‘The $5-Million Fiasco’

Recent articles in The Times would appear to indicate that all the financial troubles that the Los Angeles Community College District now has are due to the 6% pay raise granted to the faculty. I believe this to be an erroneous assumption being foisted on the public by the trustees, Chancellor Leslie Koltai and Tom Fallo. This raise was the first raise in several years granted to the faculty, but that is not mentioned.

Nowhere in your articles has there been any mention of the fact that the budget for the district administrative office, more than $15 million this year, is greater than the budgets allocated to more than half of the colleges in this district.

Several years ago the district office was operating out of a building located at Olympic and Alvarado. Granted, this building was not a big downtown office building, but the business of the district was efficiently handled. This location offered easy access and parking for the public and staff to attend board meetings in order to monitor district operations. It was decided that this building was no longer sufficient to meet the needs of the district. Instead, offices were moved to a downtown office building that required a great deal of renovation (read money) and that was difficult for the public and staff to get to. “Koltai’s Taj Mahal” was created. Naturally, additional administrative positions had been created in order to fill the new space.

It was about this time that the business of education evidently began to be placed secondary to the desire of the district administration.

Nowhere is there mention of the millions being spent on an unneeded college in the San Fernando Valley (Mission College), which the chancellor has decided we need and refuses to eliminate in spite of the fact that enrollment has never met projections. This college is located within a few miles of three excellent, established colleges (Pierce, Valley and College of the Canyons) that are suffering declining enrollments in part because of this “store-front” operation. Yet the chancellor insists that we include millions in our projected budgets to build and equip this unneeded campus.

Nowhere is mention made of the extensive refurbishing of administrative offices in the colleges with little, or no, concern shown for classroom improvement. Students recently went on strike because classrooms in one college were so hot that learning could not take place. The administration’s answer was simply, “No money available for any relief.” This was shortly after the air-conditioned offices in the administration building were painted, redesigned, carpeted and completely refurnished with new and expensive furniture. Yet many classrooms, where education takes place, have gone unnoticed and uncleaned for at least 15 to 20 years in some cases that I know of.

Where was mention of the recent $40,000 junket to the Hotel Del Coronado that the administration made? About the only thing that seems to have come out of that fiasco was the fact that the public would not be made aware of the dire financial condition of the district until after the recent elections. After all, there were some “good old boys” up for reelection, or seeking other offices.

There is also no mention of the $4,000 “perk” that has been given to college presidents and some other administrators.

The fiscal problems of this district are not attributable to the faculty and staff. They are the predictable result of “empire building” and mismanagement at the district offices orchestrated by Leslie Koltai and carried out by the Board of Trustees.

Perhaps, as many have suggested, it is time for a Little Hoover Committee investigation.

The business of education should be education, not administration.

J. J. BRYAN

Los Angeles

Bryan is associate professor of automotive technology at L.A. Trade-Technical College.