Final Position Paper

By Michael G. "Mike" Bradford

This is my expository on the problems in the district and what I foresee as the solutions to those problems. I have recently distributed this paper in printed form. It's a little long, but I found it necessary to go into a lot of depth to properly discuss the district.

The race for the Foothill/De Anza Board is winding down. At stake on November 4 is the future of quality education in this immediate area. Past board members had the luxury of sitting back and doing very little when the budget money flowed freely from the state's accounts. The next Board immediately will be faced with numerous problems.

Because of the financial problems, there is a critical need to be versed in accounting. I have had two years exposure to the district's FRS system (Financial Reporting System) and therefore know a lot about where the money goes throughout the district as well as who does what with it. My experience with financial applications is vast. I've worked in huge corporations on very big projects that required much more than just "programming." I've done every job in the industry including management of direct reports.

While at FHDA I developed a fixed asset tracking system that traces high dollar assets in the district. This was a critical need that required heavy interface with the CFO and purchasing management. The project was an unqualified success, and I saved the district thousands of dollars by doing this project.

There will be a continuing need to be very technically versed while serving on the board, and not just with IT. We are faced with aging systems like MAUI, a financial reporting system that must be replaced. Not only are the costs in dollars high, but also the need is to be able to technically understand what is being purchased. The district has had to literally throw away software that cost $250,000 or more in the case of MAUI. Waste like this can no longer be tolerated.

Standards for computing do not exist anywhere in the district. A lot of "servers" were configured and then just abandoned. No one does a lot of maintenance on these "servers." It's been a continuing nightmare for the ETS department. Simply put, though very basic services work well, like accounting, other software at times in out of control both in expense and in use. I believe that a very strong standards organization will soon have to be imposed on all future software/hardware deployment everywhere in the district.

We've got various issues with GILBAINE, our Measure E construction contractor. Much of what comes before the board is technical in nature and costly too! A new board member must be able to absorb vast quantities of information to be effective. Of course, being able to converse with others, listen well and to stay cool count heavily too. These are all traits of mine. I know I'm a big plus to any operation. My career is heavily marked with nothing but good results.

I see a need for a major re-alignment of the Vice Chancellor positions, which have proven ineffective in the district and are costly. We need to go back to a system of Deans as we once had five or more years ago. This is more in line with the way a university operates and fits in far better with academia, per se.

To me, whenever someone is called an educator or calls himself or herself an educator they must educate! Therefore, I want administrators with PhDs to teach at least one course every semester. Since most part time instructors have been released, I don't think that is asking too much. These people are paid $150k per year or more as opposed to the few hundred dollars per course that the part timers received up to the layoff of June 30, 2003.

Some of the Vice Chancellors have "retired on the job" as far as I can determine. My test is somewhat like this: When a person at an administrative level no longer answers the phone nor responds to emails, I say that pretty well indicates indifference and is a big step in the direction of retirement. I'd like to assist individuals like these in the completion of that journey.

When any public institution operates "in the public trust" that means for every dollar collected the maximum amount will be expended on its original charter. At Foothill/De Anza, that charter is to educate the student as much as possible. That is the only business the district is in. I call it the business of education.

Sadly, the district has not operated as a business, but more like a country club for executives. In the good years, that probably did not matter so much since the money flowed. Now the failures of the rotting structure are much more obvious and will have to be overhauled quite extensively. I view this as an emergency situation meaning that re-organization is inevitable. Simply put, the right players have to be in the right positions. I don't believe that is asking too much especially since I have had so much exposure to the corporate world in this regard.

I am advocating that Foothill/De Anza become a four-year school. The reason for this is two fold. First of all, affordable four-year education is needed in this area. Secondly, it represents a large source of revenue that we are in critical need of in the district.

We have a very excellent reputation for getting our students up to high standards for the AA degree plans we offer. We send our wonderful kids off to the next level and we mention this quite often. Yet, I say that is no longer anything to brag about. When the kids leave us, it's for a much higher cost finishing school. To me that is a disservice to the area.

I advocate very strong local control over the district. I'm not eager to see us become part of the UC system. As a four-year school, we shall have much more bargaining power with the state to get our share of the resources that we need. We put ourselves into a much better situation to seek corporate support too. Frankly, we need every last dollar we can get. We won't get the type of corporate support we need if we continue to look like a country club for failed executives.

Our students are very well aware of the dingaling decisions that have come down in recent times. They were totally ignored on June 26, 2003 when they begged the current board to please consider alternatives to the layoffs. Many good proposals were put forward by the employees and unions alike only to be suppressed by the executive level, principally the HR Vice Chancellor. I found that repugnant then; I find it repugnant now. I'll never vote for a classifed employee lay off, ever. That is my word.

The current board and its appointee have nothing to brag about. I'm very happy to be part of the great change that is soon coming to the Foothill/De Anza College District, and I look forward to re-asserting the charter of the district in educating the students who attend classes there. I'm going to put the word "Governing" back into the job title "Governing Board Member."

Thank you and please vote on November 4!