Guest Opinion | PCC Management Association: A Letter of Concern to the Pasadena Area Community College District Board of Trustees

Editor’s Note: Following is text of remarks and letter given last Wednesday to the Pasadena Area Community College District Board of Trustees during its regular Board meeting.

Good evening, I’m Mat Camara, the acting Board President of the Management Association, (MA) an association that represents 78 PCC Managers. I’ve been at PCC for 15 years and have served under seven Superintendent-Presidents. Let that sink in for a moment…seven Superintendent-Presidents. 

 Allow me to share some newspaper headlines: 

 “Senate votes no confidence for board of trustees.” – Pasadena Star-News “Tensions at Pasadena City College threaten school’s reputation.” – Los Angeles Times “Pasadena City College problems start with the trustees.” – Pasadena Star News 

The more things change, the more they stay the same. These headlines are actually from 2014 and 2015, but they very well could be from today. 

The Management Association is concerned. Concerned that we haven’t learned from our past. Concerned about the state of the current Board of Trustees and concerned for the future of Pasadena City College. 

On Monday, April 11, 2022, the Superintendent-President AND the Board of Trustees received a Vote of No Confidence from our colleagues in the Academic Senate, with a big emphasis on restoring transparency, equity, collegiality, collaboration and shared governance at PCC. Since then, the majority of public comments during Board of Trustee meetings have been negatively directed at the Superintendent-President and NOT the Board of Trustees. This is concerning because this Board is more than willing to take credit for anything positive, like last month’s presentation of a $500,000 federal earmark from Representative Judy Chu for our Family Resource Center. However, they seem to disassociate themselves from anything negative, like the cancelation of our recently returned Winter Intersession or the tough COVID decisions and return to campus policy. Does the buck only stop with you when the choices are easy? 

As a means of addressing many of our concerns, MA leadership has attempted to meet with the Board of Trustees over the course of the past two months to respectfully foster dialogue and establish an open line of communication. Unfortunately, we have had limited success, as not all of you have been able or willing to meet. To those who have made the time, we truly appreciate your conversation and hope to continue sharing viewpoints. To those who have refused to meet with us, it’s concerning: we are left feeling undervalued, marginalized, and quite frankly, evaded, as some of you have been particularly misleading about your availability. We’re concerned that our current Board members, specifically our Board President and two of the recently elected members, have appeared to neglect their basic Trustee duties and responsibilities. Board Bylaw 2200 – Board Duties and Responsibilities outline 30 items that need to be adhered to. 

While there are many concerns, the following are six specific issues: 

 #1 – Represent the Public Interest. As Trustees, this normally would be done with integrity and impartiality by balancing the concerns of all stakeholders, with students being our number one priority. Yet, members of the Board seem to be focused on serving the interest of a select group of “burn-it-all-down” faculty members, including an individual who has not even taught this academic year yet claims to speak on behalf of all faculty. What’s most concerning is the apparent conflict of interest these Board members have, catering to these select faculty campaign advisors and donors, whose sole focus seems to be discrediting our institution and the Superintendent-President. 

 #2 – Assure the Board operates in an open, accessible, welcoming spirit, and maintains an anti-racist culture. Were you operating in an open and accessible manner when, after the MA and District submitted an MOU following due process last week, Trustee President Chen Lau on behalf of the Board arbitrarily pulled the MOU for the Management Association? The MOU followed precedent to ensure managers received COLA. It must have been lost on President Chen Lau that the Board passed an MOU for COLA in 2018, 2020 and 2021. By the way, she even voted to approve of the last two. PCC has a long-standing practice as a “me too” college. All bargaining units, and in turn our Meet and Confer association receive this support. 

This type of manipulation harms the campus by depriving the full Board of open dialogue. Not only are you censoring the business of the college, your actions are directly violating ACCJC standards. Standard IV.C.2. states that “the governing board acts as a collective entity.” Deliberately denying all Board members and the college the opportunity to dialogue, debate, and vote directly puts our accreditation status at risk. Are you ready to jeopardize our status again, Board President? 

Were you working in a welcoming spirit when during a recent lunch meeting with the MA, one trustee member pounded their fists onto a table? They ranted about how the buck stopped with them when asked to entertain a request to expedite a perfunctory campus process. And during another lunch, a Trustee questioned the purpose of the meeting, and remained adversarial the entire time. These types of responses elicit anything but a welcoming or collegial spirit. 

Were you maintaining an anti-racist culture when you singled out and over-scrutinized the Black Family Reunion outreach event that created an openly hostile environment for our already beleaguered Black colleagues? 

Were you maintaining an anti-racist culture when discussing racial and ethnic diversity and the lack of Latinx representation at the Facilities Board Committee meeting on March 7? While reviewing a recording of the meeting, we were astounded to hear several openly racist remarks. In one instance, it was implied that one potential committee candidate, a Latino, was not qualified or lived close enough to campus to sit on the committee. When reminded by one of our vice presidents that PCC has long been designated as a HSI (Hispanic Serving Institution) with almost half of our student population identifying as Hispanic and/or Latinx, Trustee Kwong casually responded, “We do have one Black appointee.” As a simple reminder from our diversity training, a Black appointee does not represent a Latinx committee member. 

Rest assured, the message was profoundly received by all of us: Latinx representation DOES NOT MATTER, even if we are designated as an HSI. 

This overstepping and misunderstanding of one’s role is extremely concerning. 

#3 – After appropriate consultation, select, establish the rate of compensation for, provide regular evaluation of, and/or terminate the Superintendent-President. How about the Board’s inability to complete the evaluation of Superintendent/President Endrijonas over the past few months? Not only has it prolonged an unnecessary evaluation cycle and has had a negative impact on the campus community morale, but how much in unnecessary legal fees did this cost the District? We are pleased you took responsibility at the last Board Meeting, but will you also be reimbursing the District for your costly mismanagement? We are curious about the legal expenditures this past fiscal year. So curious that we’ve made a public information request that we plan on sharing with the community. Perhaps you can walk us through all the legal expenditures at the April Board Meeting? 

#4 – Delegate power and authority to the Superintendent-President to effectively lead the District. We urge all Board members to keep current on Board trainings to better understand their roles and responsibilities and what should be delegated to the Superintendent-President. 

We have a real concern that there are Board members who don’t seem to know the difference between a Board Bylaw, Board Policy, or Administrative Procedure. To clarify, both Board Policies and Administrative Procedures must go through the shared governance process. This is a fairly standard process throughout the state and does not require a legal opinion to clarify. Debate is not necessary; our college’s integrated planning process, specifically the Board Policy and Administrative Procedure Development Process, clearly defines this in step 3. 

The MA is also very concerned about the recent overreach of the Board of Trustees, particularly micro-managing decisions and oversight of daily operations. The emailing of managers without including their direct reports, or your ONE employee, the Superintendent President, is inappropriate. Contacting deans on their personal cell numbers to communicate is completely UNACCEPTABLE. The infrastructure of the college provides efficiency and protection. Constant overreach by Trustees is not productive, nor the role of the Board. This is not only a violation of your own bylaws, but also violates accreditation standard IV.C.12., which states that “the governing board delegates full responsibility and administers board policies WITHOUT board interference.” These continued actions have the potential to place us on a dangerous path. 

It appears that the only power and authority that you’ve delegated to the Superintendent President is to pursue leadership at another institution. 

#5 – Assure fiscal health and stability. There has only been one less stable time than the present. The only difference is that in 2013 the entire campus – students and shared governance groups – were unified in the decision to make a leadership change. Pasadena City College was once considered the final, ultimate stop on a presidential career path. Clearly, we’re now a pass-through as our current and past presidents have pursued supposedly greener fields. From 1987 to 2007, PCC had two Superintendent-Presidents. From 2007 to the present, we have had six Superintendent-Presidents. And we might be on our way to a seventh and possibly eighth if an interim is necessary. How stable is that? Why would anyone entrust this Board to make a good decision and maintain stability? 

We have been #1 in: ADTs awarded, transfers of minoritized students, Transfers to the CSUs, Transfers in the State…I guess we can add one more: Top Transfer Institution for Presidents. Are we PCCproud of this last one? 

#6 – Approve the College Calendar. Trustees proudly tout that “the buck stops here.” Yet when the Board of Trustees approved the 2023-24 Academic Calendar after following the Shared Governance process, they seemed to have forgotten where the buck stops. After this matter was sent to PERB, the “buck” was laid at the feet of our Superintendent-President. We link this calendar matter to duty #29 on the list, which states that the Board of Trustees must “be ultimately responsible for legal matters.” Yes, that includes the PERB case. 

I’d like to draw your attention to the following quotes: 

“PCC needs Trustees who will solve problems – not make them worse!” 

“Six presidents in less than 10 years! PCC is caught in a revolving-door of failed leadership. Help get PCC out of that revolving door!” 

These last two statements are quotes taken from Trustee President Chen Lau’s very own campaign material when she was initially running for her Trustee seat. What has really changed? According to her current website, a lot, as this statement would have you think: 

“After a decade of mismanagement and revolving-door presidencies, 

PCC now has stable leadership at the top.” 

Huh…? And lastly, one more quote from Board President Chen Lau: 

“PCC deserves better. As your representative on the Board, 

I’ll work to end the revolving-door presidency – and build a strong working relationship between Trustees and our next President.” 

Instead of ending the revolving door of presidency, it seems that Board President Chen Lau is intent on spinning it faster. Out of curiosity, do you already have a replacement in mind as you spin our current Superintendent-President through the door? 

The decisions that Trustees Chen Lau, Kwong, Gibson – and by extension the rest of the Board – have made in the last eight months have not only been in clear violation of your duties and responsibilities, but they have negatively impacted the staff’s morale and motivation, as well as the campus climate. 

We, the Management Association, are concerned with this Board and their reckless endangerment of our accreditation cycle and call for the Trustees to start exhibiting effective leadership that places serving our students as the top priority. Anything less affirms our loss of confidence in you. 

Therefore, we, the management of PCC, respectfully yet urgently request that: 

1. The Board of Trustees, especially the new Trustees and the Board President, stop micromanaging and overstepping your boundaries and place trust in your Superintendent President to lead the college. 
2. All Trustees put aside personal interests and follow the guidelines defined by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges and act as a collective agency. 
3. The Board of Trustees demonstrate respect for all of the District’s employees equally and be open to dialogue with all constituency groups. 
4. As a united group, the Board of Trustees be committed to promoting and demonstrating an anti-racist culture and, when appropriate, recognize when you have failed to do so. 
5. The Board of Trustees fulfill their duty to the college and, more importantly to our students, in an open, ethical, and transparent manner.