Shattering Democratic Values and "Who's in Charge?"

September 30, 2003

Dear Editor

The publicly elected SMC Board of Trustees continually proclaim, "It's about the students." Yet one of the most troubling aspects of recent votes by the Board is
the damage done to the SMC students. Any belief students may have had in the values of democracy have been shattered after observing the Board's performance.

While these same Board members blithely mouth their concern over students' low voter turnout and involvement in the democratic process, how can this Board have any doubt that its actions and inactions teach our students anything except that the process is rigged, that corruption, even when brought to light, dominates the American democratic process, and that individual action does not matter? Can students fail to learn that largely only those interested in milking the system for self-aggrandizement or personal advantage are interested in participating?

But the College Board is right about one thing -- it is about the students! SMC belongs to them. SMC belongs to the students, the community that paid for it, and those who built its reputation.

CSEA (the classified staff union) believes that the law has a meaning beyond mere words; that looking the other way while the current Administration knowingly makes misstatements is the mark of failure; that hiding a mountain of ethical and financial missteps behind a legitimate budget crisis is evidence of moral decay; that keeping quiet and not questioning is not the natural order; that win or lose, it is far better to take a stand, than to wring hands and say and do nothing.

When Associated Student Presidents and Student Trustees have confided their disbelief, despair and rage at having been misused, misled, manipulated, and discounted by the Administration and the College Board, and ask us why, and what to do, and how to proceed, we counsel perseverance.

We advise them that capitulation never succeeds; that in all times and in all places the same conflict between honor and dishonor plays itself out. We appreciate that the purpose of youth is to remind us elders of the values we may have left behind, and to inspire us to regain our better selves.

The Board can demand truthful answers from their Administration; it can take a stance on behalf of students by saying "Not acceptable!" to the Administration's rationalizations for acts of cowardice, race baiting, ineptitude and misinformation.

We hope that the SMC Board of Trustees can be inspired to embrace their better selves, to truly take an action that lives up to traditional values, to change direction. Otherwise, despite the best efforts of Santa Monica College staff, its students, faculty and the community, Santa Monica College is on a course it may never fully recover from; a downward spiral that this Administration, with the current Board's brazen approval, has set in motion.

Phil Hendricks, President CSEA (Classified School
Employees Association) Chapter 36
Santa Monica College

September 30, 2003

Dear Editor,

If you're a student here at SMC, there are undoubtedly things you like about the College and things you don't like about the College. Among the things that nobody likes are: waiting in line at Admissions; waiting for weeks to get Financial Aid; getting closed out of a class you need, or finding yourself in a stall without toilet paper. A fair question to ask is "How does a prestigious, internationally known community college like SMC find itself in a situation like the one we are in today?"

"Budget Cuts!" say the people in charge of SMC. But who is really in charge of SMC? Who makes the decisions about where to make cuts and how to make cuts? How do the people in charge decide what is in the best interests of SMC? And how does that affect
me as a student here?

SMC is run by a Board of Trustees comprised of seven who are elected by the voters of Santa Monica. To be on the Board of Trustees you must be a resident of Santa Monica or Malibu. The Board of Trustees chooses a President for the College. The President hires a management team for the College, and/or retains the managers that are already employed. The President of the College is essentially an employee of the Board of Trustees, who decide each year whether to extend the President's contract or not.

Although the Board is the final authority at SMC, neither they, nor the President and senior staff are solely responsible for making decisions at SMC. The State of California passed laws that require all community colleges to have a shared governance policy. Shared governance means that the constituencies of the college -- the faculty, the students, and the support (classified) staff participate, largely through committees, in making decisions at the College.

The purpose of shared governance is simple. When people who will be affected by decisions have a hand in making them, they generally make better decisions and more informed decisions, and will be more inclined to carry out those decisions than if those decisions are made for them.

So what happened at Santa Monica College with the budget cuts? Why were vocational programs cut over the objections of faculty, staff and students? Why is classified staff being laid off over the objections of faculty, staff, and students? Why is the College understaffed so badly?

Oddly enough, the answer is not because of money. The answer is that there has been a near total breakdown of the system of governance at SMC.

First and foremost the Board no longer exercises control over the President. The President controls the Board. How do we know this? We know this because the
Board must vote on the decisions made by the President and their votes are a matter of public record.

In eight years during which there have been close to three hundred votes, the Board has not voted down a single decision by the President. Furthermore, 99 percent of the votes have been unanimous! Consider yourself and six of your best friends. What are the odds that you would be in total agreement about literally hundreds of issues 99 percent of the time over an eight-year period?

Secondly, the shared governance system has simply been abandoned by the President. The Faculty opposed cutting the vocational education programs, as did the classified staff and the students. Faculty, staff, and students also opposed any further reduction of classified staff. Yet what happened? Vocational education programs were cut and classified employees were laid off. Both of these decisions are detrimental to the College and detrimental to the students who attend SMC.

Obviously, in an organization with a budget of over $100 million and with many employees and many programs, there are many ways to conserve money. The dire predictions of massive deficits never materialized, yet the President decided to take the most drastic steps possible to "save" money for the College.

The College's mission is to educate students, yet there is no evidence that the President's approach to deficit reduction is the best way to adhere to that mission. Indeed, in the considered opinion of most of us who work here and who attend school here, it is not.

Most of the students at SMC will go on to work in one kind of organization or another. When that happens you will be quite concerned with how your employer manages the enterprise where you make your living. You will not like it when the Boss behaves like an absolute monarch and uses his or her power unfairly or unreasonably. Yet this is precisely what is happening here at the College where you are supposed to be getting an education. And frankly, it is a travesty.