Mr. Clinco, I am confused. You assure us that “as good stewards of taxpayer and tuition dollars, Pima Community College, under the direction of the Governing Board, is reducing operating expenses by $5 million a year for three years. With deliberate and careful scrutiny, the College is making difficult decisions at every level of the institution, while remaining committed to the highest level of programs and services. At the same time, Pima is reinventing in employer-driven Centers of Excellence and academic program support designed for the success of all students and reinforcing the College’s recent ranking among the nation’s top 100 community colleges.”
I don’t understand how (1) reducing operating expenses at the College by $5 million for the next 3 years makes the Board “good stewards” of taxpayer and tuition dollars. Mr. Lambert and the BOG have claimed that declining enrollment is the cause of reduced revenue, thus reducing the budget. Yet, by doing away with football, you will essentially lose approximately 300 to 400 students. How will you make up the drop in student enrollment that the College will lose by the elimination of football plus the 2000 to 2500 students short of the needed 17,000 FTSE for your proposed Centers of Excellence?
(2) Reducing expenses by eliminating staff positions while the numbers of administrators staff serve are not cut makes no sense either. Where are the cuts to high level administration? If their staff is unnecessary, what makes these administrators important to the College? You are all clearly playing games because while you are “reducing” the numbers of employees, the College is also looking to hire for new positions. It doesn’t take a financial genius to know that you’re getting rid of — actually firing!—people who know the history and culture of PCC and who even know what you might consider such banal but important things as which forms must be used for specific purposes. You are firing them because they are at higher staff levels and you believe that their salaries are costing too much. Wait until you see the real cost of getting rid of these people! That price will show up in the astounding inefficiencies that will follow. You will be shocked by the price you pay for hiring the newbies! It is interesting to note, too, Mr. Clinco, that PCC administrators’ pay rate is matched with the national average for those positions while the pay rate for faculty is matched strictly on pay for Arizona community colleges! Furthermore, if you were really concerned about cutting budgets, Mr. Clinco, you and your Board colleagues would close at least two of our unnecessary campuses! Now that would demonstrate real savings!
(3) Mr. Clinco, in your statement you say that you made difficult decisions at every level of the institution. Your statement is disingenuous. While you claim that your “stewardship” is appropriate, how can you look to hire more math faculty, for example, when enrollment in math is down more than 16%! The BOG endorsed the staffing of 3 full time instructors in the new department of “gender equality” while you were presented with data that clearly showed there were 8 students enrolled in the “department”! Moreover, there is a job search for more English instructors when enrollment in that department is significantly down! Moreover, it is clear that there is preferential treatment to Lambert’s pet programs like the centers of excellence that he wants merely to list as legacy for future jobs. Another example of his pet projects is the international studies program (ISP). Interestingly, the BOG and Lambert were advised to avoid creating the international studies program if the main purpose was to attract higher tuition from foreign students. You were all advised by Zelema Harris, a nationally known and respected educator that such programs end up costing more than they bring in.
You and your Board colleagues, Mr.Clinco, are ignorant and, to cover it up, you pretend that there are no others who are capable of giving good advice and who know more about economics than you. You do not welcome anyone with expertise to help you in your “good stewardship”. Not one of you has a degree in economics or finance! But you proudly persist in your ignorance and poor decision-making and call it “good stewardship”.
But let’s return to the whole notion of ISPs. Traditionally ISPs are funded by sources other than general operating budgets. The College’s ISP is funded $600 to 700 thousand by the College’s general fund—same as or more than what how football is being funded. My understanding is that in the football budget there was zero money for coaches to travel out of town to recruit players. In the ISP budget unlike football program, staff are highly paid and their travel is extensive. One need only examine accounts payable to know, too, that Lambert uses the ISP travel budget to reward himself and his cronies on worldwide junkets, where they stay at top of the line hotels and eat lavishly at elegant restaurants. Receipts for Lambert’s and his cronies’ travel are available to you! How much money was taken out of the ISP to make up the $5 million needed this year?
(4) At the last BOG meeting as you and Board members were cutting football, the BOG majority approved the purchase of a property near the DC. It’s a property that could have historical significance and, therefore, will be remarkably costly to rehab and/or demolish. Where is the stewardship you claim to protect taxpayer dollars? On the one hand, you cut back expenses and then you don’t object to getting into debt to the tune of $156 million plus for your centers of excellence. Since Lambert was hired, student tuition and property taxes have gone up and will continue to rise in order to come up with money for his centers of excellence. Your actions don’t make a lot of cents or sense!
(5) Recently the Chancellor, who professed to be a civil rights attorney, was found guilty by a judge of violating the civil rights of several former employees. How could the majority of the BOG reward him and grant him a $50,000 raise? Where is your and the Board’s stewardship, Mr. Clinco. Where is a demonstration of the BOG’s fiduciary responsibilities? Interestingly, the Chancellor and most of the senior administration lack previous experience in their respective positions. You and the Board are paying for on the job experience, Mr. Clinco! Indeed, you are paying these administrators who, along with the Chancellor, have destroyed whatever vestiges remained of moral at PCC. Faculty are afraid more than ever to voice even suggestions! PCC has both a toxic environment at all levels and a reputation to go along with it. And, by the way, I don’t know where you got the idea that PCC ranks in the top 100 community colleges nationally. In fact, it gets a flat grade of “C” in national studies!
If you and the BOG are doing such a wonderful job, Mr. Clinco, how do you explain the high rate of those employees currently fleeing PCC and calling it retirement?
You, Mr. Clinco, and your BOG colleagues are ignorant and have no idea what your job as BOG members is. You don’t want to know, for you muzzle anyone who asks questions or presents relevant information! You are enablers and complicit in the kind of corruption that puts administrators first and students last! At your last meeting, a contract which included increasing student enrollment was up for discussion. The subject contractor was requesting an extension of 5 more years on their previous 5 year contract. The amount of the contract was for more than $500,000. A BOG member began questioning their performance. You and the rest of your Board called for the question thereby stifling further discussion. There are other similar incidents during the past two years. Please don’t continue to say you and your Board are good stewards of tuition and our tax dollars. You also must stop proclaiming that everything you do is for students and that students are your number one priority. There is too much evidence—corruption—to the contrary. If you were really sincere about exerting “good stewardship”, Mr. Clinco, you and your Board colleagues would invite an outside audit of PCC by a certified forensic external auditor. Seems to me you and your colleagues “doth protest too much”!