In a time of financial need all around, when positions have been cut, new hires’ benefits reduced and class sections decreased, it sounds pretty selfish of the Foothill-De Anza Board of Trustees to retain a program of monthly bonuses for the administrators. But how outrageous is it, really?

The Profit Sharing Plan affects only six employees of the district. Granted, they’re probably the ones who least need extra money, but assuming that the layoffs and section cuts are water under the bridge, and without any context of the economic climate within and around the district, is this really such a big deal? 

It will take 10 years for this plan to cost the district half a million dollars. The student senate does away with $1 million every year for student activities and organizations on campus alone. It would take 20 years to spend on administrator benefits. Granted, that money goes toward organizations that students benefit from rather than the pocketbooks that individual administrators benefit from.   

The real question is this: how much would it cost the district to do something that actually makes a difference?  Much of the controversy over the monthly bonuses stems from bitterness over a reduction in benefits for faculty members hired after 1997. 

It certainly seems unfair to have cut positions, classes and benefits while leaving the Profit Sharing Plan untouched. Symbolically, the monthly bonus rubs salt in the wounds of those who have been shortchanged by the whole state’s financial difficulties. 

But are we that much worse off for rewarding our presidents, chancellors and vice chancellors for their contributions to the college, even if many faculty are not being rewarded for their equally hard work? Reduced faculty benefits and administration bonuses are actually two entirely separate issues which have been brought together by the context of a troubled economic climate. 

The fact that I’m asking these questions also brings up the issue of press coverage. This week’s article does not give any administrators who may benefit from this plan a voice – our information is one-sided and the topic is one that doesn’t exactly inspire chattiness in people who are in the know. 

Disputes over employee benefits, as well as negotiations between the Board of Trustees and the California School Employee’s Association, have plagued the district for months, and these tensions may be exacerbating the reactions to the Plan. 

At the moment, there just isn’t enough information to judge anyone’s integrity. For now, we all just need to sit tight until the negotiations are settled – once it’s evident whether or not negotiators on both sides are making compromises and moving forward, we can get angry. On the other hand, who knows? Maybe the district will find a solution.