Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
CMC must start to act its age, honor promises
By Ruth Rieman / Yucca Valley
(Regarding Copper Mountain College's application for a waiver from a law requiring that 50 percent of expenses be used to pay for instructors' salaries) It is true that resources at Copper Mountain College are stretched to the breaking point but cutting back on promised funding for full-time faculty is not the solution. The board of trustees needs to rethink its decision to abandon priorities that were agreed to in 2001.
Under the leadership of the campus provost and help from a powerful state legislator Copper Mountain Campus started life toward independence in 1999 with a piece of legislation exempting it from the 3000 Full Time Equivalent Student rule. Copper Mountain Campus had at the time less than one-half of the required student population. Most of the professionals experienced in such matters warned that a school with such a small student population would have a very difficult time because the costs of administration would be too heavy. Therefore, it should be no surprise that in these tough times at the state level, when all public schools feel the crunch, that CMC in particular feels it big time.
I am a past president of the CMC Foundation/Friends of CMC and while serving as a board member, I was on the inside of much of what went on during the transition from Campus to College. Most of it was not pretty but in the CMC tradition, from the outside it had all the trappings of a Cinderella Story. This is the story the public expects and has given their unequivocal support to for the past 30 years. The question becomes, will that support be rewarded with a college that operates from strength as it grows into playing by the rules as one would expect of a mature community college, or will its viability remain in question as it continues to see itself as a victim of rules, shirking the responsibilities that accompany self determination.
The new Copper Mountain College has never met the minimum standard for funding full-time faculty positions that the Fifty Percent Law requires and no one disagrees that more full-time instructors are critical to serving the students at CMC. Agreement existed that exemptions to the law would be requested while the administration and the faculty took seriously the board of trustees' intent to meet the minimum standard over a period of years, stepping forward each year. That was until last year, when the board of trustees chose to reprioritize funding for certain programs above their commitment to forward movement toward the minimum standards for faculty funding. Again, this year, the board is requesting an exemption that reverses part of the forward gain that occurred in prior years.
The following are included in the recommendations of the college's 50 Percent Law Task Force, which were authorized by the Board of Trustees in 2001, and upon which agreement had been established:
€ Until the 50 percent goal is reached, classroom instruction always will be given the highest priority.
€ Under no circumstances will any further decline in the percentage of the budget devoted to classroom instruction be allowed to occur in the future.
€ A mandate of 65 percent of incremental increases in resources be earmarked exclusively for instructional investment.
I can't help but see this current reversal as anything but another broken promise to students and faculty. My past experience with some members of the administration and the board of trustees leads me to think that loyalty to their own ideas speaks loader than actual performance outcome. Efforts to meet and seek agreement at CMC have rarely produced desirable results, and when there appears to be some agreement, action does not occur in a timely manner.
It is time for this college president and the board of trustees to take seriously their responsibilities. It is obvious by the size of the salary the president receives in relation to other college presidents that great leadership should be expected and demanded. Where is the trust and confidence that strong leadership can bring? It's missing so far.
Under the leadership of the campus provost and help from a powerful state legislator Copper Mountain Campus started life toward independence in 1999 with a piece of legislation exempting it from the 3000 Full Time Equivalent Student rule. Copper Mountain Campus had at the time less than one-half of the required student population. Most of the professionals experienced in such matters warned that a school with such a small student population would have a very difficult time because the costs of administration would be too heavy. Therefore, it should be no surprise that in these tough times at the state level, when all public schools feel the crunch, that CMC in particular feels it big time.
I am a past president of the CMC Foundation/Friends of CMC and while serving as a board member, I was on the inside of much of what went on during the transition from Campus to College. Most of it was not pretty but in the CMC tradition, from the outside it had all the trappings of a Cinderella Story. This is the story the public expects and has given their unequivocal support to for the past 30 years. The question becomes, will that support be rewarded with a college that operates from strength as it grows into playing by the rules as one would expect of a mature community college, or will its viability remain in question as it continues to see itself as a victim of rules, shirking the responsibilities that accompany self determination.
The new Copper Mountain College has never met the minimum standard for funding full-time faculty positions that the Fifty Percent Law requires and no one disagrees that more full-time instructors are critical to serving the students at CMC. Agreement existed that exemptions to the law would be requested while the administration and the faculty took seriously the board of trustees' intent to meet the minimum standard over a period of years, stepping forward each year. That was until last year, when the board of trustees chose to reprioritize funding for certain programs above their commitment to forward movement toward the minimum standards for faculty funding. Again, this year, the board is requesting an exemption that reverses part of the forward gain that occurred in prior years.
The following are included in the recommendations of the college's 50 Percent Law Task Force, which were authorized by the Board of Trustees in 2001, and upon which agreement had been established:
€ Until the 50 percent goal is reached, classroom instruction always will be given the highest priority.
€ Under no circumstances will any further decline in the percentage of the budget devoted to classroom instruction be allowed to occur in the future.
€ A mandate of 65 percent of incremental increases in resources be earmarked exclusively for instructional investment.
I can't help but see this current reversal as anything but another broken promise to students and faculty. My past experience with some members of the administration and the board of trustees leads me to think that loyalty to their own ideas speaks loader than actual performance outcome. Efforts to meet and seek agreement at CMC have rarely produced desirable results, and when there appears to be some agreement, action does not occur in a timely manner.
It is time for this college president and the board of trustees to take seriously their responsibilities. It is obvious by the size of the salary the president receives in relation to other college presidents that great leadership should be expected and demanded. Where is the trust and confidence that strong leadership can bring? It's missing so far.
 |
||
| Reader's letter: Dirt-road residents treated unfairly |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of hidesertstar.com.
You must register with a valid email to gain access to this site feature.
Already a Member?Login Here:
|
Become a Registered MemberFill out the form below.
|
RSS
mydoit2002 wrote on Jan 7, 2009 11:46 PM: