A Risk Taken and a Lesson Learned

In 1996, as a semifinalist candidate for the Pierce College presidency, I learned that if selected I would become president No. 7 in 10 years. I would walk into a college with a deficit of $1.4 million and a pattern of declining enrollment, a college whose accreditation was “deferred” by the Western Assn. of Schools and Colleges in 1995 and whose 50-year-old physical plant was dilapidated, with classrooms largely unair-conditioned. In addition, the Los Angeles Community College District’s elected Board of Trustees had--and continues to have--a reputation of being dysfunctional.

The board hired me to:

* Restore the deferred accreditation (a deferment that added to enrollment decline).

* Reduce the deficit.

* Increase enrollment.

I had a plan, and I took the risk. On the job, I learned more:

* The board has a no-layoffs and no-outsourcing policy.

* The Pierce cafeteria had a deficit of $186,000, and it is against district policy to close the facility and replace it with a private and profitable food service.

* The contract of the cafeteria workers pays wages and benefits higher than prevailing wages in the relevant labor market.

* The board purchased a Wilshire Boulevard office building for $12.5 million but never used it. The district’s nine colleges, including Pierce, continue to pay for it.

* The district’s campus police contract, which covers Pierce, allows police to work overtime without approval of the police captain or the college president.

* From 1995 to 1997, the faculty union contributed $320,000 in support of the election of six board members.

All of the above drained a substantial portion of the revenue of Pierce College and ensured the flow of red ink. Another way to look at the basic reason behind Pierce’s deficit is shown in the accompanying chart.

*

So, in the three years that I have served, Pierce produced a total of $106,568,705 in revenue through enrollment, but the district office took away a total of $35,175,183, or 33%, which created the appearance that we at Pierce have not been living within our means. In November, the president of the board of trustees repeatedly blamed me for the budget “deficit” created by the $35,175,183 take-away. Every one of my former Economics 101 students could tell the board president that she is wrong.

After less than 2 1/2 years, I have:

* Restored Pierce’s full accreditation. This occurred at the end of my first year.

* Cut $3 million from the college’s projected deficit of $4.8 million (1997-’98). This deficit resulted from a districtwide $22 million in faculty salary raises agreed to by the board in late 1996 without regard to inadequate district revenue. To comply with orders to cut the projected deficit, Pierce had to cut the number of courses offered, which in turn resulted in decreased enrollment. By the logic of the board president, this decline was the college president’s fault.

* Launched a necessary but controversial land development project to raise revenue via a request for proposals, or RFP, which the board approved.

* Broken ground to air condition Pierce’s classrooms, which had not been done in the 49 years before my arrival. The project is about 50% complete.

* Completed a five-year technology plan and initiated a process that will produce a physical facilities master plan, something that should have been done long before I landed at Pierce.

In March 1998, the financial condition of the entire community college district was such that a systemwide deficit of more than $13 million put the district on the watch list of the California Community College Board of Governors.

To counter bad publicity, the board announced a “decentralization and reform” initiative under which the nine college presidents were to be given more authority. But the authority has not come, especially in financial matters, as pointed out by state auditor Kurt R. Sjoberg.

In fact, an additional compensation provision of the 1996 faculty contract kicked in in fall 1998 and added more than $314,000 to the projected deficit for Pierce alone.

This development was written about by The Roundup, Pierce’s independent student newspaper, which correctly blamed the contract.

It also was mentioned in a budget I submitted to the board. Apparently, this made the board unhappy, especially because I prudently advocated appropriately downsizing the college to make it more compatible with the budget allocated to it by the district office.

At its meeting Nov. 18, 1998, the board announced, with only 10 minutes notice to me and no performance evaluation whatsoever, that my three-year contract, which ends May 31, would not be renewed.

This arbitrary process, which would never be used with any member of the unions on the nine LACCD campuses, apparently is acceptable for a college president. The announced reasons for the decision were:

* I solved neither the deficit problem nor the enrollment problem.

* I was also blamed or “credited” with the controversy over the land development RFP--which the board approved. The board president has told the press that I did not listen to the “don’t-change-the-farm” advocates. Yet the board approved the RFP that the same advocates opposed vehemently. Additionally, Pierce was not the only one among the nine LACCD colleges to have a projected deficit as of November 1998. And with respect to that projected shortfall, here’s the latest update: As of March 16, the projection is that Pierce will have a positive balance of more than $200,000 by the end of June.

*

Clearly, the risk I took did not work. Although the campus and I accomplished much, it did not seem to matter because board members have not appeared in a good light in many recent developments. On Tuesday, the board of trustees faces election again. So there is the need to appear to be doing something right. Thus, the sudden announcement.

Blame for the deficit and enrollment problems was laid at my feet. But, as The Times saw it (Valley Edition Editorials, Nov. 29, 1998): “What is clear . . . is that Inocencio makes a convenient scapegoat for Pierce’s lagging enrollment and topsy-turvy finance.” The editorial concluded, “Just as they are unwilling to let their campus presidents truly take charge, board members seem unwilling to stand behind them.”

The lesson learned? I have learned that I should insist on having the appropriate authority commensurate with the accountability and responsibility for the assignment. High-level skills, entrepreneurship and hard work cannot compensate for the absence of basic resources and relevant tools with which to do the job. There is no good reason not to give a president authority if he is going to be held accountable for the status of the budget.

I also learned that education can take the back seat when the primary concern of the policymakers is the advancement of political careers, not the advancement of students’ academic interests.

This experience will help me do better when the next opportunity comes my way. I am grateful for the opportunity to change a few things for the better of the students of Pierce College. They are the sole reason that made the risk I took worthwhile.

*

‘Education can take the back seat when the primary concern of the policymakers is the advancement of political careers, not the advancement of students’ academic interests.’

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Pierce College Finances

*--*

YEAR REVENUE ALLOCATED MONEY EARNED BUDGET TAKEN AWAY 1996-’97 36,499,354 21,984,504 14,514,850 1997-’98 33,111,848 23,660,977 9,450,871 1998-’99 36,957,503 25,748,041 11,209,462

*--*