[Scroll down for further.]

The document recently leaked to the PressTelegram was President/Superintendent Oakley's self-description of his accomplishments. We requested and obtained it from LBCC after the PT story. We provide a link to it in full here. Oakley lists among milestone accomplishments various spinning photo ops, speeches and political appointments that we find mainly unimpressive. He also cites as a major accomplishment the accreditation of LBCC...and complains about what he calls "disruptions" on the Trustees' governing board without identifying the allegedly disruptive Trustee.

Of course the PressTelegram took the leak, quoted Oakley's "disruption" epithet and deduced (accurately we think) that Oakley's unnamed allegedly disruptive Trustee was Sunny Zia (who took office in mid-July 2014, further below.) What the PT didn't do was quote what the Accrediting Commission said when it granted LBCC accreditation. Oakley's letter to the Board didn't quote it either. To read it for yourself, click here It speaks for itself. Some salient portions:

The Commission took action to reaffirm accreditation and require the College to submit a Follow-Up Report in March, 2016...

Long Beach City College should submit its Follow-Up Report by March 15, 2016. The Report should demonstrate that the College has resolved the deficiencies which led to noncompliance and that it meets the Standards. The Report should address the recommendations noted below.

Need to Resolve Deficiencies:

The Accreditation Standards, as an integrated whole, represent indicators of academic quality and institutional effectiveness. Deficiencies in institutional policies, procedures, practices and outcomes which lead to noncompliance with any Standards will impact quality at an institution, and ultimately the educational environment and experiences of students. The Commission found Long Beach City College out of compliance with the following Accreditation Standards: I.A; I.B.1; I.B.3; I.B.5; II.A; II.A.1.c; II.A.2.a; II.A.2.f; III.A; III.B; III.C; IV.A.1-5; IV.B.1; IV.B.2.b; IV.B.3.g.

Recommendation 1: In order to meet the standards, the team recommends that the College address communication problems and increase transparency and trust through timely input processes in decision-making, and better integration of plans with improvement priorities, hiring, and resource allocation (IV.A.1-5; IV.B.2.b).

Concerning Recommendation 1: The Commission found that the current issues of noncompliance are related to communication and input processes for decision-making, and to information about the integration of plans with resource allocations, hiring and improvement prioritization. The noncompliance issues related to morale raised in previous reviews -- Recommendation 5 (2002) and Recommendation 8 (2008) -- were found to be resolved. The 2014 Recommendation 1 was revised to read as noted above.

Recommendation 2: In order to meet the standards, the team strongly recommends the College systematically utilize student learning outcome assessment results to improve the achievement of stated student learning outcomes, and to inform integrated planning decisions, including resource allocation and improvements across the college (I.A; I.B.1; I.B.3; I.B.5; II.A; II.A.1.c; II.A.2.a; II.A.2.f; III.A; III.B; III.C; IV.B.1; IV.B.2.b; IV.B.3.g)

Concerning Recommendation 2: The Commission found that the current issues of noncompliance noted in recommendations from previous teams -- Recommendation 2 (2002) and Recommendation 2 (2008) -- concerning student learning outcomes had been resolved. The 2014 Recommendation 2 was revised to read as noted above."

How would you feel if your kid brought home a report card like that?

As we've previously noted, LBCC Trustee Sunny Zia disturbed some in LBCC's ruling circles within weeks of taking office in mid-July 2014. She refused to approve monthly spending reports that didn't itemize relatively small spending items and cumulatively reached large sums. Ms. Zia, an auditor by training, didn't allege any wrongdoing but felt that as an elected official, she has an elected duty to know, and the public deserves to see, some minimal description of the reasons for spending the money before voting to approve it.

President Oakley didn't oppose this, instead saying technology updates had already been discussed and were planned for implementation within months that would provide what Trustee Zia sought. However some incumbent Trustees were audibly rankled by Trustee Zia's stance, taking offense at any inference that their prior practices might in any way have disserved taxpayers. In our view, their defensive reaction needlessly made themselves look bad. They could have and should have welcomed, not resisted, the transparency that Trustee Zia sought and management said it could deliver (and did...info at this link..)

Trustee Zia totally prevailed in that encounter. More than a few taxpayers voiced the view that Ms. Zia was doing exactly what they wanted to see and hear in elected officials. Some said they wished someone like her were on the City Council.

Three aspects of this continuing saga strike us immediately.

• 1. As a threshold matter, LBCC's non-elected President/Superintendent is supposed to answer to the elected Board of Trustees, not vice versa. Trustee Zia as a co-equal publicly elected member of the Board, answerable to the voters who elected her, not to the President/Superintendent. Elected Boardmembers aren't supposed to be compliant vassals answering to a non-elected overlord.

  2. It's revealing to us that the President/Trustee used the term "disruptive" to describe what he views as having taken place. To us, democracy is inherently disruptive to royalty. Accountability to elected representatives is frequently disruptive to non-elected bureaucrats. Checks and balances are deliberately disruptive to concentrations of power. We like it that way. Our alarm bells ring when we read words like these from President/Superintendent Oakley in his letter to his Governing Board: "...[T]he Board must...develop one voice that articulates the vision for the college district." No. A Board majority can articulate its vision if it wishes...but we strongly oppose any effort to squelch thoughtful, and often productive, dissent.

  3. President/Superintendent Oakley could have cited, but didn't, two major accomplishments of which LBCC should be proud. First is its now increased transparency in a new BoardDocs system. It makes Board agendas and backup details considerably more accessible. Second, LBCC now demonstrates greater transparency and openness in its monthly spending. We view Trustee Zia as the catalyst for this, speeding a chemical reaction; President/Superintendent Oakley says those plans were already in place. The bottom line: both these transparency actions are now in place and deserve to be cited as accomplishments. To us, they're much more impressive than DC and Sac'to photo ops, luncheon speeches and insider political appointments.

LBCC is now considerably more transparent in its staff/management purchase order spending than Long Beach City Hall. Indeed, the LB City Council has in recent years gone in the wrong direction on spending items, thumbing its nose at the transparency it professes to embrace. From LBREPORT.com's Amnesia File: on December 4, 2012 [during a holiday period with fewer people paying attention], management agendized an item (consistent with a previously approved Council budget action) to save money by "streamlining" spending approval by increasing the amounts that a city purchasing agent (a bureaucrat) can approve without Council voted approval or routine taxpayer visibility. The item proposed to increase that spending level to up to $250,000 in specified circumstances, previously allowed for items under $100,000 [and not too long before that only to items under $50,000.]

Councilman DeLong, seconded by Councilwoman Lowenthal made a motion to approve management's proposal. After some Council discussion, Councilman Johnson made a substitute motion, seconded by Lowenthal, to "reduce" the proposed new limit to $200,000...that is, to DOUBLE the amount of purchase order authority from $100,000 to $200,000. The substitute motion passed 7-2 on Dec. 4, 2012 with the "yes" votes of Vice Mayor (now Mayor) Garcia and Councilmembers Lowenthal, DeLong, O'Donnell, Andrews, Johnson and Neal. Councilmembers Schipske and Austin voted no. Since the proposal was a change to an ordinance, it required a second vote, which took place on Dec. 11, 2014. The same Councilmembers voted "yes." Schipske and Neal voted "no" and Austin was absent.

In other words, while paying lip service to transparency, the recently exited LB City Council approved, and the current LB Council continues to tolerate, the routine concealment without Council voted oversight or public or press visibility of City Hall spending items up to $200,000. This is the opposite of what LBCC Trustee Sunny Zia refused to tolerate in her elected position at LBCC.

Small wonder so many people wish that someone with her values were on LB's City Council now.

Opinions expressed by LBREPORT.com, our contributors and/or our readers are not necessary those of our advertisers. We welcome our readers' comments/opinions 24/7 via Disqus, Facebook and moderate length letters and longer-form op-ed pieces submitted to us at mail@LBReport.com.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement