotten to this point, and what her office has done as far as reviewing the College's purchasing policies, practices and procedures. The average number of purchase orders issued over the last three fiscal years is 5,570 per year. There are five full time employees who perform this work and one part-time support staff. The purchasing department adheres to procedures that are developed and codified since January of 1998 when Rebecca Beard began with the College as director of Purchasing. Prior to that time, some procedures had not been committed to writing, and all of the procedures are now listed in the vendor guide on our College's website. Throughout its 45-year history, a committed, dedicated staff has managed purchasing. However, it was not until Ms. Beard was hired in 1998 that purchasing at LCC obtained the level of professionalism that exists today. Ms. Beard brought eleven years of procurement and contract administration experience from the United States Air Force as well as an additional four years as a manager in private industry. She has a Masters in Business Administration and she holds many certifications in her profession. Anyone who would like to appeal or get more information on LCC's purchasing policy is encouraged to do so from the website, and also in the College's vendor guides. In reviewing purchasing records for the last seven years, which the President asked to have done, staff could find only three written complaints from suppliers regarding purchasing practices. In one of those cases, an incumbent supplier lost a bid to continue to provide service to the College. The service had never been previously bid out. The State of Michigan performance audit conducted at the College eleven years ago, in 1991, had two findings related to purchasing practices. However, the State of Michigan performance audit conducted in 2001 did not have any comments, findings, or recommendations related to college purchasing. In addition, to the periodic state performance audit, the College financial audit by Maner, Costerisan & Ellis are conducted every year, and they review purchasing in the content of a larger financial audit. Auditors use a checklist to sample purchases from beginning to end. They review requisitions, purchasing, receiving, and invoicing to verify that internal controls are in place and that the College's purchasing policies were followed. This audit will be conducted again this September. As part of the commitment to continuous quality improvement in October 2001, the purchasing department requested to be included in the ISO 9000 certification. Pursuing ISO 9000 certification is complimentary to the LCC's AQIP or Academic Quality Improvement Process. This replicates the Malcolm Baldridge model of quality improvement. For those who may not be familiar with ISO 9000, it is a standard of best practices which describes best practices and functions as benchmarks against which organizations can measure their systems and practices. As such, it facilitates an external review to assess whether accepted best practice has been followed in a particular instance. Some of the requirements for the ISO 9000 include external audits by ISO 9000 examiners, detail work instruction, key to procedures where appropriate, regular internal audits to discover non-compliance and pursue continuous improvement, and the list goes on. In addition to the College audit we're looking now at ISO and also the performance audit in less than a year. The purchasing staff participates in the activities and events each year that promotes LCC's supplier diversity program. Some of the activities they have participated in the last year have been the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the LCC office of equal opportunity luncheon for suppliers, State of Michigan suppliers fairs, Lansing School District?s Supplier Diversity Fair, Michigan Minority Business Development Executive Roundtable, the chair of the Lansing Area Public Purchasing Group, member of the Lansing Regional Chamber of Commerce diversity task force, Small Business Development Center, State of Michigan and the list goes on. For this work Ms. Beard was the 2001 recipient of the United States Small Business Administration advocate of the year for the State of Michigan. In addition, I am proud to say that Lansing Community College's purchasing department has also recently been nominated for the Michigan Minority Business Development Council?s Corporation of the Year Education Sector Award. On June 3rd we received a written communication from a vendor indicating his concerns with not being awarded a bid for furniture. The vendor?s letter of complaint came fifty-four days after he received notification by the College that the bid was not successful. I have distributed for your review timelines of subsequent communication following the June 3rd complaint for those who might argue that this office has not done anything. Executive Office, the Purchasing Department, Information Services, and our finance office have been thorough, diligent, and attentive to all of the issues surrounding purchasing. The College respects, listens and responds to all of our suppliers, vendors, and customers with the ultimate purpose of providing financially sound, equitable, and responsible services and products that we have for the taxpayers. At the request of Ms. Beckie Beard, concerns by some Board members, and others, a thorough review will be conducted of all allegations brought forward to date, as well as the review of past and present practices of the purchasing department. This report will review, assess, and detail the actual practices of the College's purchasing department, determine whether the practices support the College policies and bylaws, and whether or not conform to standards generally applicable to community colleges, nonprofits, municipalities and other public agencies. These reports will also determine if the College has complied with all the laws and ordinances imposed on the State of Michigan. In addition, the report will provide any recommendations in response to any perceived deficiencies or procedures relative to the College's purchasing department or otherwise. The report will be made public. To this end Mr. Fred Todd, of 21st Century Public Consultants, will be hired to conduct the review of the allegations, charges and perceptions that have recently surfaced. Mr. Todd received his Doctorate, his Juris Doctorate from Cooley Law School, his Masters of Public Administration from the University of Michigan, his other Masters in Business Administration from Indiana Northern University and his Bachelors in Accounting from the Detroit College of Business and a Diploma in Accountancy and Financial Administration from Walsh College. He graduated from all of these institutions with honors. He has served as Controller and Chief Administrative Officer for Saginaw County, Chief Financial Officer for Wayne County, Controller for Ingham County, Finance Director for the City of Novi, and Auditor for several other organizations. Mr. Todd was in the audience and President Cunningham thanked him for being there. She stated that he would be contacting Board members and others to follow up on this investigation. In addition, the services of Mr. Steve Harvey, of BDO Seidman, will be used. BDO Seidman is a national professional services firm providing audit, tax, financial advising and consulting services to a wide range of local, state, national and international businesses and nonprofit organizations. BDO Seidman has been in business for more than ninety years. They have more than thirty-five offices and one hundred and seventy five alliance firms? locations nationwide. Mr. Harvey is a Certified Public Accountant. He has a Bachelor?s Degree in Accounting from Ferris State University, and has more than twenty years of public accounting experience. He sits on a State Department of Education subcommittee charged with improving the quality of simple audits. Mr. Harvey is National Coordinator of BDO?s Governmental practice and chairs the Government Specialty Group of West Michigan. He works with cities, nonprofit school districts, and foundations. Mr. Harvey was not able to be present. President Cunningham has requested that both of these organizations report directly to Miller, Canfield in order to avoid any appearance of bias or tampering with the investigation and/or the audit. However, their final reports will be made by each independent organization, not by Miller, Canfield, to the entire Board and to the public. It is anticipated that both reviews will be completed by the end of September.

Chairperson Jeffries asked what the cost would be.

President Cunningham responded that the cost is estimated to be $10 to $15 thousand.

Board Update - Considerations of Resolutions A& B and Review of Investigation Protocol

Chairperson Jeffries stated that both of the items on this part of the agenda are items that have been discussed in two prior Board meetings. He believes that Resolution A was drafted and distributed to the Board at the end of July, and Resolution B was drafted and distributed to the Board in the beginning of August. These resolutions were prepared by Trustee Rasmusson and had input from Trustee Canady as well.

Trustee Holden stated that the first time she saw Resolution B was in the current Board packet. Trustees Pelleran and Heywood also said it was the first time they saw it as well.

Chairperson Jeffries stated that they had been distributed. He asked Norma Mendez to make and distribute copies of the e-mails where the resolutions were distributed.

Trustee Patterson wanted to know if he could see a copy of the draft proposal for the new purchasing policy.

Chairperson Jeffries indicated that the Board would not be looking at the draft proposal of the new purchasing policy. There was discussion and Chairperson Jeffries indicated that the item on the agenda dealing with Purchasing Policy Update was on the existing policy.

IT WAS MOVED by Trustee Rasmusson and supported by Trustee Canady that the Board adopt Resolution B as submitted in the Board packet.

Trustee Canady stated that his support for Resolution B is due to his reviewing the matter and finding that the Board has never performed an operational review of policies or procedures. He thinks the President does a fine job and he looks forward to the investigation. However, he feels that at the very least a broad operational review is warranted by the Board and feels that it is the Board's fiduciary duty to the public. He was in support of Resolution B and wanted to add a friendly amendment that would remove the first ?whereas? paragraph so that the resolution would read as follows:

Whereas, the College has an on-going program of continuous quality improvement; It is resolved that the Chair is authorized to contract on behalf of the College with Kenneth McIntyre, former assistant U.S. Attorney and an experienced attorney with investigative background, and Jan Lazar, a C.P.A., to perform an operational review of Lansing Community College's policies, procedures, and practices regarding all purchasing at Lansing Community College. Sixty hours of services are authorized. CPA Lazar shall serve at the direction of Mr. McIntyre. The Chair shall follow the existing College purchasing policies. College personnel are expected to assist in this inquiry and shall cooperate with this operational review.

Trustee Pelleran supported Trustee Canady?s friendly amendment.

Trustee Rasmusson said that he had no objection to the friendly amendment.

Trustee Holden wanted clarification on the two independent reviewers that President Cunningham is bringing in to conduct the review. She wanted to know whom they would be reporting to.

President Cunningham asked Mr. Cliff Flood, of Miller, Canfield, to explain.

Mr. Flood stated that it was their understanding that the Board wants an independent review, and let the consultant?s perform their own investigation. The arrangement that they have, based on discussions is that each of the consultants will prepare an independent report signed by them. The report will come to Miller, Canfield for the purpose of attorney/client privilege and will be drafted to the President's office without any input from the College's legal council on the reports.

Trustee Holden said that she would not support the resolution. She thinks that it is the Board's responsibility to hold the President accountable for conducting and proceeding on this matter. She said that this process is consistent with past practice of handing this off to the President and letting her conduct the investigation. She felt the credentials clearly show that President Cunningham has chosen two individuals and two companies that will approach this from the directions that concern the Board. Trustee Holden stated that she has a larger concern, and that is unsubstantiated allegations coming before the Board or members of the Board, and then the Board members supporting the allegations that are unfounded. She is very concerned when people?s reputations are involved, Vice President Cerny and Purchasing Director Beckie Beard, and beyond. She thinks that the Board will find that retaining and recruiting employees in this kind of environment will be difficult.

Trustee Pelleran said she would be supporting the resolution in part on Beckie Beard, who has asked through her attorney that the Board do an informational review. She believes that it is in the best interest of the employees at Lansing Community College to know that they have support through an informational and operational review that is absolutely an independent Board operational review.

There was discussion as to whether Beckie Beard, through her attorney, asked for a separate review on behalf of the Board or if the request was that the College perform an independent review of purchasing policies and procedures.

President Cunningham read a statement from Mr. McClelland on behalf of Ms. Beard, and it states, ?therefore we are requesting that an independent firm be engaged by LCC to review the purchasing policies and practices of the LCC purchasing department during the relevant time period.? The letter was addressed to President Cunningham and Chairperson Jeffries.

Trustee Pelleran continued to question the intent and then Chairperson Jeffries asked Mr. McClelland if he would clarify.

Mr. McClelland indicated to the Board that he wasn't splitting hairs that fine. He basically wanted an investigation to clear his client?s name and to make himself, as a member of this community, comfortable with the eight allegations.

Chairperson Jeffries thanked Mr. McClelland for his clarification.

Trustee Patterson said that he would support Resolution B with the friendly amendment. He also wanted to say that he supports the President's actions to do her office?s investigation.

Trustee Patterson also wanted to address how the Board and College got to its current state. He felt that it was based on some very minor things being mismanaged to the point that they are now in. Trustee Patterson stated that he went to Rich Howard on numerous occasions and said that he didn?t think that they were moving in the right direction, and he thought it could be handled a lot differently. He thought that someone should meet with the Mr. Covert and talk with him. Every letter that was written was another stick in the eye for Mr. Covert. All Mr. Covert wanted was the ability to do business with the College. Trustee Patterson stated that he never advocated that Mr. Covert deserved it. He advocated that Mr. Covert is a stakeholder, and lives in this community, he pays taxes in this community. When somebody brings an allegation to them, he thinks it is his duty to pass it on, and that is exactly what he did. The second issue he wanted to state to the public was that he has absolutely nothing against Ms. Beard.

Trustee Patterson said as to the issues of Mr. Cerny that he has absolutely nothing against him personally, and felt the allegations have been blown up into a situation where it looks like he (Trustee Patterson) is on some kind of witch-hunt for Mr. Cerny. He said that he brought the allegations that he had heard, on two different occasions, to the Chair and nobody else. He stated it was Chairperson Jeffries? decision to bring the allegations and issues forth in a meeting that Rich Howard, President Cunningham, Chairperson Jeffries, Trustee Patterson, and Glenn Cerny were participating in. He stated that he took a lot of abuse in that meeting, but he did what he felt was his duty to bring that forth and have it handled in a professional manner. Trustee Patterson said that he asked Mr. Cerny if he had heard a rumor going around campus and Mr. Cerny stated that he had heard it.

Trustee Holden stated to Trustee Patterson that she thought he should be real careful about some of the verbiage he used with regards to Mr. Covert feeling the information he received from the College in response to his inquiries were like a stick in his eye. She stated that she had read all dialogue and communication between Mr. Covert and Barbara Larson?s office and invited the public to do so. She stated that she could only imagine the amount of staff time spent on pulling the supporting documentation together, and she felt it was done in a respectful and fashionable manner.

Trustee Patterson wanted to give Trustee Holden an example of what he was referring to. He stated that Mr. Covert contacted the LCC Purchasing Department in May. He was told that they could not meet with him until July. LaVene and Company is the College's major supplier of office equipment, and at that point the College did not have a purchase agreement with LaVene, which is in Kalamazoo. However, the College was too busy to meet with Mr. Covert in June. Trustee Patterson stated that Mr. Covert is a taxpayer in the district and doesn?t live in Kalamazoo, he is a stakeholder in the City and he took the College not meeting with him poorly.

Trustee Heywood stated that Trustee Patterson had just proven his point on the ethics issue. He said that Trustee Patterson clearly believes that Mr. Covert has been abused somehow. He also wanted to clarify for the record, that Mr. Covert has done business with the College in the last year. He feels Mr. Covert is attempting to try and manipulate so that he can take over an entire order for all furniture.

Trustee Heywood also asked Trustee Patterson if he had a conversation with Rich Howard on Monday, August 12th regarding the City Pulse Freedom of Information Act request as well as issues dealing with Mr. Cerny.

Trustee Patterson answered that he did. He said that Mr. Howard brought Mr. Cerny into the conversation and Trustee Patterson said that if it came up he would take action because at that point he was a little hot under the collar. Trustee Patterson said he said something to the effect that he would bring him in or cut him to bits or something like that.

Trustee Heywood asked if Trustee Patterson said he would - Tear him apart??

Trustee Patterson said that he probably said it, yes.

Trustee Canady stated that he thought the Board was getting away from the issue at hand.

Trustee Heywood disagreed and stated he thought the Board was dealing with a situation where Ms. Beard and her attorney made it clear that they're accepting the President and her investigation. Trustee Heywood stated that he was pleased with the basis of the President's investigation, and would not be supporting the motion.

Trustee Pelleran stated for the record that she believes it's inappropriate for the Board to accuse anyone or to allege someone who has communications with this college has some overt desire to ?manipulate to take over the entire order?. She stated that Trustee Heywood, of course, is entitled to his remarks, but she wanted to make the remark in support of any constituent who wishes to come to Lansing Community College to do business that the College will treat them with respect and courtesy and not act in a defensive manner, and not suggest that they are trying to manipulate and take over the orders.

President Cunningham stated for the record, that currently there is a performance audit that's done for purchasing in September/October, and that is an annual audit. There is the ISO 9000 certification process that is going to be happening in September, which the College just asked to have done about a year ago, and also the two investigations by Fred Todd and Mr. Steve Harvey, as well as the State audit.

Trustee Heywood asked if President Cunningham was talking about five audit-type situations would be performed.

President Cunningham answered that was correct.

Chairperson Jeffries said he wanted to address some of the issues that have been raised. Regarding the concerns that Trustee Patterson raised regarding the Mr. Cerny matter and the allegations that Trustee Patterson made regarding Mr. Cerny, and to clarify what happened and what went on there. He stated that Trustee Patterson raised very serious allegations about misconduct to him (Chairperson Jeffries) and indicated to him that he was getting set up and he should check it out. Chairperson Jeffries said he indicated to Trustee Patterson how serious those allegations were and that he would follow through on asking that question. He said that Trustee Patterson indicated that he received some abuse in a meeting, a meeting where Chairperson Jeffries was in attendance. Chairperson Jeffries stated that Trustee Patterson did not receive abuse during the time he was present at the meeting. The meeting was a routine leadership meeting where the Board agenda is discussed.

Chairperson Jeffries also wanted to state in regards to the S.O.S. matter that he feels Mr. Covert was treated with respect and courtesy. He further stated that he could not think of anytime that a constituent, vendor or anyone in the LCC district has been treated with disrespect by this institution or the members that work here.

With regards to the resolution, Chairperson Jeffries said that the Board has adopted policies and bylaws that clearly state that under these situations the Board would defer these matters to the President for a review or recommendation. He said he would not be supporting the resolution and he had some question in terms of the breadth of the operational review and what it will encompass.

Trustee Canady responded that it is sixty hours for each of the individuals for a total of 120 hours. It's an operational review, a broad operational review; there are no limits on the operational review. If the consultants need more than sixty hours, they can come back to the Board at that time. Trustee Canady was not sure of Mr. McIntyre?s hourly rate. Ms. Lazar?s hourly rate is $150 per hour

Chairperson Jeffries wanted to know how the operational review would address the allegations or issues raised within Trustee Rasmusson?s letter.

Trustee Canady stated that they are not specifically addressed by this resolution. This is a broad review. If something should happen to crop up during the operational review then the Board would be advised of it. They are not being specifically charged to review any allegations.

Chairperson Jeffries was still concerned that in terms of the request from Beckie Beard and her attorney for exoneration, the Board's operational review will not exonerate the allegations.

Trustee Canady said he thought it would, and that request is what triggered what is happening now. It brought to light that perhaps the Board needs an operational review so the Board can get a handle on what's going on, whatever it might be.

Chairperson Jeffries raised an additional concern that if the Board has one grievance that has been filed, and the Board now has two others from opposing counsel raising serious issues and yet they (the Board) are moving forward with their own investigation, he wanted to know if the results of the Board's operational review would then be attorney/client privileged information. He asked that a friendly amendment be added to the Resolution that states that, as with the President's investigation, the Board's operational review be made public.

Trustee Canady agreed to the friendly amendment and said it should read as follows as a last sentence to the resolution,

All findings of the operational review shall be made public record.

Trustee Holden asked if there was a purchasing policy that states this operational review needs to be bid out.

Chairperson Jeffries responded that in order to comply with purchasing policies there must be a sole source document filled out and submitted.

Trustee Canady stated that Ms. Lazar had been a faculty member at LCC, and she currently is teaching one course in finance. Ms. Lazar?s husband also filed a grievance regarding an anti-Semitic reference in a book and the issue was resolved. He wanted to disclose that information. He said that he doesn?t think it is a problem. Ms. Lazar is an independent thinker and is very good at her job.

Trustee Patterson wanted to state for the record that the meeting that he referenced, was a meeting called by the Chair. His recollection of the conversation, when reporting the rumor to Chairperson Jeffries, that he made absolutely no inference to Chairperson Jeffries being set up. He stated that Chairperson Jeffries brought up the fact that he thought he might be being set up. The Chair brought it up at the same meeting and in the middle of the meeting, approximately 9:15; Chairperson Jeffries grabbed his briefcase and said, ?I see where this meeting is going?, and then left in the middle of the meeting. Trustee Patterson further stated that Chairperson Jeffries had said that he wanted to stay and finish the meeting. Trustee Patterson said he could?ve stayed, and could have heard the whole thing, but he got up and left.

Chairperson Jeffries disputed what Trustee Patterson said. He said he recalled exactly what it was Trustee Patterson said to him and the meeting that was called that day had been scheduled days before this issue had come up.

Trustee Pelleran wanted everyone to understand that what the Board was discussing regarding the request by Mr. Cerny does not deal with S.O.S. It deals with another issue of purchasing at the College. Earlier she referenced a bylaw that said any purchase over $100,000 has to have the authorization of the Board of Trustees. The particular issue that is being discussed in relation to Mr. Cerny?s question here, by his attorney, Mr. Nirenberg, is the fact that a declaration of an emergency was ordered, or requested by the administration and the Board Chair authorized the purchase of $1.2 million single handedly without Board approval. She stated that many of the members of the Board believe that all purchases above $100,000 should get Board approval, whether that is by a telephone poll of the Board or by a special meeting. The request was over three months ago and they have been struggling over a purchasing policy loophole that they would like resolved at this point. That is what is driving some of the discussion.

Chairperson Jeffries responded to clarify the facts. The emergency purchase was made under the College's purchasing policy, which the Board approved in March. He stated that Trustee Pelleran voted and approved that policy.

Trustee Pelleran responded that she approved the policy with reservation.

Chairperson Jeffries responded that she did not raise any issues at the time of the meeting. He stated that the attorneys have reviewed the emergency provision and in their legal opinion the purchase for the software was valid and appropriate. Chairperson Jeffries stated that there was no opportunity to call a special meeting. Had the emergency purchase not been approved, the implementation of the application would have been delayed for three to six months. It would have cost the College approximately $500,000 in additional costs. This issue had been reviewed and approved on two prior occasions by the Board through the budget process the previous year, and then at a special meeting in February. He said that Trustee Pelleran was absent at the special meeting in February. Chairperson Jeffries continued that the only thing that was approved by signing the emergency purchase was selecting the vendor. The Board was aware of what the software was and approved the appropriation for the purchase. Under the purchasing policy it provides for that and it also provides for notification of the Board, which was done. Since that time, the Board could have rescinded the decision; however, they?ve not done that. Now it comes up as an issue.

Trustee Pelleran stated that the Board had not had an open meeting since then.

Chairperson Jeffries stated that the Board had an open meeting in June.

Trustee Pelleran reiterated the bylaw, ?Unless otherwise subject to a specific college policy or specifically approved by the Board, purchase, lease or otherwise acquired purchase of personal property for the College on college premises provided that all transactions of $100,000 or more shall first be approved by the Board.?

Chairperson Jeffries stated that was correct. There is a college policy that exists.

Trustee Pelleran stated that she does not approve of that college policy, and would like to have the loophole closed. She thinks it is in the best interest of the public that the Board does so.

Chairperson Jeffries asked Trustee Pelleran not to say that policies and procedures were not followed when they were.

Trustee Pelleran said that she has not said that policies and procedures were not followed. She said that she disagreed with the decision made and wanted to close the loophole.

Trustee Canady stated that the Board did indeed vote on the Purchasing policy and he voted for it, and respects the emergency provision. However, he felt that the Board was wrong. He said that the Board needs a definition of an emergency and that is one of the reasons driving his desire for the operational review. The Board needs to know where the problems are. Trustee Canady agreed that the college procedures were followed; however, feels the purchasing policy is a poor one.

Trustee Pelleran agreed with Trustee Canady. She said that the procedures were followed; however, it is a poor policy and feels it should be changed.

Trustee Heywood raised questions regarding the resolution and the friendly amendment, as well as the President's investigation. He said that there are other issues that the Board is not discussing, including the allegations that there has been a hostile work environment created, allegations against Ms. Beard by Board members. He doesn?t see under this resolution that these issues are being addressed, and is concerned about that.

Trustee Canady responded that the resolution requests having a broad operational review and things such as the emergency purchasing policy might be flagged. Trustee Canady stated from what he?s seen, the idea of a hostile work environment has no legal implications whatsoever with respect to the allegations that were made. He doesn?t see a reason to investigate it.

Trustee Patterson said that he has taken it upon himself to review several other purchasing plans, policies, etc. He thinks the purchasing policy needs some work. He agreed with Trustee Canady that the Board made a mistake. The lack of planning does not make an emergency. The Board should include that in their thinking as they move forward.

Chairperson Jeffries asked for a roll call vote on the amended resolution.

Roll call vote:
Ayes: Canady, Patterson, Pelleran, Rasmusson
Nays: Heywood, Holden, Jeffries
Absent: None

Motion carried.

Bylaws and Policy Subcommittee

Amendments to Academic Records (FERPA) Policy & Release of Student Information Policy

Chairperson Jeffries presented the recommended changes to the Academic Records and Release of Student Information policies. He stated that the changes include defining who educational officers are, and it also identifies who is the appropriate person to direct these requests to. The committee is also recommending the Release of Student Information policy be eliminated because it is redundant. He said that these are further amendments that were offered by the legal counsel and staff. The Bylaws and Policy committee met twice over the summer to consider this. The committee is proposing those changes and recommends this to the Board in a unanimous fashion.

IT WAS MOVED by Trustee Heywood and supported by Trustee Holden to accept the Bylaws and Policy committee?s recommended changes to the Academic Records and Release of Student Information policies.

Roll call vote:
Ayes: Canady, Heywood, Holden, Jeffries, Patterson, Pelleran, Rasmusson
Nays: None
Absent: None

Motion carried.

Purchasing Policy Update

Chairperson Jeffries provided an update regarding the purchasing policy. He said that Trustee Rasmusson presented changes to the policy and the committee discussed them. At this point in time, the committee unanimously agreed not to forward any changes because of the investigations by both the Board and the President. Amendments will come forward as a result of the investigations.

Remaining Policies for Board Approval Update

Chairperson Jeffries provided an updated regarding the following policies: Drug Free Workplace; Employee Personnel Files; Employment of Relative - Nepotism and Workplace Consensual Relationships; Health, Safety, and Safe Work Environment; and Working From Home. He indicated that the Board had not approved these remaining policies because labor had to review them first. Chairperson Jeffries said that a letter from the Labor Coalition was provided in the Board packet. The letter states that the Unions have not been able to review them as of yet. When they do, the policies will be forwarded to the Board.

Review of Bylaw Sections 1.5.1 and 1.7.4.A

Chairperson Jeffries stated that Trustee Patterson recommended changes to bylaw sections 1.5.1 and 1.7.4.A. With regards to 1.5.1 the committee looked at the three-business day notice requirement that Trustee Patterson recommended changing. There was a proposal of looking at trying to amend and inserting language that the staff and the Board would endeavor to get the packets out within three business days. The dilemma really came down between two choices. The packets can be distributed earlier, but the information wouldn?t be as accurate. In the past, in trying to get the packets out early was not conducive to getting the most up to date information to the Board. When Board members arrived at the meeting, there was additional informational on the table which was updated from what was inserted in the Board packet. There is a one week or two week requirement to get the information in for the Board packets, but a lot of time there's last minute stuff that occurs so the committee felt that it should be left as is. The committee approved that there be no recommendation in terms of bringing it back to the Board. He asked Trustee Patterson if he had any questions.

Trustee Patterson distributed a motion (the motion is on file with the official Board materials) to amend bylaw 1.5.1, which changes ?3 business days? to ?3 college business days.? He stated that other supporting materials may be supplied at the meeting provided, however, that all materials available or reasonably available at the time of the furnishing of the agenda shall be furnished with the agenda. He strongly believed that this is an improvement in the Board's ability to look at the information in a timely fashion. Trustee Patterson withdrew his recommendation to bylaw 1.7.4 and would like to reserve the right to bring that forward at another time.

IT WAS MOVED by Trustee Patterson and supported by Trustee Canady that bylaw section 1.5.1 be amended.

Trustee Canady stated that he did not have a problem with the way information has been provided. He said that Trustee Patterson makes a good point when there is a 7:30 a.m. meeting on Monday and the Board receives its packet on 5:30 p.m. on Friday and the College is closed and even when this meeting started it was closed. He said that there would be no way for Board members to get any type of supplemental information. Trustee Canady understood that information will always be available and sometimes there are last minute items, and he supported Trustee Patterson?s motion.

Trustee Pelleran also supported Trustee Patterson?s motion. She said that getting the packet with a little bit ahead of time gives the Board opportunity to contact the President's Office and see if additional information is available even if it has to be presented at the Board meeting.

Trustee Heywood stated that he wouldn?t have a problem supporting it, and certainly wouldn?t have a problem not supporting it either. He addressed Trustee Patterson. He said that he (Trustee Patterson) had some questions in an e-mail that he sent out at approximately 7:00 or 5:30ish on Friday, but he didn?t ask those questions in the e-mail and Rich Howard responded to his e-mail on Sunday. Trustee Heywood stated that the Trustees do have access to staff even over the weekend.

Trustee Patterson stated that he did try to reach staff on Friday afternoon immediately upon receiving the agenda. However, was unable to reach anyone, so he sent an e-mail. He said that he received a message from Mr. Howard on Sunday afternoon. He got voice mail and received no response. Trustee Patterson stated that staff deserve their down time, and appreciated Mr. Howard offering to communicate with him on Sunday.

President Cunningham stated that this was an unusual circumstance. The policy committee met Wednesday evening, and the information had to be drafted and incorporated into the Board policy and into the Board book. This is the exception, not the rule. There is no reason whatsoever that staff does not want to get information to the Board in a timely fashion. However, staff wants to provide accurate information to Board members. As recently as Friday, late afternoon, additional information surfaced regarding health care and other issues that also could have prevented staff from getting the information out to the Board. On the agenda there are very few items that the Board needs to take action on and these are items that have previously been seen. She said the staff works very, very hard. They were here until 7:00 p.m. on Friday evening putting packets together. Not only does the Board receive the packet, but the public and the executive team receive it as well. If the phones were not being answered after 5:00 p.m. it was because she and staff were working on getting Board packets out. President Cunningham indicated that both she and Mr. Howard checked their messages at the office. There were no messages from Board members. Again, it is a matter of record. Had there been any message, they would have responded.

Trustee Holden stated that she would not support Trustee Patterson?s motion based on the fact that the she sits on the Policy Committee and it was unanimous that the current bylaw not change.

Chairperson Jeffries clarified that the reason today?s meeting was set at 7:30 a.m. is at 11:00 a.m. the Board's negotiating team would be meeting with labor?s team. They will be getting together for the final meeting on health care negotiations. The driving force behind this meeting was the closed session, which will be dealing with health care in order to set the final parameters. Chairperson Jeffries stated that it wasn't until late Wednesday afternoon, that the Policy Committee was able to conclude their work and it required additional time to get the information together to make it a part of the packets. He said that he would be voting against the motion. He is concerned that with the level of distrust that has developed on the Board relative to certain aspects of its operations, this opens the Board up to criticism and that certain people withheld information and didn?t get it to the Board until the day of the meeting. He believes that will be the next complaint. Chairperson Jeffries felt that the policy the Board has now works well. He said that every effort is being done to get the information to the Board in a timely fashion. Chairperson reiterated that when the Board is asked to vote on substantive issues, the Trustees see the information at least two or three meetings prior to taking action. This gives Trustees ample time and opportunity to discuss these issues with other Board members, to meet with necessary staff, and to get the information needed.

Trustee Patterson stated that he is not questioning the staff?s hard work. What he is asking for is time, time to discuss and ask questions.

Trustee Canady wanted to clarify for the record that his earlier comments about this meeting being at 7:30 a.m. did not suggest that there was some ulterior motive. He said that he raised it as an example of Trustee Patterson having a point. The Board received the materials and all they could do was read it.

President Cunningham stated that there seems to be an implication that staff is not responsive. She clarified that whether staff is in a meeting or wherever they are, they do respond to Board member requests. They always have and they always will.

Roll call vote:
Ayes: Canady, Patterson, Pelleran,
Nays: Heywood, Holden, Jeffries, Rasmusson
Absent: None

Motion failed due to lack of support.

Chairperson Jeffries presented the recommendation from the Policy Committee regarding amending bylaw section 1.7.4.A (the recommendation is on file with the official Board materials.) He asked if there were any questions.

There was discussion regarding the amendment and submitting requests in writing

Ayes: Canady, Heywood, Holden, Jeffries, Patterson, Pelleran, Rasmusson
Nays: None
Absent: None

Motion carried.

The Board returned to discussing the purchasing policy.

Trustee Pelleran distributed a memo dated June 5, 2002 from her to all of the Trustees. In the memo was a motion to amend the purchasing policy (the memo is on file with the official Board materials.)

Trustee Rasmusson requested that Trustee Pelleran consider withdrawing her motion until after the Policy Committee has considered his recommendations, which addresses situations, which are emergencies.

Chairperson Jeffries stated that he has asked the President to inform the Board of any purchases that become due immediately, that exceed or hit $100,000 and the Board will have a meeting immediately to deal with those purchases.

Trustee Pelleran stated that if the Board will be meeting to approve all future purchases that exceed $100,000, she would then withdraw her motion.

The motion was withdrawn.

President's Report

Informational Items

Human Resources



Timothy N. Zeller, Director, Labor Relations, Executive Office Human Resource

Sheila Semler, Program Director, Dental, Health and Human Public Services

Kay Berke, Assessment Center Director, Assessment Center, Student and
Academic Support

Blair Svendsen, Accounting/AP Supervisor, Accounting and Payroll,
Administrative Services


Christel Marschall, Faculty Member - Biology, Science Department,
Liberal Studies Division

James O. Luke, Faculty Member - Economics, Social Science Department,
Liberal Studies Division

Dawn Newton, Faculty Member - Writing, Communications Department,
Liberal Studies Division

Susan Henderson, Faculty Member - Developmental Writing, Language Skills Department, Student and Academic Support Division

Daniel Galbraith, Faculty Member - CIS, Computer Information Systems Dept., Business and Media Careers Division

Kelly Sakkinen, Faculty Member - Math, Math and Computer Science Department, Liberal Studies Division

Michelle Filipiak, Faculty Member - Architecture, Construction and Maintenance Technologies, Construction, Manufacturing and Transportation Division

Grant of Authority to Police and Public Safety

President Cunningham stated that the resolution presented is for information and discussion. She asked Vice President Barbara Larson to address this agenda item.

Vice President Barbara Larson stated that Lansing Community College has had a small, but very well qualified cadre of police officers since 1974. The College had been granted authority through the Ingham County Sheriff?s Department. In 1998 the community college act was amended through PA 281, which granted Board's of Trustees of community colleges the right to empower police officers directly. Now there are several situations that bring this matter to the Board's attention. One is that the College will be expanding into Eaton County with the Delta site and decisions need to be made about how to provide security and safety at that site. She said that more importantly is that Michigan Commission of Law Enforcement standards (MCOLES), the governing agency for police officers in the State of Michigan, has stated that they will no longer provide certification for individuals affiliated with other organizations that are not established by statute, which is the College's case. Four of the other community colleges that have sworn police officers on campus have already had their Board of Trustees take action, and take the necessary steps to empower their police departments.

There was discussion regarding jurisdiction, how this would impact policing the Delta site, liabilities, and mutual aid agreements.

President Cunningham stated that this item would be on the agenda again next month if the Board should have any questions between now and then.

EDS Software Grant

President Cunningham announced that there would be a major press conference on August 27 at 10:30 a.m. in TLC 127. She encouraged the Board members and the audience to attend.

Enrollment update

President Cunningham asked Mr. Rich Howard to provide the enrollment update.

Mr. Howard reported the three different areas of headcount, credit, and seat count. In terms of head count there are 19,092 students registered; however, those numbers can vary as students drop. In terms of credits the College is at 160,000, which is about a 10% increase. In terms of credits, there is a 10% increase as well.

Action Items

Approval of Minutes- June 4, 2002 Special Meeting; July 11, 2002 Special Meeting; July 26, 2002 Special Meeting

President Cunningham presented the meeting minutes for the Board's approval.

Trustee Pelleran asked that the June 4th meeting minutes reflect her statements regarding whether the facilities subcommittee was still in place.


Approval of Bids - There was one bid presented for the Board's approval. The proposal was for a bid for metal roof replacement services for GVT. Architectural Metals, Incorporated of Portland, Michigan was the lowest bidder and was awarded the proposal.

IT WAS MOVED by Trustee Pelleran and supported by Trustee Patterson to approve the President's report as presented.

Roll call vote:
Ayes: Canady, Heywood, Holden, Jeffries, Patterson, Pelleran, Rasmusson
Nays: None
Absent: None

Motion carried.

Closed Session

IT WAS MOVED by Trustee Canady and supported by Trustee Patterson for the Board to go into closed session for the purpose of discussing health care negotiations.

Roll call vote:
Ayes: Canady, Heywood, Holden, Jeffries, Patterson, Pelleran, Rasmusson
Nays: None
Absent: None

Motion carried.

The Board entered into closed session at 10:10 a.m.

IT WAS MOVED by Trustee Holden and supported by Trustee Canady that the Board return to open session.

Roll call vote:
Ayes: Canady, Heywood, Holden, Jeffries, Patterson, Pelleran, Rasmusson
Nays: None
Absent: None

Motion carried.

The Board returned to open session at 10:37 a.m.

Roll call:
Present: Canady, Heywood, Holden, Jeffries, Patterson, Pelleran, Rasmusson
Absent: None

Public Comment

There were no comments from the public.


The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 a.m.

Lansing Community College Trustees

LCC Board of Trustees
Administration Bldg
Phone: (517) 483-5252
Additional contact information »

Facebook Twitter YouTube