Part of the Bay Area News Group

No Nardolillo at Ohlone meeting

By Matt Artz
Wednesday, April 13th, 2011 at 4:16 pm in Uncategorized.

UPDATE: Turns out Nardolillo was at the meeting. He skipped the portion that was open to the public, but attended the closed door sessions, except for the closed door item that involved him, Ohlone officials said.

The first Ohlone College meeting since we wrote about Trustee Nick Nardolillo living in Livermore is underway. Nick is not there.

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

  • Cindy

    I am willing to wager that he is finally taking his lawyers advice – shut up!!!

  • Andrew C.

    There were also no communications from the public.

  • Tony Irvington

    Adding insult to injury.

  • Andrew C.

    To be clear, there was an opportunity for public comment, but no one showed up to speak.

  • bbox231

    The facts are in and presumably under investigation by appropriate parties.

    Those parties will each choose to act based on their respective views and interpretations.

    The D.A. and Board are both bound by legal tenets.
    Curiously, up til now, *that* seems to be the sole concern by the Board.

    But, the Board also has an additional obligation – IMHO – which extends beyond simple black and white legal interpretations.

    You know, stuff like, the spirit and interests of the surrounding community for which residency requirements were established in the first place.

    I s’pose some might consider this an obsolete notion in a litigious society.

    But for me, this is a clear matter of public trust and interest, the boundaries of which extend beyond doing simply what the legal advisors say you are required to do.

    Some just call it “doing the right thing.”

    Because, at the end of the day, it isn’t the D.A. you’re gonna ask to pass your bond measure when you need a little extra dough.

  • Ishan Shah

    Because, at the end of the day, it isn’t the D.A. you’re gonna ask to pass your bond measure when you need a little extra dough.

    That’s not fair box. Holding the students of the college hostage because of matters totally beyond their control should not be the solution to any problem. I understand your frustration. But, in the eyes of Dr. Browning and this board, to publicly fillet one of their own elected coworkers was not something they were willing to do with what information they had available to them, with the limited facts they knew to be true. This was a dangerous area to speculate in. Now, a non partisan 3rd party is conducting a thorough investigation with greater resources than the college could ever muster. Meanwhile, the remaining board members can continue to do the difficult work of keeping this school running in the face of up to 9 million dollars in cuts.

    I must say I’m a little disappointed I never got an answer to the post I put up in response to your asking for my opinion on the article entitled “Ohlone’s Legal Advice on Nardolillo”. I adressed this very concern of yours in it.

  • bbox231

    As I stated, “…this is a clear matter of public trust and interest, the boundaries of which extend beyond doing simply what the legal advisors say you are required to do.”

    Ishan –
    I read your post.
    I considered your thoughts.
    I ultimately concluded differently than you did.

    To my way of thinking, the Board by its potential inaction has compromised the public trust (and perhaps legal tenents). In so doing, *they* are the ones who will also compromise the students of Ohlone College.

    P.S. –

    When you say “I must say I’m a little disappointed I never got an answer to the post.” – you infer that there was a question unanswered.

    But, you asked no question.

    I dont know how you can be disappointed at the lack of a reply to a question you never asked.

    Perhaps you *meant* to say you were disappointed that there was no *response* to your response. . . .and, if that were true, as in my case, you were free to invite further comment.

    But, for whatever reasons, you chose not to.

    Which calls into question the sincerity of your claim of “disappointment”.

  • Ishan Shah

    Well, to each their own I suppose.

    Ahh, that’s true, I grant you the second part. I didn’t mean it at all negatively when noticing no reply. I was just remarking because you usually offer some sort of follow up. I couldn’t tell if you had read it and chose not to reply or if you had missed it in the flood of articles from that particular day. No worries!

  • I’m jus’ sayin’

    In all of this talk have they decided how they will fill the empty seat of Mr. McMillan? Or are they waiting to see the outcome of this with Nardolillo.

  • Robert M

    This non-residency situation has gone on for years and years…. long before Browning. I hope the DA is looking closely at past chief administrators too, to determine, as the saying goes, what they knew, and when they knew it.

  • Chinmoy Roy

    It;s people like Nick who bring disgrace to all those who volunteer for public service. He is expected to recuse himself from further meetings of the Board.

    Get rid of the cloud and then come back Nick. What are you waiting for. To get booted out like what happened to Sen. Ensign of Nevada? Isn’t it good to leave with your honor intact?