Welcome to the Future

Please send any private comments to futureofartcenter at gmail.com. Note that comments were turned off last May. They are available now for the most recent post only.

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Post your impressions of the forum here

Please post your impressions of the forum here. Keep your posts short and too the point, and the tone respectful.

169 comments:

Robert Quintero said...

I was thoroughly impressed and annoyed at how Mr. Koshalek and crew were able to say a thousand words without ever answering a question directly. Frustrating.

Anonymous said...

Lee asked how much had been paid to Frank Gehry, in as direct a way as possible. Did Koshalek and Oliver not hear the question? They said a lot of stuff, but never answered his question.

Also, ACCD pays $2.4 million a year in debt service -- interest and principal on monies that were borrowed to pay for construction. A good example of the admin's half-truths when it says "no tuition for architecture..."

Ophelia Chong said...

Questions were asked at the forum.

A simple analogy to explain my overall impression of the forum is this; you are lost and you ask someone for directions,you have to take their word that they are pointing you in the right direction, and you wouldn't know until you reached that destination if they were right. We are still looking for the final destination.

Anonymous said...

i felt no real answers were given, just alot of talk. they mentioned a new website that was supposed to launch today, yet they never gave us the url. (maybe i missed it) if they really want us trust the answers they give us, why do they beat around the bush?

Anonymous said...

The media attention has begun......a significant development indeed.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/la-et-artcenter11-2008jun11,0,7266639.story

Jason said...

The choice of words for their petition is quite telling.

Anonymous said...

I would like to know more about this forum meeting. Anyone get video? Sounds like they used some typical corporate executive spin on how to answer questions by saying alot but meaning little.

I am awaiting the boards decision before I send my $200 deposit for the fall term....

I do not want to make a $120K+ mistake.

Anonymous said...

yes, the corporate spin was there but at least there wasn't a power point like Nate's meeting showing his "vision" for art center--a "vision" for an art school that did not even include fine art. a vision of greater bureacracy and yet another top-down solution. it's time for the faculty to demand representation! we need a new cao but not a corporate manager! we'll never get a completely clear answer out of richard and his team. I think our best opportunity for solutions is to get a cao who has a real education and arts-oriented "vision" for education.

Anonymous said...

At yesterday's meeting it was nice to hear Anne Burdick's passion for her work as an educator, and her anticipation of deepening her program with the move to South Campus.

Buildings and facilities are indeed critical to progressive education, and I applaud her for her commitment. Nobody opposed to the Master Plan is arguing, however, that Art Center doesn't need buildings or more space. The division is about proportions -- how much of our resources should be poured into architecture at the expense of education?

It's too bad that when Anne moves her program, it will be subtracted permanently from Art Center's larger learning environment. Five miles away, as the Fine Art grad program has illustrated, it may as well belong to another school. The vitality of interplay between undergrad and grad pedagogy has been separated from Art Center by the location of the college's fledgling Master Plan miles from the main campus.

It is time for the Department Chairs to rise above their departmental self-interests and take a stand on the future of Art Center. At least 800 others have already -- and they're not paid to be leaders of the college.

A letter of support, apparently requested of them by Richard Koshalek, has apparently been signed by most (but not all) of the chairs.

Is this appeasement? What teeth are in this letter? Is it middle-of-the-road, please-everybody? Political? Is it a statement of true leadership by the chairs in a time of crisis for the college?

Let's see it. Post it here, chairs, and let us evaluate the job you are doing on our behalf.

Anonymous said...

It is troubling that no teachers are present or vocal at the forum. Even the LA times is covering this, it must be somewhat relevant.

Without the faculty council, or other faculty showing up, they either A) don't care or B) are not comfortable speaking up. Either situation is not good. Errol brought this up on the petition #792

Anonymous said...

To Anon 7:57:

Obviously faculty are afraid to "stick their neck out" as it is pretty clear what happens if you do. That is why students have more power in this situation. Unfortunately, the community loses a crucial educational voice. I wish the Faculty Council could take a more proactive role--i.e.-mailing us minutes of their meeting with Richard, polling the faculty, holding faculty wide meetings--these are all arenas for representation and broad formalized input.

Unfortunately those aspects of communication have all dwindled, perhaps as Faculty Council has seen little chance to have any representation and participation in any substantive decision making processes.

I imagine it is frustrating for them too.

Anonymous said...

My petition entry no longer seems to be appearing. I signed not long after Erol Gerson. Perhaps 3-4 after him. Now the entry is gone.

Anonymous said...

The students need to make this one thing clear to those on the brige:

Intimidation and harassment of any students faculty and staff members for supporting this dialogue will NOT be tolerated by the current students.

Haul any of us out of our classes to intimidate us, punish any of our instructors for supporting us or do anything else related to supressing our speech, and Koshalek's office will soon have hundreds of students sitting inside it in protest.

I'm serious.

Anonymous said...

As it has been pointed out,the reason none of the faculty are speaking up is because they are afraid for their jobs - and with good reason, as the example of Rachel Tiede made evident. I find the "letter of support" requested by Koshalek ominous. One of the chairs put forward a motion of no confidence in the president - and none of the other chairs would sign it, again because they're afraid of getting fired. Koshalek does not tolerate dissent.

The only people who have real power here are the students - whose tuition is paying for Koshalek's programs - and the alumni. The LAT article this morning was very interesting in that regard - the alumni who said that they are hiring fewer ACCD grads as the famous Art Center quality diminishes. This will continue, as the chairs have been instructed to go back to applicants they've turned down and admit them - so the quality of students entering the school will be going down in order to finance Koshalek's "vision."

We see a glimpse of what that will bring about, in the post here from a prospective student wondering whether it will be worth their while to invest in an ACCD education.

Anonymous said...

"One of the chairs put forward a motion of no confidence in the president - and none of the other chairs would sign it, again because they're afraid of getting fired. Koshalek does not tolerate dissent."

The other chairs were smart enough to know that if Koshalek didn't fire them for signing it, the board eventually would.

The one chair who attempted this will not be chair for much longer.

This is the crap that you pay for.

Anonymous said...

Regarding the LAT article and the quality of the grads.

I'm an alumni. I have hired ACCD grads. I can't say that I have noticed a decline in THEIR quality.

What I can say is that the advantage that Art Center grads used to enjoy over other school's grads has been mostly chipped-away by access and technology. Art Center studets (in the past) had a competitive urge to make their stuff look absolutely awesome. The best. Their comps were always tight and innovative looking.

Now everyone on the planet has a computer and relatively cheap access to good color output. The playing field has been pretty much leveled. 20 years ago, an Art Center student almost always stood out against the grain. Now they do pretty well, but I'd no longer tell the HR department to send me only resumes from Art Center. I know that I might find great work from most anywhere now (including the competition).

The most interesting development I have seen over the decades is the increase in portfolio quality from applicants who have no formal design education to speak of. They may have studied political science at a big university and done design in their spare time, or perhaps taken a few classes.

I can no longer "assume" that the expensive design education will help ensure me a new-hire with an awesome track record for doing great design.

The world has changed. I think the way an ACCD grad can stand out is to toss out all the superficial crap that gets generated and present a really solid book that is based in simple, deep thought and problem solving.

Anonymous said...

History lesson regarding presidents:

Tink Adams. He started the place. A former ad man. It's his school, so he gets to be the president. Tink retires and they hire another...

Don Kubly. A former student in the early years. A former teacher in the early years. Understandable. He "gets" it. Tink is still alive, and Tink trusts Don. Then Don retires...

David Brown. Not an alumni. Not an educator. A former copywriter and the creative director for Champion Paper company. A "big fan" of some prestigious ACCD alumni and a fan of the school. David experiences a lot of the same problems facing Koshalek today. Survives a power struggle and crushes his opposition in an ugly war. Eventually tires and is either not renewed or decides to retire...

Richard Koshalek. Formerly the director of MOCA. Not an educator. Not an alumni. Has wealthy contacts for fundraising from his museum days.

Lee Bolton said...

In regards to my initial question never being answered, this was as much a fault of mine as it was of theirs not getting around to the answers. In fact, because of their methodology and handling of the situation, I found it more important to ask the questions that I had written down, instead of the initial question, that they had answers available for.

I believe I posed these questions instead:

Why do you need to pass questions off to somebody else who is more of an expert?

The reason I asked this is because we are all in a very, very serious situation. I felt that he should have been briefed all around to answer all questions, without support staff. This may have sounded offensive, but it was not intended as such. It was an attempt to understand the operating modus of the administration and why the need to pass me off to another person. I liken it to going to a car dealership. You go there and the seller gets cozy with you, then when you are ready to strike a deal, he passes you off to his finance guy. While this may not have been his intent, I certainly felt it as such.

I believe I also proposed that administration may have had 'too many chiefs and too little peeps'. I don't see a purpose in having a whole department of architects when we don't have any students in it. When a company suffers, the first thing that should be slashed is research and development, the wagons are circled and value vs. cost becomes paramount.

What this lead to was a justification of their work, which led me to mention a previous LA Times article from 2001 about the president claiming that we'd break ground on new architecture. This led to more justification and figures about how much they raised, and then my annoyed reply about how they should be spending that time raising funds for education instead.

This led to more justification about how hard it is to raise money for education. At this point the intermediary decided to interrupt in a decent debate and inform me that my time was up.

I restated my question again, and they told me I could submit it by paper.

BTW I do have 13 additional questions or so that were not answered as I claim. While I do appreciate ACSG's efforts, I thought the questions that they submitted were somewhat sugarcoated and took uneven precedence over those who bothered to wait in line while we had to wait for 5 minute replies.

So it is true my initial question was never answered, but in that same vein, I willingly chased rabbits down the hole I was much more interested in gaining insight into.

Lee

Anonymous said...

"I restated my question again, and they told me I could submit it by paper. "

I'm sure they'll get RIGHT back to you on that ;-)

Anonymous said...

look at what's happened to the american auto industry. they got rid of the research and design departments and got left behind. toyota developed the hybrid and has become number 1. circle the wagons and you're left behind.

Anonymous said...

I sure hope that poster #20 is not a trans student, because if so, then you all trans guys deserve your money back.

You have given a VERY simplistic analysis of the woes of the American auto industry.

Try starting with extremely high labor costs and perpetual union contracts that do not allow the U.S. auto industry to develop technologically superior cars at a competitive cost.

Right now, GM spends more money paying the health care costs of its workers than it SPENDS FOR STEEL to be used in its vehicles.

The Japanese and Koreans, in contrast, can actually do this profitably.

Don't blame R&D. The difference is that a trans student hired out of Art Center to go work for Toyota is quite likely to design something that will be manufactured at some point. If the same student is hired to go work for Ford or GM, he might get to design something that ends up in the "concept" category of the Detroit Auto Show (never to be produced).

Anonymous said...

From the Star News:

"The turnout, in a college with about 1,400 students, showed that the controversy has been fanned by a few misinformed bloggers, Art Center President Richard Koshalek said after the meeting."

No blogger "fanned" me. How about the rest of you?

I saw some pretty prominent names on the 800+ signature petition. Who "fanned" them?

Mr. Koshalek, Art Center leadership has insulted my intelligence for the last time. I'm not taking it anymore.

Anonymous said...

no one IS taking it anymore. no one is listening because the answers are not what you want to hear.

but what do you want to hear? some exciting conspiracy? some risque soap opera. it's all on the table. but there's a disagreement. some people want to stay focused on short-term issues. others are working on long-term solutions.

lee bolton said...

Lol. In response to anybody in the administration replying to me, I am aware of this:
They pay attention to the blog and requests made reasonably by individuals who use their names. I don't care if they can hold me accountable for anything, because I am doing nothing wrong by asking.

So as far as the data they provide me, I am a cynic about it. -"I smell flowers. I look for a casket." Data they will provide me will be at a limited level, not necessarily full disclosure as we would like to see. Numbers and percentages can be manipulated anyway we like, and so can information for that matter. I understand and accept this.

Also when we look at examples of companies that have failed in regards to not curbing R&D, etc, I am not referring to the automotive industry but business as a whole, but at this point I respect your right to dissent and disagreement. I was referring to many of the failed companies that dried up during the post .com boom. It's a waste of both of our time debating the intricate semantics of what I our disagreements are about.

When it comes down to the 'Big 3' losing market share to the Japanese manufactures, I think it is a combination of both of your arguments and more; However, I think we all find it bizarre that we're debating over the losses of the American auto industry when we should be discussing the forum issues here. (Not to discredit anybody, myself included, I was a broker for a few years before I decided that illustration was my true passion.)

I also welcome you to sit down and speak with me in regards to your views in regards to the current situation. I am a nice guy once you get to know me and you can always find me in the lunchroom.

I am the skulking, burly, loudmouth Texan. It's not hard to miss me. :)

Ashley said...

I believe the forum was constructive in that students who may not have been following the issues closely got a chance to hear everything from the horse's mouth as it were. While I appreciate the administration's efforts to respond to the students' calls for transparency, I still am skeptical of the information they are presenting. I cannot trust them, and that is the issue they seem to be unable to understand. How can I trust an administration that fires staff for speaking their mind? How can I trust them when they quote statistics that other staff say are misleading? When they asked Nathan to retract his initial comments? All of this indicates a desire to avoid revealing the nuts and bolts of their operation. I wish there was some way that the administration could regain my trust, but that is up to them.

It's not as though anyone on either side wants Art Center to go down the tubes. The problem is we have two different visions of what the school should be. We must reconcile these two visions if there is to be any progress. Addressing the "future of design" while maintaining a commitment to our fundamental design education.

Anonymous said...

Our relationships with others, and our love for them, give us most of the meaning in life. So if a sociopath doesn't have these things, what is left? What kind of purposes do they have? The answer is chilling: They want to win. Take away love and relationships and all you have left is winning the game, whatever the game is decided to be. If they are in business, it is becoming rich. If it is sibling rivalry, it is defeating the sibling. If it is a contest, the goal is to dominate. If a sociopath is the envious sort, winning would be making the other lose, or fail, or be frustrated, or embarrassed.

A sociopath's goal is to win. And he is willing to do anything at all to win. And sociopaths have nothing else to think about, so they can be very clever and conniving. Sociopaths are not busy being concerned with relationships or moral dilemmas or conflicting feelings, so they have much more time to think about clever ways to gain your trust and stab you in the back, and how do it without anyone knowing what's happening.

http://www.youmeworks.com/sociopaths.html

I think you got a bunch of sociopaths running Art Center.

Anonymous said...

Lee,

All this talk about R&D and the "future of design"is just so damn aloof.

Koshalek and his crew talk about design as if it gets this grand seat at the dinner table of big business. This is just not true. It just isn't. For the VW Beetle? Perhaps, but for 99.9% of those who work in design, you will soon see that design is not helping to drive economics. Design sits at the MERCY of economics. Alumni: Feel free to chime-in here.


Go talk to some alumni who have worked on Madison Avenue and in corporate America.

This brings me to a suggestion for a course that should be required at Art Center. Economics. People come out of Art Center with very little insight as to the economic factors that will be driving their careers. If you understand the economics of business, you might actually get the chance to be strategic in your career path instead of the tactical way that Art Center trains us all.

lee bolton said...

There is a lot of frustration at this point from a lot of students and while it would be easy to label the administration with names, unfortunately I think we all believe we're acting in the best interest of the institution.

It is alarming though, the manner at which truths are not fully explored and the lengths at which people go to perpetuate it. In essence, it's not a lie, because we only said so much that was the truth.

Let's take for example the catcalling student (no offense) who refuted the statement that the school had ever run in the red. The 'number cruncher' insisted that year over year the school had never run in the red; However this was not the answer that the student was looking for. The answer however was tailored to answer the question, to (A) alleviate anexiety, (B) improve the standing of the administration in students' eyes, and (C) not disclose the full truth by inserting the verbal disclaimer 'year over year'. The student then pressured the staff member for a few minutes until he finally caved in and stated that "Currently, because of low enrollment the school is operating in the red during this last term."

Once again if we dig deeper, I am not sure if this is the full truth of the matter. Certainly they did not expect a shortfall in enrollment; However those desired enrollment numbers could have not been met because of more scrutinized factors such as inflated target statistics, onetime charges, amortizing debt, or bloated internal budgets.

This is why I walk out of these meetings, not angry as I bluster during my diatribes and rail against them on the podium.. but sad, just sad.

I think what I hope for is the complete truth, without wrangling, or bias. The thing is, nobody really lies. - They don't. They just don't disclose the full truth, because its wrapped up in a nice bow of rhetoric and political red tape.

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOy3H4yyocQ

Per Terence Mckenna Culture is not your friend. It is for the benefit of institutions not for the individual.

Anonymous said...

Lee, this is not the first time that numbers have been put into excel charts, put on-screen and explained to the student body.

Unfortunately, CFO's are wonderfully talented at taking bad numbers and making them appear to be good (or less bad). They'll tell you that "the numbers don't lie".

Art Center used to fear the possibiluty of students threatening to vote with their wallets. Now they are seeing the effects of them not having any other choice BUT to vote with their wallets.

Anonymous said...

Just curious:

Have you even been granted an "audience" with the board of trustees, within which you'd be able to present the petition?

Past experience has been that the board is usually quite "sheltered" (and kept hidden) by Art Center's administrators.

It is also well known that several members of the board specifically dislike encounters where upset students confront them face-to-face. The board likes its secrecy.

discovolante said...

I don't think the Board of Trustees is sheltered. I think that they are sheltering themselves. The student liaison was removed by the Trustees themselves and as far as we can guess, they might have the Master Plan to heart as a pet project for themselves.
So I am not terribly sure if they actually will listen to petitions and polite discourse.

Anonymous said...

Discovolante:

You are absolutely correct. People think that the board is this clueless bunch of Koshalek puppets. In fact, they have their own distinct culture. Just like Koshalek quickly rid himself of opposition on-campus, the board is quick to turn on those within who go against their own cultural grain.

Let the petition serve as motivation for the students and alumni. It will fall on deaf ears (if you are even allowed in the door to present it).

discovolante said...

IMO, the solution here is to raise the profile of the issue drastically. Beyond the school and the trustees.

discovolante said...

And by the way I sent an email to the WPRA to ask for their stance on the issue, since the other camp is taking the liberty of collecting signatures from people that are not directly involved in the issue.

The WPRA opposed vehemently the development of the Rosebowl on behalf of the NFL. I wonder what their thoughts are on the Master Plan.

Anonymous said...

Hey Nathan,

Why won't you allow anonymous posting anymore?

Anonymous said...

I've been reading the petition and noticing the vast quantity of alumni who are signing it. It might be a 50/50 ratio of current students to alumni.

What I have always found disheartening is that my opinion never seemed to matter. Not as a student, and not as an alumni.

The school always touted very high employment statistics for its grads. After leaving ACCD, I remember awaiting the survey asking if I had found employment or not. It never came. I'd waited for 4 years to become such a statistic (and I did quickly find great employment). Art Center knew where to find me, yet they never asked how I was doing.

Well, they did eventually come asking for my donation check, and they did make a few short-lived attempts at sending me shiny literature to help me feel "included". Either they have a bad database, or they lose focus on staying in touch. Or perhaps they stop sending you the stuff if you don't donate back. I do not know.

But what I am most saddened by is that Art Center never seems to want to know anything about how I feel about how they did things (as a school) once I've had a few professional working years to think about it. What did they do right? What did they do wrong? What can they do better? How must they change?

I see the petition, and I see some prestigious alumni there, along with many names I recognize from my days on campus. And I see them commenting and giving the answers to questions that none of us were EVER ASKED.

It is time for us to be heard. The Art Center community (alumni and students) needs to be heard. And I feel very strongly about saying this now:

If the board of trustees proceeds and fails to take us seriously, I, myself, intend to wash my hands of the institution. Emotionally and fiscally. Art Center: Your kids still love you. We want to come home. But we need a house where our voices are heard, and I don't mean getting styrofoam cups.

Anonymous said...

http://blogs.artcenter.edu/communityforum/

25 hours have passed since the first comment was accepted and displayed.

If the school is truly committed to dialogue and transparency, then the dialogue must be permitted to actually exist.

The proof is in the actions taken.

Anonymous said...

From Nathan's blog:

"Jason said...

Hey Everyone great NEWS!, The community forum created for open discussion and transparency created by the administration has removed my comment. That's right I wrote" No communications task force yesterday and now it is deleted. I'm not surprised though.
June 13, 2008 8:51 AM"

So there is your answer. Feel free to participate, but they will censor the dialogue that does not suit their interests.

Art Censor College of Design

Anonymous said...

Insprational words from Clement Mok. Clement is (arguably) the most successful Graphic Design alumni to ever come out of Art Center. Many of my friends owe their own success to having worked for Clement. These are the words from his petition signature.

"Jun 2, 2008, Clement Mok, California
I am an alumni and a former board member. I quite the board almost 8 years ago because of this very issue I had with Richard. Board meetings were always used by Richard to impress the trustees with elaborate presentation on the new and shinny. When I pushed on what these buildings will house, the discussions were often deflected to the-yet-to-be-hired Provost or the problematic Provost. The recent turn of events at Art Center is a sign of trouble the Board should take heed. This petition is unprecedented in Art Center history."

Anonymous said...

Another "Design Great", Michael Osborne, founder/owner of a prestigious SF design firm:

"Jun 4, 2008, Michael Osborne, California
I graduated in 1978 as a graphics/packaging major, when the package design curriculum was spearheaded by Hal Frazier. The quality of education and the level of the package design work produced at that time, was far superior to any in the entire county. Packaging has become my company's specialty over the last 27 years, and I am sad to report that the package design work I have seen over the past several years from AC graduates is mediocre at best, and far inferior to that of many national design programs...I know because I see the portfolios. I know of these "expansion" plans, but what I'm not sure about is if Richard Koshalek knows about the state of the packaging work currently being done at AC, or even if he knows there are packaging classes! Michael Osborne"

Anonymous said...

Hurray...another place where us anonymous posters can cause havoc and chaos....you can never silent our voices....

Anonymous said...

I have an idea. Why not hire an independent education consulting firm to explore and investigate the issues that are causing all of this turmoil? Will $250,000 be enough for two consultants to spend a few weeks on campus? They can interview students, faculty, staff and alumni and report the common trends back to the board with some suggestions for the future.

I apologize. I just had a flashback to 1993 again. Damn PTSD again.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

A question about the DRC building:

The president says that the building will not be paid for with tuition funds. But what about the cost of raising these funds? That money certainly comes from somewhere, and at the expense of other programs or initiatives.

Let is isolate the following costs from the overall numbers:

How much does the architecture office cost us per year, and how many AC educations could those costs provide otherwise?

How much money is spent on trying to solicit donations for that building? How many educations might that cover?

Anonymous said...

I think what your missing is that the architecture office does more then just work on the master plan. They also handle tenant improvements and they coordinate work with contractors that work at the school. If you look at any institution or college they all have architecture offices. The architecture office also worked on the Getty grant that accessed the condition of the school and outline a course of action to bring the Ellwood building up to date with ADA, sustainability, mechanical and structurally. During that grant research period they also sat in on crits and juries for a design studio that also looked at the schools condition.

Anonymous said...

A school of Art Center's size does not need 5 full-time employees to warm seats in an architecture office.

You could probably get the same output by having an architecture firm on retainer to draw-up any plans you might need for random projects.

A lesson from the business world:

Only hire personnel that are concerned with your organization's core competencies. Always outsource the rest.

What has the architecture office been up to lately?

Anonymous said...

And I hate this the most about Art Center administration. If any of us call attention to specific areas where we think we're seeing examples of waste, we're ostracized.

So what about the "communications" office? 22 staff members?

I think I mentioned the other day how I once worked for a non-profit corporation with 12-15,000 employees, yes were were able to make due with a communications staff of 7, including 2 designers and a PR director.

Anonymous said...

The Board of Trustees needs to realize that it has a fiduciary responsibility to see that Art Center is run in a sound manner, both educationally and financially. Richard Koshalek has put both of these factors at risk.

The loss of Nate Young was a tragedy and keeping Richard Koshalek would be a greater tragedy. He has cleverly deceived the Board many times over the past few years and several good trustees have left after seeing through him.

Art Center's financial statements and the IRS Form 990 are too summarized to tell the truth about what is going on inside the numbers.

For example, did you know that Richard Koshalek's budget for Administration was over by about the same amount ($1.2 million) as Education for 2007, even though Education's budget is more than three times larger?

Education's budget overage was Richard Koshalek's excuse to ask for Nate Young's resignation. Also, Operations and Maintenance was nearly $900,000 over budget, but George Falardeau did not get fired.

Did you know that International Initiatives, which was about $200,000 over budget, is charged to the Education budget? This department did not report to Nate Young, but Education had to absorb its overage.

It also seems that Education was charged the full cost of Color and Materials Lab project but was not credited with the donation that was there to pay for it.

When adjusted for factors like these, Education was about on budget for 2007, but Richard Koshalek's Administration was still more than $1 million over budget. So who should go? Nate or Richard?

What about other things? Is it really true that no tuition is used for past or future planning and construction costs? The best I can tell, the college has about $20 million in unrestricted cash investments, which might provide $1 million a year in income.

The college is currently paying around $1.5 million on its debt from prior construction. And the college is proposing to spend more on planning and construction and add more debt. Where is the money coming from? Some will be from donations, but don't kid yourself. Some will have to come from tuition. Education is sure to suffer.

And how much has been paid to Frank Gehry? I don't know exactly, but since he was originally hired it has been millions--probably over $5 million when you include all of the consultants that were hired to go along with him on the various projects.

The real debate is about priorities and leadership. Richard Koshalek has made flashy facilities expansion the priority over quality eduction--the worst possible choice. HIs leadership has brought the college to a major crisis.

There is much more that could be said about Richard Koshalek, especially about bad choices regarding personnel. Nate Young is one of many examples over the last few years. Richard Koshalek rules the campus through fear, or else many chairs, faculty, and administrators would be coming forward to give the Board of Trustees the real truth about what goes on inside Art Center. Like me, everyone knows that if he or she steps forward, it is at the expense of his job.

The Board of Trustees meets next Thursday. Can anyone get this information to the Board so they can begin to understand what is going on here? They need to dig much deeper and get much more information before considering renewal of Richard Koshalek's contract or proceeding on any further construction projects.

Anonymous said...

Wow, thanks for postig that great data.

So, between the education, administration and operations departments, just those three departments alone were a combined $3.3 million over budget. That right there is TWENTY SEVEN full scholarships. The underperformance of these 3 administrators prevented that much relief from reaching the students.

And the person responsible for the combination of THOSE three budgets is:

Richard Koshalek.

Anonymous said...

Cost of Iris Gelt's salary as SVP / Director of communications:
$225,674.00

Cost of getting an article written about the design conference in Barcelona: An all-expense trip for the reporter to Spain.

Cost of the student uprising getting press in the LA Times, LA Weekly, Star News (and several other places)?:

Free.

That's sustainability, baby!

Anonymous said...

"The Board of Trustees meets next Thursday. Can anyone get this information to the Board so they can begin to understand what is going on here?"

The way thay have historically crushed the wills of those who sought an audience with them, is to ignore them.

The best way to ensure that your voice is heard, is to not ask for their permission to speak. It's your school too. Take it back.

Your agenda should BE their agenda.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
discovolante said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Art Center is a great institution with a lot going for it, but that does not mean that Koshalek should have his contract renewed.

What makes Art Center great are the students, faculty, staff, and culture of dedication. This is not to be confused with the person who currently serves its president.

Anonymous said...

"don't take us all down with you."

Just how do you explain the organic nature of these periodic uprisings?

This is not an insignificant number of people who are "taking you down".

Jason said...

Clarification:

The communications comment is strange, I don't remember the exact time I posted it. When I posted my comment it was #2 as I remember. Anyways now it's number three and I have a response. Apparently next week the task force should be posted.

I hope people on this post are doing more than writing.

Anonymous said...

"organic"?

what's your explanation?

in many ways, it seems like a retread of the previous one, with some of the same players, but not all the same. so you mix that negative energy with the usual and ongoing grips about tuition, faculty compensation, and lowered standards, all of which are serious.

but then there's a really terrible component in the mix which is personal. fine, you can object to policies, actions, philosophies, and directions, but to turn someone into evil incarnate is way out of bounds.

Anonymous said...

"but then there's a really terrible component in the mix which is personal"

Canning Rachel Tiede made it personal. Shaking down Nathan? That makes it personal.

Richard sets the tone himself. He is the head of an educational institution. Opposition is par for the course in that ballkpark. In the beginning of this (before it became personal) he should have been able to take a little bit of heat. Instead, he crushed his opposition.

And shame on that. Shame on you Richard. We're a family. Sometimes the dinner table discussion gets heated. No need to pound your fist to calm things down.

Anonymous said...

And my explanation is this simple:

The prospective Art Center student sees the great work, the great creative atmosphere and the high energy and is very excited to come to study. They jump through a lot of hoops to get there. Financial, portfolio development, etc.

They finally get to Art Center, and they start to notice things beyond the fancy buildings and the slick polish. They can not help but notice how administratively "heavy" the place is. They begin to wonder "what's in it for me?"

They see design conferences in Barcelona and wonder how that possibly benefitted their own education. It's a small school, not a large university. They see underutilized buildings 6 miles away from the home base, and wonder why the school wants to spend millions to possibly attract enough donors to build an ego structure.

Then they have the audacity to start asking questions about priorities.

And every time it happens, the same question inevitably gets asked:

"Who put them up to it?" And the witch-hunt begins.

Anonymous said...

asking about priorities is good and right.
swift-boating is not.

Anonymous said...

richard did not "can" rachael tiede, nor "shake down" nathan.

you are grouping everyone together. it is a witch hunt, but aimed in the opposite direction.

Anonymous said...

richard did not "can" rachael tiede, nor "shake down" nathan.

Who did (and on who's orders)?

A lack of transparency creates spooky shadows in the dark.

Coincidence that she was canned within a day of her comments?

Nathan was directly quoted in the L.A. Weekly about being shaken down.

Anonymous said...

"In the ACSG meeting last Friday, Richard Koshalek stated that Human Resources asked me to come work for them and wanted me to stay at Art Center. Again I emphatically state that THIS IS NOT TRUE. Human Resources did ask that the temp (Francis) working in our office at the time stay on and work, but I was not given that as an option."

A direct quote from Rachel Tiede.

Rachel reported to Nathan Young. Nathan Young reported to Richard Koshalek. Nathan Young left the school. Richard was left as Rachel's direct supervisor.

Anonymous said...

there are various versions of the story and it's all required to be quiet. only hr and rachael really know the answer for sure. It may be semantics. and how do we know that rachael wrote that letter that you quote? i'm quite serious.

the shadows are dark, indeed, but that's because lawyers are involved!

Anonymous said...

Semantics, perhaps.

It all boils down to trust. I trust the source of the letter.

What we're left with is a vacuum that is outlined with her final footsteps. The day before she was whacked, she made comments refuting the "official story" regarding Nate Young's departure.

Rachel was essentially a whistleblower. A falsehood was stated by Koshalek surrounding Young's departure, and Rachel set the record straight for the benefit of students. At Art Center, doing so is a cardinal sin. The truth got her fired. Rachel is not the first to get tossed-out for going against the grain.

We're a tight community. We don't like it when you mess with our friends after they show us loyalty. Rachel is a friend.

Anonymous said...

Teachers that behave completely inappropriately (for decades) take years to get terminated, if ever.

Administrative assistants that tell it like it is get shown the door immediately.

Anonymous said...

I just visited the "honesty first" "save my job" petition started by Pat Oliver. 293 signatures. I decided to scroll through the names and see if I recognized any of them.

I'm absolutely NOT accusing anyone of fabricating anything. I was just surprised to see of the 293 names that I recognized pricely THREE names. In contrast, I recognize over 100 of my former classmates and prominent alumni from the "education first" petition.

One of the three names was Pat Oliver's. Another was architect Barton Choi. The third was from a long-time instructor who taught me. I was dismayed to see his name on there. I'll still respect his opinion and not call him out here.

Anonymous said...

it wasn't the right move, clearly, whatever the case.

it wasn't richard, tho', who called for it. but now that's the appearance, and it's sad. he isn't that kind of person.

Anonymous said...

Richard is 100% accountable for it.

He may even be a nice guy. I do not doubt this. And you can't half blame him for being what he is: A fundraising, museum builder. The board sought a guy who's mind was squarely on big publicity and hob-nobbing. I remember myself being excited by the change in the guard, as Art Center was in desperate need of someone who gave a damn about building an endowment, and for a little while, it (publicly) seemed like this was his goal.

I'm far more upset at the board of trustees for their own lackluster vision for the school. I wish they wanted better for Art Center than this. I'm to blame too. I lost sight of the fact that this place is about the students, the alumni and the work. The legacy that we have created.

We all worked really hard together huddled around the crit-rails. And it is that experience that forms the core of what we're about. We need to get back to that. We're losing focus on what made us great.

Anonymous said...

From Nathan's blog's comments section:

"It is not known if trustrees are willing to listen to representatives of students, faculty, and alumni at their June 19 meeting. The location of the meeting is apparently being kept secret."

They have been known to duck-out of controversial times by either re-scheduling the meeting or just moving it entirely out of the board room. These days, they may even hold it at a hotel, as many of them fly in from out of town.

Anonymous said...

Hello to all Art Center Community.

My son attends Art Center and he has had a positive experience. However we have become aware of this debate currently happening.
Our family was preparing a large donation to the school until our son told us not to donate. I am outraged at what has happened to this school. I attended this school also a very long time ago.

Anonymous said...

"Our family was preparing a large donation to this school..."

Keep preparing. Richard will not be there forever and Art Center WILL regain its balance and integrity.

Anonymous said...

what a sad soap opera this has become. as stan kong has asked, how are we going to rebuild our house? how can bring our family back to the dinner table?

let's break bread together in the shadow of the smoldering black box, please! let's stop bickering and sit down and get some real sharing done.

stop the cynicism and be true to ourselves as authentic leaders.

Anonymous said...

i have a life plan and i have decided not to deal with all of you crazy zealots on both sides. this is making me and everyone around me unhappy. so i am promising not to read any more of this insane nonsense cause i have a life and it no longer includes art center this weekend.

Perfect Storm said...

Folks, check this out. This chart shows how Art Center's education budget has declined even as the college's revenue, tuition, and enrollment have increased.

Exactly as Nate Young said.

http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?3454700ddf.jpg

Anonymous said...

cool, perfect storm! where did you find this? or did you put it together yourself? can we see your sources?

Anonymous said...

What exactly did Nate Young say?

Anonymous said...

Woo hoo! More confirmation that Art Center sux!

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-letters14-2008jun14,0,4332394.story?page=2

From June 14's Los Angeles Times letter section:

Art Center plans

I GRADUATED from Art Center College of Design in 1997 with a product design degree and now work at Continuum with Damien Vizcarra, who was quoted in "Uproar at Art Center" [by Mike Boehm, June 11], and as a designer involved in vetting both our product design intern candidates and applicants for entry-level design jobs, I would have to agree with Paul Kirley that I don't see many current ACCD students or recent graduates possessing a high base-line level of quality in terms of design thinking or foundation skills.

Historically, Art Center offered its students, in exchange for enduring a very expensive and extremely intense eight semesters of study, an almost-guaranteed position as a professional designer. (I like to call Art Center the "world's most expensive vocational-tech school.") However, the school seems to have lost its way in recent years in terms of preparing students for the professional design world, and it's now just really expensive.

Alan Mudd

West Newton, Mass.


Burn, Art Center, burn!

Anonymous said...

RIGHT ON!!!

Now, based on this letter, I know I won't give one more CENT to Art Center.

Beyond my $120K!

All you faculty and adminstrators, you think you know better, but we students rule your world! See what we can do. It's just begun....

Jason said...

$5736 to the education budget for each student each term in 2000 out of a $9,445 tuition payment.

$6027 for the education budget for each student each term in 2007 out of a $13,855 tuition payment.

Where is the other $7828 going today?

Anonymous said...

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."
Abraham Lincoln.

Anonymous said...

If the general consensus is that most students leave with shotty portfolios and lack of foundation...why would that make ACCD any different from one of those AI type chain schools?

I thought ACCD was suppose to provide a unique real world experience and prepare you for the real world?

Not to build monuments to its success?

Why are politics taken president over educational value?

Anonymous said...

There are over 1,200 signatures now on the petition opposing Koshalek and the renewal of his contract. If everyone who signed that who's a student, faculty or staff - joined by any alumni in the area - marched to the board's meeting, it would probably make an impression on the hard-to-get-to board. Or a sit-down strike at the school? We certainly know we have the attention of the LA Times and LA Weekly, so they would probably cover it.

Anonymous said...

art center is so over. this train has left the station. it doesn't matter what we do. look at the alumni! if they don't care about the school why should we?

Anonymous said...

3:55, That is just irresponsible. Most of us care deeply and want to be able to somehow help steer this ship back on course, for the sake of the current students, and students to come, and to feel that the heart and soul we've put into this place is not all lost. Keep comments productive please. Or at least aimed in some sort of informative direction.

Anonymous said...

I'm a current Art Center student and after reading the LA times article i'm very worried. We just took our internal problems and aired them for the whole world to see. In the article we have an Art Center alum saying that current graduates make lousy work and are unemployable. A lot of people read the LA times. This isn't good, esp. for people like me who are getting close to graduating.

From what I hear, the Art Center problems are the talk of the design world. I wonder if this "revolution" did more to hurt current students by magnifying the problems on a very large public stage. I wonder if all this new attention is going to make employers stay away from recent grads as they now know that our school has serious internal problems. If thats the case, then you guys have no idea how many of your current classmates your little "revolution" has just f#cked over.

Anonymous said...

anon 4:10

If you read the petition, see the notes by alumni, most say that Art Center IS pathetic. No one is happy with the place, most feel that it's gotten worse even since whenever they were at the school. Longtime alums are just as critical. My question is why shouldn't everyone just transfer if this place is so overpriced and we can get a better education somewehre else? Someone said that no one knows the name Art Center anyway, so what value is the degree? And other programs and technology have caught up with Art Center, so Art Center grad's final portfolios don't stand out so much. Why stay?

discovolante said...

Does your work suck so much that you have to rely on the reputation and degree from the school to get work?

I mean we have absolute power over our portfolio.

Just do your best and it won't matter what school you went to.

I am sorry if I put it in very harsh terms but this is one of the most frustrating problems I have with a lot of ACCD students and recent grads.

discovolante said...

This also a symptom of the times the school is at right now.

anonymus said...

Nate Young - finally you stopped being scared of your own shadow.

Richard Koshalek (former President) - you need to get a job in SCI-ARC and don't forget to take Patricia with you. You guys will get to create buildings with Gerry and put David Geffen's name on the wall. This will definitely help you get the recognition you need in the Architecture world. Because it will give you a great opportunity to solve their parking situation and allow you to keep Little Tokyo authentic.

Hint* Check the problems that occurred during the construction of Disney Hall - Frank Gehry, and Richard Koshalek were part of it. The whole project caused so much aggravation; it bled money like there was no tomorrow; big political turmoil.

Patricia Belton Oliver - Senior Vice President, Architectural Planning And Special Projects (former Environmental Design Chair)
She is the catalyst for all this. She should be fired. She was the one who brought Richard Koshalek, and combined classes together and commissioned SCI ARC for the silly extension cords, and work tables. On top of that she opened up her own Architectural Planning studio with the school's money. She is the one who initiated the idea for students to work on cool things so they could put "cool things" in the gallery that high school kids would like. So, they could recruit more students ???

Now, Ms. Oliver explained that no one will give money to build a parking structure. She needs to go to SCI ARC with Koshalek. Because SCI ARC also have parking lot problems, and they build the concrete buildings. She will be happy over there.

One more on the hit list...

Jean Mitsunaga - Director, Career Services
She is so out of touch. She can't even do an average job of "job-placement". The 2006 catalog claims "Average job-placement rate one year after graduation: 94%" This number comes with a disclaimer “Based on alumni-survey responses” Ehm! in what kind of jobs and organizations - please itemize ~ In any case, she shouldn’t take credit for this. She has nothing to do with this number.

Any alumni that worked with her, will realize that she is incompetent beyond belief. she has been there too long. I was shocked by the way she was handling the recruitment interviews during the graduation. And after a few years, when I was working on a 90+ million dollar project, she was giving me guidance on who to pick, how to pick. She didn’t even ask me what the objective of the project was... nor did she allow me to see other students' work. Are you kidding me?
=
When I donated $2500 modeling foam from a major movie production. The studio paid for the shipment, and other expenses. They didn’t even ask for a tax right of, which wouldn’t be much for the studio to begin with... They thought, "it would be neat for students to use."

I specifically wrote a letter to Michael Plesh to distribute the modeling foam free of charge to students. I have never heard from anyone. Two weeks later, Head of Production asked me if they were surprised regarding the modeling foam. I said "I haven’t heard from them. I am going to stop by the school and checked what happened there." We never received "Thank you letter" nor confirmation letter that they have received it. Even though, we knew they received it from the tracking number. Not even a phone call.

When I asked Michael Plesh what happened, I added that I haven’t heard from them at all. He said "Oh, that big chunk of foam. Yeah, we got it. I guess UPS guys ram into it with a fork lift"... I specifically asked if it was distributed to the students, his reaction was. No, we just put it with the rest of the foam. I said I have included a letter with the shipment for the foam to be distributed free of charge. There was dead silence. I was furious.

When I started the school, David Brown was a president. He one day showed up at his office finding students jumping up and down on his desk. He was trying to address the students, but he couldn’t even get into his own office with ease. Back then the school didn’t have a student government.

Students were annoyed and pist for the last minute tuition raise for the next term. Supposedly, David Brown needed money for the next term budget, and decided to raise tuition without any warning on the whim $500 a pop.

Unfortunately, the protest never made it to LA Times but David was let go after the scandal. Tuition raise was postponed for the upcoming term. The school was embarrassed how students burst out with the chaotic boycott, and decided to form a student government. The idea was to create a bureaucracy so by the time a student or group is able to make a change, most of them would already have graduated.

I know my alma matter will rank higher if I donate money to its endowment. I should be able to... I should want to 'pay it forward' - I rather keep my wallet in my pocket. Thank you, but no thank you. Especially, under these circumstances, I will wait until Richard Koshalek, Patricia Belton Oliver, and Jean Mitsunaga are gone and the rest of the administration decide to continue student, and design objectives clear and transparent without any hidden agenda.

Anonymous said...

"Nate Young - finally you stopped being scared of your own shadow.
Richard Koshalek (former President)"

?

As far as I know Richard Koshalek is still president. Has anything new happened??

Jason said...

anon. 4:33

"your little revolution"

Are you administration in disguise? just kidding ;-)

Do you realize unless you walked out of this school with zero debt.
You are f'ed over (your words not mine) already. The cost of an education has skyrocketed along with housing, food and gas.
Pay remains stagnant.

Its not the other students you should be mad at. Would you prefer if your peers just quietly waited and let other people and circumstances mold us into what they wanted us to be?

You should be proud of Nathan, Ashley, Robert, Ophelia and countless others for having the courage to start something which has become important to many.

Is 1200+ signatures' out of a alumni population of roughly 12,000? "little" to you? Average voter turnout is probably low given the circumstances. This is not small, These comments are supportive and if we succeed you and many other will benefit.

This blog inspires me, Yeah it's not perfect but what we have here is both sides of the story, that is rare given common media practices these days, but that's changing.

Your comments are a expression of fear and apathy which is a disease that breeds complacency.

What I don't understand is how you cannot be critical of the circumstances that we are dealing with regarding the administration.

Are you doing you home work on this issue?

Jason said...

That was a little heavy handed I apologize. I'll try to be more polite next time

Perfect Storm said...

4:33 said:
I wonder if all this new attention is going to make employers stay away from recent grads as they now know that our school has serious internal problems. If thats the case, then you guys have no idea how many of your current classmates your little "revolution" has just f#cked over.

What???

This "little revolution" is not the cause of bad publicity for Art Center. Responsibility for that lies in nine years of misguided management that has sucked resources from Art Center's core mission of educating artists and designers. And you shouldn't be afraid of controversy, unrest, and disruptive thinking. Those are good things. Art Center's reputation, despite the healthy dose of criticism it's taken in the past week, is strong -- it can handle a public airing of dirty laundry, don't worry.

You appear to be under the impression that employers give people jobs because of the school they went to. The essence of Art Center has always been to dispel that myth. Your portfolio is what will get you a job, or not. It sounds like you are already planning to blame people who had the courage to stand up to authority now, for what you anticipate will be you're inability to get a job in the future.

Take a look at your portfolio -- if it's good, you'll do fine, and if not then buckle down and get back to work. Portfolio is all that counts. THAT's the Art Center way...

discovolante said...

Amen to that Perfect Storm.

I'm really tired of hearing that bullshit being spewed over and over.

Anonymous said...

in reponse to perfect storm and jason...

I don't think its bad to wonder if actions have consequences.

All this recent stuff is freaking me out a bit. I'm in debt as much as everyone else. When i read in the LAT and hear from friends out in the world working that the industry doesn't respect Art Center grads anymore it freaks me out.

Seriously guys, i'm already 100k in debt. That shit freaks me out every day. This whole situation hasn't been helping. Sorry if i'm human.

I know its all about the Portfolio. I also know that the Art Center name would open doors other schools might not. You know that too or else you wouldn't have come here. I'm worried that the opportunities won't be there because of the bad press. Why is it wrong to think about consequences?

Believe me i hate what the administration is doing, and i think they should go. I think we need more transparency with how our money is spent. They screwed me over on classes this term. They're cancelling things left and right. I agree with everything thats happening. I just question the necessity of the public bad press.

btw...i fully get why it came to this...because president K has had a closed door policy for so long, the power keg had to blow at some point. I'm as frustrated as anyone else.

Jason said...

NEWS FLASH!!!

STUDENTS FACULTY ALUMS COME SUPPORT EDUCATION FIRST!!!!!

Thursday 8am-2pm @ the South Campus

SILENT DEMONSTRATION

Wear Orange, Make EDUCATION FIRST SIGNS spread the word!!!!!!!!

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/event.php?eid=16544008217

Perfect Storm said...

Seriously guys, i'm already 100k in debt. That shit freaks me out every day. This whole situation hasn't been helping. Sorry if i'm human.

I understand. And I apologize if my comments appeared to trivialize your concerns. You have real pressures.

Just know that this process will ultimately strengthen Art Center -- and, that there was no avoiding it. This had been simmering beneath the surface for a long long time. Nobody is to blame -- the time just came for it to erupt.

Sometimes when chaos is all around, you just have to trust your instincts and put your worries aside for the moment. We'll all get through this -- sounds cliched, but keep the faith.

Jason said...

anon 10:52

It's going to be rough for a lot of us with debt. I'm right there with you. Join us, we will be the generation that worked as a community to build a better ACCD. Leadership is crucial, but more important is our participation. The hard work hasn't even begun though. Thursday we must prove that we are also capable of moving forward not just protest.

Ashley said...

I think it's true about the bad press hurting Art Center's reputation, but it's also true that ultimately the thing that gets you a job is your portfolio. The problem with the bad press is that nobody is making it clear that we are doing this because WE LOVE ART CENTER. We came here expecting to be the best and so we demand the best from the school. The best facilities, the best faculty, and the best administration.

We need to move on to what we can do to make it better. Stop accusing the administration of tearing down the school. Instead we all need to approach them with ideas of how to make it better.
What can they do to regain our trust? Full disclosure without the spin.
How can they keep the quality faculty and staff they have? Make it clear that everyone can speak their mind without retribution and increase salaries appropriate to cost of living increases.
How can they involve the students? LISTEN TO US. Keep us involved in the developments and the solutions.

Jason said...

Ashley you are on point. We need to present a set of initiatives.

There should be demands met such as disclosure. We need plans to move forward a lot of the ideas in the petition and blogs it should find it's way into a single document that presents our major concerns. I know several people have summarized their own which is great, we do need to bring this into a tight bundle for other to digest our key concerns.

Maybe post on 10 ways to move forward all the ideas for moving forward and then that can be edited, somehow?

Just tossing an idea out there, any takers?

lee bolton said...

I am not sure what to say at this point. I have been doing a lot of thinking on these issues, because I think it is important that we all take a step back and objectively study what we know and have learned and separate it from our bias.

It has been very difficult for me to do this as of late. There is a fair amount of information being disseminated, and it is hard not to be offended.

I sat down at a table, not 3 weeks ago, and heard from the president and the head of graphic design mouths' that they have not compromised their enterance standards to let in students of 'lower quality'.* In the latest article from the LA Weekly**, it was disclosed that now the school allows in 'fours and above', as opposed to 'fives and above' before.

The administration, hurt and threatened by our petition felt inclined to start their own. Although they would never admit to such, this damages their reputation by not controlling the scope of the petition, and the lengths of deceptive techniques it is using to get signatures such as through the architecture website***.

The administration, is adamant that 0 costs of our education are being spent elsewhere, by using the example of their audits.* What it doesn't cover is why things like international initiatives are filed under education when it has nothing to do with it, and the shortfall of money going to education as seen in the recent chart that is circling the school now****.

Disclosure, is an issue with our administration. I am not sure what they feel they have to hide or why they continue not to be 100% factual with us. How can they demonstrate a new sense of responsibility? What would we be satisfied with, and when have they ever been ready to negotiate with us regarding education?

Please come to the table and admit culpability and let's work something out to rescue your crippled reputation before it is all too late. My patience is thin and I am done with all the games.

references-
*alumni potluck
**http://www.laweekly.com/art+books/art/is-art-center-gehry-rigged-richard-koshalek-says-no/19093/
***http://archinect.com/news/article.php?id=76218_0_24_0_C
****http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?3454700ddf.jpg

Perfect Storm said...

Lee said:
How can they demonstrate a new sense of responsibility? What would we be satisfied with, and when have they ever been ready to negotiate with us regarding education?

There is only one way to begin to affect change at Art Center -- convince the Board to let Richard Koshalek's employment end with his current contract.

If that happens, it creates a real opportunity for students, faculty, and department chairs to step into the breach and influence the process of establishing new leadership and a new direction. If the Board chooses to renew Koshalek's contract, we'll have another five years of lip service.

As the chart showed, it's about money. K's priority is not with education, and there isn't enough money to fund his own priorities as well as the changes we all want to see in education. This is exactly why Nate left -- he told the Board that if K was renewed then he would leave, and the Board sent back the message that they were going to take the path of least resisitance and stick with their man. That, of course, was before all this started happening, before Nathan's blog, before the truth began to emerge from the smokescreen.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I find the more interesting thing about Pat Oliver's reponse is if she is so oppositional to this movement, then why not be focused on the humanistic element? Instead of addressing the (very real) undercurrents that drive our feelings, she has taken the low-road and focused solely on the saving of her precisous Gehry building. As if it is her sole goal in life to not allow Frank's feelings to get hurt.

Back in my "consideration phase" and based on the reputation of the school, I'd have attended Art Center if classes were held in a barn. It was about the journey, not the building.

Look at the apprentices of Frank Lloyd Wright at Taliesin West (since we're using architecture as an example). If you wanted to study under Wright, you committed to working hard by day and then spending your nights in the desert sleeping either in a tent or in a structure of your own making.

When you graduate from Art Center, you remember the late nights spent trying to outdo your contemporaries, and the parties you attended and the times you shared in the cafeteria. You don't say "boy, that sure was a cool building", even though it certainly was a cool building.

It's just not the memory I choose bring with me. I choose to remember my instructors and my classmates and "the girl in the bookstore" ;-)

Anonymous said...

Jack Henry writes in the petition:

"Jack Henry, California
I support your petition, however, I don't understand why Richard is the only one being held accountable. Nate is also responsible here. Richard hired him to be the chief administrator in charge of all student affairs. Don't you realize most of your complaints are about the work that Nate was responsible for? Why is he not being held accountable, too? Also, Richard was doing exactly what the board hired him to do. It's not as if he suddenly came up with this plan without their approval. Are you holding the board accountable as well?"

Damn right, Jack. It really boils down to the board. The board has its own strategic shortcomings and it is the board (and its lack of true oversight) that has let this go on for so many decades.

I can handle a non-alumni president and a non-alumni CAO, but I think I'm getting to the point where I feel that I must insist on an all-alumni board of trustees. Only an alumni can keep the spirit of Art Center fully alive. How can an outsider help guide something that they themselves have never understood?

We've been taught well. To focus on the basics. To focus on the principles of modernism. We can hire the right people to help us execute on this philosophy. We need to take our board back.

Anonymous said...

Ashley wrote on Nathan's blog:

"I can only once again send out a plea for solutions, especially from the faculty and staff who are closer to the infrastructure and so might be able to see more specific things that can be fixed. We the students can ask for better education but it is the teachers who know how to implement it."

What we have here at Art Center is a fine institution with a fairly basic (yet wonderfully unique) educational mantra of working professionals helping to educate and train the best designers in the world.

What we also now have, is a small school, with high operating costs due to expensive facilities, lofty administrative priorities, and a whole host of luxuries not directly related to hiring a teacher to teach you design.

It's not so much that they are not spending enough money on the instruction, but more that they allocate so much of your money towards building the "public image" of the school (in numerous ways). They rationalize this by saying that, in the end, it will pay-off. But the financial "good sense" that exists within us knows that this is misguided.

When we see a school of 1,400 sponsoring design conferences in Spain, we see a leadership team that has grandeuristic visions of itself. We're not a large university. We do not have the resources to "play" in that kind of ballpark. We've got NY Yankee's aspirations with a Durham Bulls budget.

Do we need to raise money? Absolutely. We need to keep building an endowment. And that endownment (unfortunately) is an investment in the students that study here decades down the road. We owe THEM that much. So let's get started.

The current leadership team will argue that they ARE working to raise endowment funds. And to that I say "great". But do it on home turf. Not in Spain, Not in Japan, not in Korea. And seriously, we need to lower the COST of raising money.

The leadership team might be raising millions (as you'll see in their presented figures), but, oh my gosh, you should see how much they SPEND to gain these millions. Almost as many millions as they raised.

And who pays for it all? You do.

Anonymous said...

what is gnomon? was that a real post or some weird parody?

Anonymous said...

Friend of Godzilla. Shoots fireballs. Good designer too.

Anonymous said...

i just think it's cool that everyone is talking about art center. maybe this is the pr that everybody's been wanting. we just have to be careful not to fall back into insularity in the future. and hope that in the future, people still care, even all of you that are graduating soon. you can't forget us!

Anonymous said...

Ok so I haven’t gone thru and read everything on the comment section since Friday. But I wanted to stop reading and comment on one thing.

The running in the red.

Are any of you awake? Ok maybe you need to switch over into consumer mode and out of designer mode. The response by Rich saying we haven’t ran in the red at the end of any fiscal year. But yes we are in the red at the end of the last term. Ok here is where you make that mind switch. What is the day after thanksgiving called? BLACK FRIDAY. That’s because that is when about 90% of all commercial based companies break into the black on their accounting books. Ok stay with me. That means that these companies run and operate in the RED until the last quarter of the year at which time sales reach levels to over come expenditures. No I know allot of you know nothing about business, which is really sad (worse is that I am no writer). but from my little understanding of economics I gained in econ100 in college I understand what Rich was trying to say in his reply about running in the red.

I really hope that we can start to incorporate some of the other things we should know as basic college educated individuals before we show the world that we are a bunch of dumb designer.

Anonymous said...

we've hit it big-time! the education blog of u.s. news and world report:

Controversy Over Art Center's Gehry Expansion
June 16, 2008 05:30 PM ET | Alison Go |

Hundreds of students and alumni of the Art Center College of Design in Pasadena, Calif., are petitioning trustees over a planned $50 million building by Frank Gehry, insisting the money should instead be used for scholarships and teaching, the Los Angeles Times reports.

The online petition warns that the "future of the school itself" is on the line and paints the school's president, Richard Koshalek, as an empire-builder who has ignored the school's academic development in favor of expanding the campus and promoting it to outsiders.

And like any proper protest, it has motivated supporters of the Gehry building to start a counterpetition, which asks donors to give specifically to the expansion fund.

Anonymous said...

Thought you should all be aware that Mr. Timothy Kobe of Art Centers Board of Trustees has signed the "honesty first" petition. (#205) I find it rather disappointing and disturbing that Mr. Kobe could not keep an open mind and reserve judgement until after the board meeting. More proof that RK is working the board pretty hard to lock up the support he needs.

Anonymous said...

he's an alum too. what does that do to the argument that there should only be an all-alum board of trustees?

perhaps he has an open mind and IS thinking about what's best for art center.

imagine that!

Anonymous said...

I suppose keeping an open mind also means accepting the fact that aprox. 60% of every tuition dollar should not be spent on education, but rather a bloated administration.

Obviously not every alum is a clear thinking individual. But hey I have an idea - lets tally up the nuber of alums that have signed either petition and compare the numbers.

Or better lets tally up the number of architects that have signed either petition. Golly I wonder who wins there?

Keep drinking Koshalek's kool-aid...

Bambi said...

Anyone who knows how corporate boards work, knows that new people are elected to it on the basis of their loyalty to the people in power. When the president nominates new members to the board, he does it with the knowledge that he will usually have their vote.

I should have gone further in my contention about an all-alumni board.

WE NEED TO SCRAP THE CURRENT BOARD.

We need an all-new, all-alumni board. A complete purge. Art Center needs to have a new start in this regard.

lee bolton said...

I think the problem is at this point, if you assume the president returns, how do you think he's going to bridge the divide?

Current efforts seem moot in the face of our ever growing tuition. Most construction won't start until after we leave. TLC may be seen as appeasement, and the most minor person who 'leaves' will interpreted as petty retaliation.

Instead of touting small victories, you should be focusing on how you are going to make solutions and fix problems. Don't blame the student, faculty, or anonymous body. These problems with accountability, transparency and education were here long before we got here and it demands our full attention.

Bambi said...

Who "owns" Art Center? Who are the stakeholders? Who "should" be the stakeholders?

Anonymous said...

say it loud, say it proud: art center sucks! call the press, wear tee shirts, sign the petition:

art center sucks!

tell all your friends, draft letters to the newspapers, write on all the blogs:

art center sucks!

we're not 4s, we're something more, we have something to say, we want to get beyond visual communication, but we can't because it's too expensive, we're indebt, we're too tired because

art center sucks!

Conte said...

A small update on what's happening:
The Board of Trustees president Puerner rejected ACSG's request for a student representative to attend the meeting on June 19th. Puerner and Jason, ACSG's Director of Issues, will meet one-on-one the day prior to the Board meeting. There will be an open community forum at the cafeteria on July 1 from 12 – 2 PM.

An email that was recently sent to our Art Center accounts:

Dear Art Center Community,

This is a very important week for Art Center College of Design. Given the major issues that have been the subject of recent discussion among the College’s constituencies both on and off campus, the meeting of our Board of Trustees this Thursday will have significant immediate and long-range impact for the College.

Following the Board meeting, it is important for all of us to come together and continue the dialogue now underway. I am pleased to invite you to an open community forum on Tuesday, July 1, from Noon – 2 PM in the Cafeteria. This will be a conversation open to all, and will also include a joint interview with Nik Hafermaas, Dean of Communication Design and Chair of the new, multi-constituency Education Task Force, and myself, to review and discuss the Board’s decisions as well as the Education Task Force’s strategy for moving forward. The interview will be conducted by John Henry Baliton, President of ACSG. Refreshments will be served.

I look forward to seeing you and to further expanding this extremely important discussion about Art Center’s future.

All best,

Richard Koshalek
President
Art Center College of Design

Anonymous said...

Hey Jason, how about coming on here and getting into the dialogue then? we have much to talk about.

Anonymous said...

"The interview will be conducted by John Henry Baliton, President of ACSG. Refreshments will be served. "

In other words, transparency will continue to be non-existent. Koshalek has chosen who will get to interview him. You will not get the ability to ask questions of your own.

You'll get two things out of this "dialogue":

1) You'll get to go

2) You'll get kool-aid

Anonymous said...

3) You'll be expected to drink the kool aid.

Anonymous said...

If Richard is going to talk I request that:

1.I timer be used to keep all answers under 5 min.

2. Richard not be allowed to tell any "stories" but instead be required to answer the questions in a direct manner. (if that is possible for him)

3. Have Richard actually ANSWER the question before we move on to another question.

Anonymous said...

why wait until July? What's that, week 8? We've got stuff we want answered NOW.

Anonymous said...

Tell the board that they need to go:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/art-center-board-vote-of-no-confidence

Anonymous said...

The latest alumni to sign the education first petition:

Geza Loczi, Director of Design at Volvo Monitoring Concept Center

Jason said...

Hey folks,

Mike Rios is the director of student issues FYI. This blog and especially the serious play blog is looking a bit like a soap opera lately.

If you will look at my very first post I stated that using anon. was going to hurt credibility. It's sad to see people speaking so carelessly, would that happen if you had to put your name next to your comments.

As for your "art center sucks" comments, you are way off topic. This is about education first and financial priorities.

See you tommorrow @ S.Campus

Anonymous said...

Ask Rachel Tiede about putting one's name behind their statements. I'm sure she'd have something to say.

Anonymous said...

hey 2:10 that petition might be a tad premature. Lets wait till June 20th.

Anonymous said...

then don't sign it until the 21st. I already know how the 19th is going to go. The board's decision is cemented and Puerner and Jason's meeting will be nothing more than lip-service.

Jason: So you are meeting with the board chairman tomorrow. Are you prepared? Are you going in with a list of questions, or are you going in with a list of demands? I don't mean to attack you, but where exactly do you stand on issues?

Conte said...

Sorry for the mistake, Jason. For some reason, I thought you and Mike were the same person.

Anonymous said...

Suggestion on demands to discuss with Puerner:

- Rachel Tiede offered her job back, complete with back pay. No compromises. Steps to ensure that future faculty/staff members are not termninted for speaking their minds.

- A board resolution adopting a new-found approach to putting educational priorities first, and establishing a more solid criteria for fiscal responsibility in the running of our school.

- A far greater alumni presence on the board

- Nate Young back as CAO.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Everything is always nice and tidy. Student unrest? Simple. We'll let one student talk to one board member. We'll also allow everyone to watch as one student "interviews" the president.

Neat and clean. Just like the white walls.

Anonymous said...

But what to do about faculty unrest?

Future of Art Center said...

Folks: Please stay on topic here. We're deleting comments that stray into endless pissing - both sides.

Anonymous said...

Just curious folks. I see that the board chairman has agreed to meet with Jason tomorrow. Is that satisfactory to you? Why not the entire board?

Jason said...

Ok there is some confusion here,

John Baliton is the ACSG president.

I am not in the student government nor am I aware that I am going to meet with any trustee from the board.

I assume the board would only meet with an appointed ACSG official.

Sorry I think you are mistaken.

But the big question right now is. What's next?

The press will probably be there tomorrow and they will want to know as well.

Anonymous said...

"Conte" at 12:05 wrote:

"Puerner and Jason, ACSG's Director of Issues, will meet one-on-one the day prior to the Board meeting"

Maybe he had the wrong Jason? I dunno.

I (personally) find it rather odd (based on wee-established history) that the chairman of the board would agree to meet personally with a student regarding any issue. I know several people who have sent recent emails to him (and other board members), and they were did not even reply.

Anonymous said...

"But the big question right now is. What's next?"

What IS next? I say that we should all go and make some serious noise. ALL OF US. Any alumni that has some free time, and if a student, heck, make the time.

Take our precious school back from these fat cats!

Conte said...

I was at the student meeting with ACSG last Friday, where we specifically discussed what the ACSG student going to the one-on-one with Puerner was going to discuss.

I previously thought that this student was an ACSG member named "Jason," (now that I think about it, perhaps it's "John".. that would certainly make more sense) but since I'm not entirely familiar with who the members of the ACSG are, I'm no longer certain who specifically is going to the one-on-one meeting. But from what I heard at last Friday's meeting, the one-on-one meeting with Puerner tomorrow is happening.

At last Friday's meeting, we agreed for our "official" demands to be three things:
1. A student representative be present at the board of trustee meetings
2. Increase scholarships
3. Facilities enrichment

This is what is planned to be presented tomorrow to Puerner.

Perfect Storm said...

conte said:
1. A student representative be present at the board of trustee meetings
2. Increase scholarships
3. Facilities enrichment


If ACSG has a chance to meet with Puerner, they had better have tougher demands than those above, or they're just jerking off.

A student rep on the Board would be fine, but largely ineffective. Increased scholarships is important, but what are you going to demand the admins sacrifice to do so? Facilities enrichment is good, but where's the money going to come from?

With all due respect, ACSG needs to stop being so damned polite. They need to demand:

1. An immediate halt to DRC fundraising and planning, to reconsider priorities.

2. An immediate tripling of staff dedicated solely to raising scholarship money, as a higher priority than buildings.

3. A search for a new president to heal the deep divides at Art Center, and no extension on Koshalek's contract.

Stop screwing around. The trustees will listen and then ignore calm reason -- they need to see your anger, they need to be influenced by action!

Anonymous said...

Disturbing discovery:

Tim Kobe has signed their petition.

# 205:
Jun 12, 2008, Tim Kobe, California

This is VERY DISTURBING that a trustee has endorsed a position without having heard all the problems and concerns from both sides. More evidence that this process is a SHAM!

We need to voice our concerns to Mr. Kobe!

kobe@eightinc.com

The 3 things that are being asked for aren't enough and barely address real issues.

The student rep won't be included in the meeting.

Scholarships are always being added to, so there can be a claim that this will happen. Doesn't mean it's a top priority.

Any improvements to the facilities can be claimed as giving to student demands.

What about the culture of fear, "resignations" mistruths, manipulation, coersion, exorbitant spending, etc.?

Look at his leadership team? where is fair representation?

Wake up!

Perfect Storm said...

Oh, one more:

4. An immediate raising of portfolio entrance standards to 6/10 or higher.

Perfect Storm said...

I asked the following questions on the admin's "Community Forum," and they disappeared. I've re-submitted them, and am posting them here as backup.

--------------------------------

Please go on the record with answers to the following questions:

1. The college pays $600,000 per year in principal and $863,000 in interest on bonds (2002, $21.7 mil), and $628,000 per year in principal and 434,000 in interest on a term loan (2003, $9 mil). These monies were borrowed for South Campus construction and other Master Plan building/construction. So, how is it the administration can claim no tuition is spent for Master Plan construction. The last I heard, paying back a loan is the same as paying for what the loan purchased.

2. Please indicate by how much Eduction was over budget in 2007. In addition to International Initiatives, which other departments are included in Education's budget whose managers did not report to Nate Young, and for which he had no budgetary oversight? By how much were those departments over budget in 2007? Please include also the departments that charge only a percentage of their budget to Education, such as Communications and Marketing. Do not distinguish between "Education" and "Educational Support."

3. The ACCD audited financials indicate over $6 million in restricted funds were moved to unrestricted operating. Restricted funds are typically earmarked for education, and designated by a donor for a specific purpose, e.g., Funded Educational Projects (FEPs). They are not supposed to be diverted to any other purpose without the donors' permission. Please explain why these funds' restriction were lifted, and which donors have been informed of this activity. Please indicate whether or not the college would have finished in the black for 2007, had these restricted funds not been taken from education and applied to general operating.

Anonymous said...

"At last Friday's meeting, we agreed for our "official" demands to be three things:
1. A student representative be present at the board of trustee meetings
2. Increase scholarships
3. Facilities enrichment"

I'm sorry, but...

Holy crap that is a weak set of demands! No teeth. Not far enough.

It makes me feel like the ACSG has not been reading what the hell has been going on.

This situation is a lot more serious than lack of student reps at board meetings and these vague "demands".

"Please sir, may I have another?" is more like what I'm seeing.

Sorry, but I just can't help myself.

Anonymous said...

The vote might already be rigged and the school's leadership may already be dug-in for a fight, but despite being set up for an almost certain battlefield loss, we, the Art Center students, alumni, faculty and staff are absolutely winning the war. Look at who ELSE signed the petition:

"6:32 pm PDT, Jun 17, Tim Butte, Oregon
I was on the development staff at Art Center for over 10 years (1986 to 1997) I had the distinct priviledge and pleasure of representing the students, faculty, staff, alumni and board while working with my colleagues to secure millions of dollars in support of world-class art and design education. Since I have been away from the campus for many years and have not been immersed in all of the recent issues, I was extremely hesitant to sign this. However, after reading all the articulate and very rational posts from the many alums, faculty and staff that I worked with and admired, I would be remiss in not lending my concern with theirs.

Respectfully submitted,
Tim G. Butte Former ACCD Director of Corporate Relations"

We have scores of students, former board members, prestigious alumni, current and past faculty and now former administrative insiders who support our contention that the school is horrendously off-track.

And unfortunately, a board of trustees that do not seem to give a damn about what we think.

To the board of trustees:

Without us, Art Center is literally an empty shell (with a leaky roof. Without us, you have nothing to oversee. You are losing us, and losing us FAST. We are not ever going away and you'd better take notice of this (and us).

I suggest you scrap the meeting agenda of tomorrow and seriously consider the more fundamental future of Art Center. Either this, or you should move and get out of the way, because we are taking Art Center back from your control.

Anonymous said...

"4. An immediate raising of portfolio entrance standards to 6/10 or higher."

How the hell can we find even THIS as acceptable?

Art Center will toss you out if your GPA does not stay (consistently) higher than 2.5 (99% of schools require a 2.0). If you go two semesters in a row with a SEMESTER GPA of less than 2.5, they might toss you.

So how is it that a portfolio with a grade of "6" is acceptable, when Art Center itself requires a level of 7.5 to even remain enrolled?

Yet the school is accepting 4's? This means more than a lowering of standards. It means that Art Center is fine with setting kids up for failure.

Much like the sub-prime lenders have given half-million dollar home loans to people with shoddy credit records, Art Center is essentially doing the same thing (academically).

The practice is based in greed. It means that they care about brining in revenue at the expense of not only the school's reputation, but at the expense of students who might not be physically able to succeed at Art Center. The practice simply fills stools with paying students and shows an indifference towards their success.

This is not what Art Center should be about. Forget the school's reputation for a minute. What about the gamble being taken with the student who was a "4"? That kid is innocent. That kid deserves better treatment from us. Taht kid needs to be told to go back to PCC and work on his or her book for another semester or two. That kind needs to come to Art Center with an "A" game.

Anonymous said...

Hey, I've seen some of the entrance 'Entertainment Art' portfolios accepted at ACCD, and I wouldn't even consider them a '4'.

Art is treated so abismally in the public school system, I don't see why anybody would be accepted fresh out of High School.

And the fact that ACCD is neglecting life drawing and anatomy makes ACCD a sham for illustration and fine art.

Personally, I think you could learn more in the Atelier system, like LAAFA or others for illustration at least.

Anonymous said...

This last post is from PNHasset. Some guy who has a beef against Art Center and his resentment about not having attended it many years ago. Sorry buddy, but 15-20 years ago, you COULD have afforded it (had you been willing to do a few loans). Now it is beyond the reach of those who do not have significant parental support.

He spends his days hanging out in the comments section on Roland Young's YouTube video, bashing Art Center.

PNHasset: We have enough to think about. This is a family matter.

Anonymous said...

i don't know what you're talking about but it really doesn't matter who it is, because the forum is open and anyone can now comment. this dissent is out in the public. we can't determine who comments or why. it's not a family matter. it's a public matter. it's in u.s. news and world report! maybe we'll hit the ny times! then everybody will know and everyone is free to comment!

Anonymous said...

If Art Center leadership actually listed to its own community (rather than just informing us of their lofty decisions), we would not have this laundry out in the public eye.

When you let your house get this dysfunctional, you end up on Dr. Phil and having him ask you "How's that workin for ya?"

camerontiede said...

On behalf of Rachael Tiede and myself we would like to thank the Art Center Community for the out pouring of support for our family. We have received numerous emails and telephone calls from many of our friends and colleagues over the past 3 weeks, we truly appreciate your kind words and encouragement during this period of transition in our lives. We respectfully urge the board of trustees to restore education as the top priority at Art Center.
Sincerely, Cameron Tiede (alumni Illustration 2001 and Faculty member)

Anonymous said...

Another "honesty first" conflict of interest:

Megan Burns,
Paid presenter at "Serious Play" conference.

"Kiss the hand that feeds you"

Perfect Storm said...

Richard Koshalek said:
Following the Board meeting, it is important for all of us to come together and continue the dialogue now underway. I am pleased to invite you to an open community forum on Tuesday, July 1, from Noon – 2 PM in the Cafeteria. This will be a conversation open to all, and will also include a joint interview with Nik Hafermaas, Dean of Communication Design and Chair of the new, multi-constituency Education Task Force, and myself, to review and discuss the Board’s decisions as well as the Education Task Force’s strategy for moving forward. The interview will be conducted by John Henry Baliton, President of ACSG.

We've all been through these meetings before -- highly controlled, orchestrated, with little if any real information. All boilerplate hype.

Students should boycott this meeting, and call their own -- invite Koshalek to come to THEIR meeting and answer questions on THEIR terms, not his.

Anonymous said...

Patricia Belton Oliver stated that the South Campus value has doubled since they purchased the 'converted wind tunnel' over 10 years ago, in those myspace videos. They used this as a justification for making the new Gehry building 'on campus'.

Property values have gone up because of demand and inflation on LAND, not because of building costs. The campus property in Pasadena is gonna double in value whether you build on it or leave it vacant.

A residential home costs about 150 to 200 a square foot. I'd imagine a concrete tilt up commercial warehouse building isn't much more.....assuming you don't make a bizarro custom design monument to the Hollywood elite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilt-up

Maybe the aspirations of campus expansion is still feasible...if you keep costs down.

Lee Bolton said...

The community forum is a sham. It is 'moderated'. That means it is filtered and controlled. Not all comments are put up. Not all questions have to be answered and by directing us to the website and attempting to make its primary goal the service of the student body's questions, they control the feed.

The moderator is anonymous. How ironic is that? It is a committee of people answering questions. Why do we need a moderator other than to tell people to play nice every once in a while?

I asked them to remove the competiting petition because it does damage to the administration's reputation. I informed them that by the sheer fact that nobody will take credit for it, yet they are allowing it to remain active, it incriminates them in the mind of students, in addition to press release attempts to scour architecture websites for signatures. This statement and question was ignored and not posted.

I am also still waiting for a reply on the amount paid to Gehry and associates, even with a formalized question section in regards to that (have been waiting 4 days since I asked that question,) and the... 2 previous times I've asked for this at meetings.

Administration: I will not honor your site as a proper means of communication until you play fairly.

With your attempt at clarity you have only made things appear less transparent.

I propose these solutions:

Remove the moderator. Have those individuals who comment, comment by name to ensure that there is a name being attached to responsibly handle the issues. You can not fully expect people not to comment anonymously if you are participating in the same fashion.

Allow postings to immediately go up, especially for those who do not comment anonymously. We have valid questions and issues.

Answer our questions in a timely manner. Your statistical data manipulation is appalling. Please feel free to credit your references for your sources on all graphs and elaborate on them. I think for example we have other competitors besides the ones on your graphs and when figuring in the cost of college here you fail to include incentives, board or cost of living expenses.

Anonymous said...

Found this on the education petition and thought it to be note worthy...

9:55 am PDT, Jun 19, Carles Ferreiro, Spain
I am the Director of the Art Center Barcelona Project. I joined Art Center to develop an educational agenda aimed at expanding graduate research and education programs as well as spearheading executive education. I worked with the educational leadership of the school to develop an ambitious program which is now in serious jeopardy. An international presence is essential to be relevant in the global age. However, for an academic institution in the world of continuous bidirectional communication, talk needs to be followed by actions or it risks becoming an endless empty spin cycle. The committed partnerships in Barcelona are in place to implement long term educational programs, especially in executive education in the areas of Design and Business. In order to avoid that the effort and commitments of the last years get stuck in what may be seen as "one more conference" -without any connection to Art Center's value proposition as a school- I urge the Board to resume an agenda of Education First!

Anonymous said...

OK, then they can now focus on the South of France.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.