College of DuPage – disturbing questions from Higher Learning Commission –

DuPage Co. (ECWd) –
The current board of trustees have had less than 90 days together since the election.  That election placed a clean slate team of 3 on the board that brought a chance for reform because of a clear majority established with Hamilton supporting them.  This new majority has shown they have the ability to see the problems, admit there are problems, and implement solutions to fix the problems.
The Higher Learning Commission met with the full board last night and in light of all the criminal investigations, whining, dining, hunting, parties and straight-up malfeasance by Breuder and his team, it was disturbing to hear some of the questions they raised.
The evaluation team member Dr. Kerr asked why there’s been a 4-3 vote split on the board.
Sorry folks but this question has NOTHING to do with accreditation and should have never been raised. The reasons this question is disturbing are numerous.

• 110 ILCS 805/3-9 – “When a vote is taken upon any measure before the Board, a quorum being present, a majority of the members voting on the measure shall determine the outcome there of “.

The above quote is from the Community College Act. I don’t know what other state laws are pertaining to voting and maybe these evaluators, who come from three different states, have different rules on the passage of measures before the board.  In Illinois, all measures pass with a majority of the members voting.  On a 7 member board that means it only takes 4 votes to pass a measure if all were present and voting.
The language is clear that passage is based on members voting, which can be a game changer on another front.  For example, two members who miss a meeting means they still have a quorum so they can have a meeting but since there are only 5 present, it only takes 3 (majority of members voting) to pass measures before the board.
The legislature passed the law and felt it sufficient to have a majority to pass all measures.  To question legally compliant votes leaves the perception that there is something wrong with the law that is being complied with.  Accreditation has nothing to do with legally voted-on measures, and such, a question should raise concerns as to a possible agenda by this group of evaluators.
Dr. Wendler then insinuates that such a split points to a problem at the college.  “It’s hard to grasp why there is a split.”  

Seriously? 

Over $300,000.00 in spending on wine, dinners, hunting, taxidermist bills, hotels, guns, etc. and this guy can’t grasp why there is a split?  Sorry folks, but this person is either ignorant to the facts or has an agenda.  These board members were not elected to go along and get along.  They were elected to clean up the corruption that Erin Birt, Diane McGuire, and Joe Wazniak all ignored and actually participated in.
Unanimity in voting is called rubber stamping. That is what was basically happening under Brueder’s kingdom, other than Hamilton’s vote.  Every time I see unanimous voting by public officials we typically find spending that is well outside the scope of the law.  Everything slides through and those working for those public bodies all know that fact very well.
There are numerous other concerns raised from last nights meeting and we will get to those in due time but for the record, legally passed measures have nothing to do with accreditation and questioning legally passed measures has nothing to do with accreditation.