Advertisement

Three Valley JCs May Face Severe Cuts in Programs

Share
Times Staff Writer

The Los Angeles Community College District board of trustees again is considering the elimination of athletic teams as a means to balance a budget deeply in the red.

For athletic administrators and coaches within the district, such news has become a rite of summer.

Since 1978, the year Proposition 13 passed, the district has periodically wrestled with the idea of either eliminating or substantially trimming back the sports programs of its nine community colleges, including Mission, Pierce and Valley from the San Fernando Valley.

Advertisement

That possibility surfaced again last week when newly elected board president Dr. Monroe Richman asked the district’s financial staff to investigate the district’s savings if it eliminated all intercollegiate athletics. Richman, an Encino physician, took over for outgoing president Arthur Bronson last week. He has been a member of the board since 1971.

The district says it must slash $6.8 million from a proposed budget of $180 million in order to repay a $5-million loan it owes to Los Angeles County. The loan is due Oct. 1. The district received the loan last month so it could meet its payroll.

In a telephone interview, Richman said he has asked the district financial staff to research all avenues in which money is spent on athletics. That includes, he said, insurance costs and state membership dues.

“We’re going to take a look at every cost factor before making a decision,” Richman said. “When the final decision is made it will be based on educational value versus the financial consequences.” The staff could have its recommendations to Richman when the board meets again July 31.

Battling the deficit is nothing new to the financial staff. In a separate report, it has already made several deficit-reducing recommendations to the board.

Reducing the number of paid leaves of absence, leaving support staff vacancies open, and cutting back on administrative staff were among the recommendations.

Advertisement

The staff also reported that the district may have to lay off or furlough maintenance staff, sell district-owned land or buildings, cut program offerings and close other facilities such as storefront classrooms.

Some of the board members have suggested other ways the district could raise revenue.

Arthur Bronson has said he would like the district to consider closing the Airport Center on Sepulveda Boulevard and, along with a private developer, build an office complex that could house private businesses along with the district headquarters. The district could lease out the sector of the building not used for district offices.

Board member Marguerite Archie-Hudson has said that if demand reductions in maintenance and support staff were going to be made, faculty staff should be reduced, too.

Phil Lozano, athletic director at Mission College, supports that thinking. “We’re heavy with teaching staff and administrators,” he said. “It’s a harsh thing to say, but it’s a reality. You have to get rid of people. It’s just like in the private sector, if there is no demand for your product, you cut your overhead. It becomes a political football. Even if the district wanted to cut staff, I’m sure the union would fight it.”

Staff reductions are not likely this year because under a negotiated agreement between the district and the faculty union, instructors must be notified by March 15 of layoffs or staff reductions. The district did not do that this spring.

The district had asked the state for a $5-million loan to repay the county, but the request was vetoed by Gov. George Deukmejian, who cited “poor fiscal management” by the district as the reason for his rejection.

Advertisement

At the same time, Deukmejian signed legislation providing loans for community college districts in San Bernardino, Susanville and Oakland.

Deukmejian said he would support a loan to the Los Angeles district only if it adopted the “free flow” concept of allowing students to attend any school they want to attend, not just those in their district. The trustees contend that adopting such a policy would cost the district more than $20 million during the next school year. State funding for community colleges is based on the number of students who attend each school. Each student is also charged a $50 fee for enrollment.

Athletic administrators and coaches say the district would lose even more students, and therefore more money, by eliminating athletic programs.

Walt Rilliet, Commissioner of Athletics for the California Assn. of Community Colleges, said numerous studies have been made on the affect that eliminating sports has on enrollment. Those studies many times contradict one another, he said.

Rilliet said that because of public pressure Cabrillo College in Santa Cruz recently restored seven athletic programs it had dropped. “They dropped the athletic teams without cutting anything else in the curiculum,” Rilliet said. “Now they have to reinstate the programs and it’s costing more than it would have to leave them alone.”

Jim Raack, athletic director at West Los Angeles College and a member of the state’s Commission on Athletics, said athletics is self-supporting.

Advertisement

“We receive money from the state for each student attending class,” Raack said. “When you eliminate full-time students by eliminating athletic teams, you eliminate the money that they bring in.” A student carrying 12 units a semester would be worth $1,700 to the district, according to Raack.

District rules state that an athlete must pass 12 units of classes with a grade of ‘C’ or better to retain eligibility.

“If we cut athletic programs, those athletes will simply go to some other school,” Raack said.

Bob O’Connor, athletic director at Pierce College, concurred, citing the number of athletes Pierce has from the Newhall area as an example.

“When College of the Canyons (in Valencia) eliminated football a lot of kids from the area went to Valley schools to play,” O’Connor said. “It would be absolutely absurd for an entire district to send a large contingent of student-athletes away to other schools. We had 80 players on the football team last year and all of them passed every class. That’s a lot of money from the state. Money we would be losing.”

Richman, 59, was elected as president of the board last week. His critics say he has always been ready and more than willing to slash funds for the athletic programs at any inkling of budget trouble.

Advertisement

“I am not anti-football or anti-intercollegiate athletics,” Richman said. “Some people portray me that way, but I’m actually very much in favor of sports--when it is shown to me that it’s financially feasible.

“There are many factors involved, safety being one of them. It bothers me that some of our colleges are using used equipment. In some cases, we’ve been using pure hand-me-downs. I’ve played athletics enough to know the dangers of that. If there is one serious injury to a person, then I have not been a responsible trustee to that person. And to replace that equipment, of course, takes a lot of money.”

Richman said he might favor a plan to divide athletic teams among the colleges. “That way colleges with strong programs in a particular sport could keep that sport and drop another sport that another college might be stronger in,” he said.

Several coaches and athletic administrators who were interviewed endorsed such a plan, but only as a last resort.

Said Jim Fenwick, Pierce College football coach: “You start wondering if all your hard work and sweat and time is going down the drain. If (Richman) were in my shoes and he had as much concern and affect on the lives and goals of 100 kids like I do, I don’t think he’d be talking about eliminating athletics. Cut a little of everything, but keep them all. Most programs just have too much value to lose completely.”

The process in which community colleges are supported by the state could change within the next year, which might also affect the district’s budget.

Advertisement

A 16-member committee is three months into a year-long study of education within the state, including state universities and universities in the UC system.

Rilliet said that the committee could recommend to restructure the entire educational system within the state.

“They’re talking about realigning districts, differential funding, all kinds of subjects,” Rilliet said. “Basically, they’re erasing the board and starting all over again.”

But all coaches and athletic officials can do is wait, albeit impatiently.

Said Raack: “They’ve been calling wolf for so long that I feel kind of numb. We’ve been fighting for so long the I’ve finally reached the point that I just want to know either way so we can deal with it.”

Advertisement