Editorial: Governing board under scrutiny

The governing board has been operating under a microscope recently, and for good reason, what with the questionable decision to hire outside consulting firm Alvarez and Marsal (A&M) to conduct an in-depth efficiency study of MCCCD.

While A&M was hired for its objectivity, we, as an editorial board believe this devalues its suggestions to the district.  How can an uninvolved party, with minimal educational experience, possibly know what is best for our diverse student body without knowledge of the day-to-day practices within a community college?

Administration and faculty are not the only ones doubting the $1.4 million attempt at micro-managing a community of 250,000 students.  The Higher Learning Commission (HLC), which is responsible for the accreditation of MCCCD, has been notified by an anonymous letter of the governing board's efforts to overstep its boundaries.  If the HLC were to find the governing board unfit, then MCCCD could lose  accreditation, meaning students credits would not transfer to universities.

The abuse of governing board power began last April, when the board voted to expand its capabilities.   Governing board members flexed their self-appointed authority with a failed endeavor to decrease administrative salaries.

A&M presented its findings in an open meeting Sept. 29, which consisted of debatable statistics drawn from an ambiguous focus group. 

We are frightened that the governing board will be making major decisions based off a lengthy survey that, in all likelihood, participants lost their attention span midway through and persevered solely with the hopes of winning a free iPod.

MCCCD employees who attended the most recent board meeting seemed displeased with A&M’s analysis.  Attendees questioned whether or not the survey was an accurate portrayal of the student population.

One board member thanked A&M for pointing out findings on the district that were “plain common sense.”  Maybe he was referring to the recap of the presentation, which was comprised of three goals: recruit students who achieve, replicate best practices across campuses, and implement those practices.  Excuse the elementary language, but duh.   
Maybe the rest of the $1.4 million will go toward finding out what these “best practices” are and which schools are applying them because A&M chose not to disclose this information.