Trustee Update: October Governing Board Meeting Recap
The Palomar College Governing Board held its regular October meeting on Tuesday, October 14, and it was one of the more eventful sessions we’ve had in quite some time. Several agenda items drew significant community interest, with so many public speakers that, for the first time since I’ve been on the board, Board President Kaiser implemented a 30-minute limit on comments for a single topic. Unfortunately, this meant several community members and students who came to share their thoughts weren’t able to address the Board.
Changes to the Meeting Agenda
Before the meeting even began, there was a surprise: the agenda itself. President Kaiser made a unilateral change that moved constituent group presentations toward the end of the meeting rather than near the beginning — breaking with more than a decade of Palomar tradition.
These presentations come from key campus groups — including our faculty and staff unions, the administrative association, the Faculty Senate, and the Associated Student Government President — and they play an important role in keeping the Board connected to the campus community. Because some of these leaders have been openly critical of certain Board members, this change was viewed by many as an attempt to minimize their voices.
I made a motion to restore the constituent reports to their traditional place early in the meeting, but the motion was defeated in a 3–2 vote. Trustees Kaiser, Acosta, and Hamilton-Bleakly voted no, while Trustee Patacsil and I voted yes.
Deletion of BP 3000: The Anti-Racism Policy
The biggest topic of the evening was Item P-7 — the proposed deletion of BP 3000, Palomar College’s Anti-Racism Policy. The room was filled with passionate students, community members and employees who spoke out against the deletion. In total, 30 minutes of public comment were dedicated to this topic, with every speaker urging the Board to retain the policy.
I made a motion to keep BP 3000 in place and form a committee to revise and improve the language to address concerns raised by some of my more conservative colleagues. My motion was defeated, 3–2 with only Trustee Patacsil and I voting in favor. As a compromise, Trustee Hamilton-Bleakly proposed the immediate deletion of BP 3000 and forming a committee to “address the concerns,” which Trustees Kaiser Hamilton-Bleakly and Acosta voted to support.
The Future of Palomar’s Facilities: No New Bond
The final major item on the agenda was one that could shape the future of our college — a proposal to conduct a community survey to gauge support for a new bond measure. Since joining the Board in 2020, I’ve supported exploring the possibility of a new bond to help Palomar continue modernizing and expanding.
Our last bond, Proposition M (2006), funded many of the facilities that serve students today. Those funds have now been fully expended, with the final projects from that measure currently under construction. The proposed survey would have given us valuable insight into whether our community is ready to support another investment in Palomar’s future. However, the Board voted not to approve the contract for the survey, effectively halting discussion of a new bond measure for the time being. I was surprised by this outcomes especially since just two meetings ago, we had voted to move forward with the survey. Trustee Hamilton-Bleakly changed her vote and joined Kaiser and Acosta in opposition.
This decision means that, for now, Palomar’s ability to fund new construction and much-needed modernization will be on hold.
Learn More
If you’d like to learn more about the meeting and these important issues, here are a few articles covering the discussion and outcomes:
Voice of San Diego: “Palomar College Board Removes Anti-Racism Policy”
The Telescope: “Palomar Board Removes Anti-Racism Policy After Heated Debate”
The Telescope: “Inside the October Governing Board Meeting”
You can also listen to the official meeting recording here:
🎧 October 14, 2025 Governing Board Meeting Recording
Debate on constituent reports placement — 9:45
Public comments — 14:55
BP 3000 discussion — 2:56:20
Bond measure survey — 4:00:00
Closing Thought
This meeting reflected the importance of open dialogue, transparency, and community involvement in shaping Palomar’s future. While there were disagreements, difficult decisions, and I came up on the losing side of what I believe to be consequential decisions, I remain committed to advocating for policies that strengthen our college, honor our values, and serve our students and community with integrity.
Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed on this blog are solely my own and do not reflect the official policy, position, or views of Palomar College, the Palomar College Board, or any other affiliated organization. All content provided is for informational purposes only and should not be interpreted as representing the views of Palomar College or its governing board.
