I watched with interest the recent broadcast of the League of Women Voters sponsored debates of the candidates for College of Marin Board of Trustees, and I was surprised to hear many false representations by the incumbent candidates. Several themes emerged that should, I think, be red flags to Marin County voters.

Financial stability: All of the incumbents claimed success in the area of finances, yet not one mentioned the fact that during present negotiations with the college’s unions, the current offers to staff and faculty do not include any salary increases, not even cost of living adjustments. The stability is coming on the backs of the employees. And though they have big plans to “build green,” the District’s leaders have no idea as to how they will be able to afford maintenance of the new, “green” campus facilities.

Shared governance: It’s nice to talk the talk, but when it comes right down to it, the incumbents have not engaged in shared decision making with faculty, staff and students. Administrative decisions regarding programs and class offerings have ignored the expertise of the faculty. If a Marin resident were to canvas the campus and ask faculty whether they have been included in decisions regarding their classes and programs, he or she would begin to hear the frustration that exists on campus. Go ask veterans from the English Department whether they have been included in the administration’s sweeping changes in their program, one that has proven to be successful for transfer students.

Restoring classes and programs: Incumbents claim that they have put students first by increasing classes though in reality many classes are arbitrarily canceled on a regular basis. If the college is to offer the classes that students need, it will need to fill many full time vacancies in various areas due to retirements in recent years. The full time faculty has been depleted, and no attempt has been made to hire new instructors, and the Board’s recent decision to raise the reserves to 17% (the State requires 5%) all but ensures that no new faculty will be hired. Without the instructors, the college cannot offer the appropriate classes and students will suffer.

Enrollment: Though incumbents allege that enrollment has turned around, the Board’s outreach efforts have produced little if any change in the student population. In some cases, the strategy has been to move a class previously offered in Kentfield to IVC and then to count the “new” IVC students as an increase. And even if one accepts this strategy, increases are reported in percentages, which can be very misleading. What, for example, is 30% of ten? On the surface, 30% sounds promising, but if the actual total increase is only 3 students, one wonders how the District can put out pricey informational brochures claiming enrollment has “skyrocketed.”

Partnerships: Perhaps the Board has information that it is not fully sharing. Partnerships with SF State and Dominican sound good on paper, but students enrolled in these partnership classes have been few.

Modernization: Faculty and staff have seen little if any improvement to the environments in which they serve students. Costly billboards that once stood on both campuses announcing the “Coming Soon,” fall ’06 Modernization have been removed. If numbers were made public, you would be shocked at how much has been spent on consultants with no tangible results.