Only three months after receiving a resounding "F" from faculty, Southwestern College Superintendent Dr. Raj K. Chopra received a "full confidence" vote from a majority of the college's governing board after a four-month performance evaluation.
SWC's governing board voted 4-1 for confidence in Chopra, with Trustee Nick Aguilar voting against.
"By law the evaluation is confidential," said SWC Board President Yolanda Salcido after the closed session portion of the board's May meeting. "I have, however, been authorized to report and pleased to share that Dr. Chopra enjoys the full confidence of the majority of the board.
The board sincerely appreciates and values Dr. Chopra's hard work and leadership during these very difficult times. The board fully expects that he will continue to lead the college in the direction of progress and continue his efforts to serve the best interest of the students. Thank you."
Chopra did not comment on the evaluation, but later in the meeting laid down two recent newspaper clippings reporting massive cuts in San Diego County by the Board of Supervisors and a 4.3 percent pay reduction for teachers at the Poway Unified School District.
"Madame President, when I look at it, I am constantly reminded that the budget in this time, as we manage, determines whether we are going to meet the obligations which are essential and necessary in order to still keep the focus on students," Chopra said.
SWC has shown its commitment to employees, Chopra said. He said SWC has fulfilled its obligation to pay step-and-column raises for employees at a cost of about $750,000, granted faculty sabbaticals at a cost of $57,000, and agreed to pay $200,000 from the college's general fund to keep out-of-pocket payments for employee health insurance from dramatically increasing.
"What I am trying to point out is that we have not done things which many other organizations are doing," said Chopra. "We are able to manage the budget. And it takes some planning and some thinking to be able to do that."
Salcido did not speak about the evaluation, but did commend Chopra during the meeting. She said it was Chopra's foresight to cut expenses early in his tenure that allowed the college to fund more classes than the state was paying for this spring.
This year the administration funded at least 195 more classes than the state paid for, said Salcido, even while cutting 429 classes–26 percent–scheduled for the spring session. The college was originally facing a cut of about 600 classes when Chopra, at the behest of the student government, redirected approximately $2 million toward classes.
"I'm very grateful to Dr. Chopra, to our college and our administration that we are able to go ahead and serve more students than we are getting moneys for," said Salcido.
While Chopra added money for classes, faculty have accused him of being too fiscally conservative with the college's finances and hurting students. Union leaders pointed toward a $6 million governing board reserve and another $5.3 million that they said the board had spent on paper but not in reality, accusing the board of creating its own fiscal crisis. Faculty members also said Chopra and SWC administration had ignored their money-saving ideas that could have restored all of the spring classes.
Since the superintendent's evaluation was first scheduled in late January, faculty leaders have protested it, saying that there is no established procedure. Faculty are evaluated by students, peers, superiors and with statistical reports. Faculty leaders insist Chopra's evaluation criteria is unknown to the public.
In February 160 full-time faculty members participated in a 44-page survey conducted by the Academic Senate. Chopra received "F" grades on 87 percent of the survey and hundreds of disparaging comments in the essay section.
"I believe (Chopra's) management strategies are fear and retaliation," one person wrote in the comments section of the anonymous survey. "Not too inspiring to bring about confidence or trust."
Academic Senate President Valerie Goodwin-Colbert said the purpose of the survey was an objective means for the governing board to hear faculty concerns.
After last year's superintendent evaluation by the board it extended Chopra's contract and granted him a 7.9 percent raise. This drew the ire of faculty employees after he called it "$15,000 lousy dollars" in an article published in The Sun.
The day after the article broke campus employees staged an on-campus rally against the superintendent of about 40 people. Union leaders called the raise a deal-breaker and it has become one of the symbolic reasons why they will not discuss pay cuts.
Trustee Nick Aguilar was the only board member to vote against Chopra.
He said he could not comment on his action because it was legally a private personnel issue.
is a member of the 
Be the first to comment on this article!