JJC Trustees Approve Two Months of Bills Amid Rebranding Cost Questions

Joliet Junior College | August 12, 2026

Article Summary: Joliet Junior College trustees unanimously approved the listings of bills for the periods ending June 30 and July 31, 2026, but only after Trustee Maureen Broderick pulled the item from the consent agenda and questioned spending she estimated at roughly $400,000 tied to the college’s new logo.

Listing of Bills Key Points:

Broderick cited a light pole banner purchase of more than $23,000 and nearly $13,000 in outdoor banners, and estimated total rebranding costs at about $400,000.

Administration told the board the banners and logo work are inside the existing college budget, with no additional funding required.

A $5,331 bill from an outside immigration firm covered filing and processing fees paid on behalf of a college employee, staff said.

The board approved the bills 6-0, with Broderick voting yes after her questions were answered.

JOLIET — The Joliet Junior College Board of Trustees on Wednesday, Aug. 12, 2026, approved the listing of bills for the periods ending June 30, 2026, and July 31, 2026, in a 6-0 vote, after a roughly 15-minute exchange over marketing, legal and technology spending.

The item, numbered 3.1 on the agenda, had been slated for approval as part of the consent agenda. Broderick pulled it, along with item 3.2.6, before the consent vote. Trustee Elaine Bottomley moved approval, seconded by Trustee Diane Harris.

Administration Says Rebranding Is Inside the Budget

Broderick told the board her concerns centered on the June 30 bills. “I’m looking at a lot of bills that are going for the new logo,” she said, citing a light pole banner purchase with the new logo for more than $23,000 and, in the following period, nearly $13,000 in outdoor banners for the campus.

“When I estimate all the bills for the new logo, about $400,000, which concerns me as a trustee since tuition was increased,” she said.

President Dr. Clyne Namuo directed the response to an administrator the transcript identifies as Dr. Farmer, who told trustees the purchases were already accounted for.

“The light pole banners have been purchased through our current budget as a part of the marketing plan,” the administrator said. “In terms of the logo, that’s already embedded in the current budget for the college. So there’s no additional funding for that.”

Broderick replied that her concern was the scale of the spending alongside a tuition increase. The administrator repeated that all of it is included in the current budget.

Immigration Fees and ERP Costs

Broderick also questioned legal spending, saying she has asked to see a breakdown of retainer and hourly billing, and that she received the month’s legal bills only that afternoon. She asked why two outside firms beyond the board’s regular counsel were appearing on the bills, including one she said had now billed the college three times.

A staff member invited to the podium said one of those bills, for $5,331, was almost entirely pass-through cost rather than legal work. The firm is “consulting with us and helping one of our employees transition off of an H-1B waiver to permanent residency and work status,” she said, and the charges comprised an asylum program fee, a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services filing fee and a premium processing fee. “The legal costs are actually very nominal, but the expertise we had to go with a firm such as” that one was needed for the process, she said, adding that the firm paid the fees on the employee’s behalf and the college is reimbursing them. A similar bill appeared the previous month for the same matter.

Broderick further pressed on a $76,000 bill from a consultant working on the college’s enterprise resource planning, or ERP, modernization and optimization project, asking where overall costs stand. “I’m still on the 2019 situation of when we started it. Where’s our cost at?” she said.

The administration said a comprehensive update would be delivered to the board in September. Namuo had told trustees earlier in the exchange that the board would receive an ERP update “in the very near future.” Broderick said monthly reporting would be preferable, “because $76,000 is a big chunk.”

She also flagged a $195,000 bill from an architectural firm working on the college’s Grundy County expansion — a project for which the Buildings and Grounds Committee reported no update earlier in the same meeting — and asked whether reimbursement had been received for a trustee conference that was not attended.

Morales, who chairs the finance committee, objected to the format of the discussion rather than its substance.

“I take a look at all of the bills, but I understand this is part of operations,” Morales said. “If I have a question, usually I email it ahead of time and I get a response.” Paying bills, she said, “is part of any company or school.” She added: “A lot of this, asking detailed questions, is grandstanding and just to make the public think that nobody else is asking questions, but we all ask questions. We just don’t make a show out of it.”

The roll call that followed was unanimous, with Bottomley, Harris, Bradley, Broderick, Morales and Garcia Guillen all voting yes. The minutes record that Student Trustee Byron McCullum favored the motion.

The board book containing the bills listings was not included in the materials available for this report, and the total value of the two periods’ bills is therefore not stated in the public record reviewed.