SMC Faculty Association Blog

By Lantz Simpson

In February, Dr. Tsang submitted a report to the trustees entitled “College of the Future.”  This report proposed three major new policy initiatives at SMC:  increasing the number of out-of-state FTES by offering them contract education; developing for credit extension programs, possibly in conjunction with four year universities; and the college granting of bachelor’s degrees.  For me, the most intriguing of these proposals was awarding bachelor’s degrees and I wanted to examine this proposal in more detail and to explore what the real goals and interests behind this proposal are.

Of course, proposals for community colleges to grant bachelor’s degrees are nothing new.  Back in the late 1980’s then SMC president Richard Moore floated just such a proposal, but it did not have much traction and faded away.  However, there is no denying that California and its economy are desperate for a more highly trained and educated work force within the next twenty years and beyond.  Indeed, the Public Policy Institute of California, in an April 2010 report, has claimed that by 2025 California will have one million fewer persons with a college education than will be needed for the economy.  Spread out over the next fifteen years, that comes to about 60,000 degrees short per year.  Given that 80% of California college students attend public universities, (California has 23 CSU’s and ten UC’s), that’s an annual shortfall of about 2,000 bachelor’s degrees per university, which is a staggering figure.  No wonder that as California’s advanced technological economy struggles to recover from the latest devastating recession, there is a major shortage of educated persons necessary to rekindle the economy and the numbers are growing each year.

There is a growing statewide movement in support of bachelor’s degrees being  awarded  by  community colleges.  Assemblyman Marty Block (D-San Diego) this year introduced AB 2400, which would establish pilot programs to award bachelor’s degrees in the community colleges.  However, Block announced in early May that he was pulling the bill for this year.  It was also announced that discussions on the issue will continue and may lead to a reintroduced bill next year.

So what is the argument for establishing bachelor degree programs on an experimental basis here at SMC?  The answer is, it would be a way for SMC to meet student demand for baccalaureate programs. The report confidently asserts that SMC’s brand strength would support a large, successful university center.  This would allow SMC to partner with other four-year colleges and universities, but the report does not make it clear how such a model would work.  Would faculty from these other universities come to the SMC campus and teach junior and senior level classes?  Would those same faculty then be employees of SMC?  How would the partner universities and the potential programs be selected?  Would SMC receive state funding for baccalaureate students?  Why would students want a bachelor’s degree from SMC instead of a CSU?  Because the fees would be cheaper?  Would they be?  The report also refers to SMC’s “entrepreneurial” role in selecting partners.  Is this a euphemism for contracting out classes with for-profit universities such as the University of Phoenix?

What is the real reason for this new flurry of proposals on bachelor’s degrees?  Perhaps legislators and administrators are searching for ways to close California’s baccalaureate gap on the cheap.  Since community colleges receive only about 43% of the state funds per student that the CSUs receive, this leads to a seductive analysis which calculates  that  the  gap  can  be  closed by the community colleges at half the cost.  And why not?  Given the almost impossibility of raising adequate revenues to fully fund an expanded CSU system, what more simple solution could there be?

Of course, a new policy on baccalaureates in the community colleges would drastically warp an already battered Master Plan for Education.  It would create another race to the bottom—this time for the cheapest possible bachelor’s degree, a race that could damage the CSUs.  If community college fees for its potential baccalaureate students remain well below current fees for the CSUs, what incentive would there be for students to pursue a much more expensive CSU degree?

It is clear that if community colleges were to award bachelor’s degrees on the scale needed to meet our economy’s demands, there would be a massive displacement and rearrangement of California’s public higher education sector.  The debate on bachelor’s degrees needs to begin now—openly.

By Howard A. Stahl

As you may recall, our collective bargaining agreement with the District expires on August 23, 2010 and negotiations for the new contract will commence this summer.  The Faculty Association’s Negotiation Team will be comprised of the following Council members: Dennis Frisch, Peter Morse, Jackie Scott, and me.  The District’s Negotiating Team will include Marcia Wade (Vice-President of Human Resources), Robert Myers (Campus Counsel), Jeff Shimizu (Vice-President of Academic Affairs) and Randy Lawson (Executive Vice-President).

Since my last FAB article on this topic, the Board of Trustees convened an open meeting to allow the public to comment on the initial bargaining positions of both parties.  Although no one from the public made any comments, this meeting was an important part of the overall bargaining process.  With this formality completed, face-to-face negotiations are expected to start after graduation and continue over the upcoming summer months.  As the negotiations progress, I will be sharing information with you on a regular basis.Given the state’s financial situation, I will need and appreciate your support in the upcoming negotiations.

By Howard A. Stahl

On May 14, Governor Schwarzenneger released his May Revision to the California State Budget.  The May Revise is the first step in a legislative process that will build next year’s (2010-2011) state budget.  In this article, I will be sharing information about the state budget and important details of the May Revise related to community colleges and to our District.

Earlier this year, state revenues appeared ahead of projections.  During the January through March period, state revenues from personal income taxes, corporate taxes and sales tax were ahead of what the Governor’s budget originally projected.  For the first quarter, revenues were ahead of projections by $2.6 billion.  Heading into the all-important tax season, the sense around the state was that the worst of the financial problems were behind us.

April is a very important month for the state because personal income taxes represent a significant chunk (51%) of all State General Fund revenue.  Historically, the state receives almost one-third of all of its personal income tax revenue in the month of April.  Based on the Governor’s current budget, a total of $10.2 billion in personal income tax receipts were projected for this past April.  Unfortunately, only $7.1 billion in receipts were  received.   This  shortfall completely wiped out all the gains from the first quarter and actually led to an increase in the current year deficit from $6.6 billion to $7 billion.  Adding in the deficit for next year brings the total state deficit to $19.1 billion.

Faced with such a large deficit, the May Revise was expected to include devastating cuts in many areas.  The Governor’s proposal for the 2010-2011 state budget includes spending reductions of $12.4 billion: complete elimination of CalWORKs, deep cuts to In-Home Health Services, and cuts to certain child care programs and certain mental health services and other cuts.  Even the Governor himself has characterized all of these spending reductions as “terrible cuts”.

But for the Education portion of the budget, the story is not so bleak. You may recall that in late April, Governor Schwarzenegger’s public statements emphasized the importance of higher education to the state’s eventual economic recovery.  In fact, he threatened to veto any budget providing less funding for higher education than he originally proposed in January.  The May Revise reflects this sentiment and remains virtually unchanged from his original January proposal.  The Governor is proposing:

2.2% Enrollment Growth.
This line item would amount to an increase in funding of $126 million for the community college system and fund approximately 26,000 additional FTES in the system.  While this amount will not be enough to fund all the demand in the system, it is a step in the right direction.  This means $2.1 million additional revenue for SMC.

-0.38% COLA
This line item would amount to an approximately $23 million reduction in funding for the community college system.  (Please be aware that our contract prevents the District from reducing our pay when COLA is negative.)  This means a $400,000 reduction for SMC.

CalWORKs Elimination
This line item would amount to a $32.7 million reduction in funding for the community college system.  The Governor is suggesting that $26.7 million previously allocated for CalWORKs be redirected and spent on other categorical programs.  (Our District continues to backfill categorical programs so the effect of these reductions remains unclear at this time.)

Career Technical Education
This line item would amount to a $20 million increase in funding for the community college system.  However these funds are not new dollars;  instead, they come from reductions of $10 million each to the EOPS and part-time faculty compensation.

Additional Funding For Competitive Cal Grants
This line item is a major victory for our neediest students, as the governor is proposing $45.5 million dollars to fund new grants, reversing his original January proposal to suspend this program.

While we wait for the legislative process to produce a state budget, here at SMC, Fiscal Services will prepare the District’s Tentative Budget in June and an Adopted Budget possibly in September.  Your Faculty Association representatives who serve on the District Planning and Advisory Council as well as the District Planning and Advisory Council Budget Subcommittee will demand full disclosure and a focus on students as the District formulates its budgetary priorities for the coming year.

By Dennis Frisch

The annual FACCC elections ended on the last day of April.  The results, as many probably already know, saw me chosen as President-elect and the re-election of Mitra Moassessi as Governor-at-large.  Other results follow:

Vice President……..Dean Murakami, American River College.
John Smith………….Governor-at-large, Santiago Canyon College.
Jeff Michels………..Governor-at-large, Contra Costa College
[Three Governor-at-large positions were up for election this year.]
Sharon Hendricks………Governor, Region B, Los Angeles City College.
Suzanne Crawford……..Governor, Region C, Cerritos College.
Jim Kusteau………………Governor, Region D, Cuyamaca College.
Mary Ellen Goodwin….Governor, North, Part-time Faculty, DeAnza College.
Norm Levy……………….Governor, Retired Faculty, Los Angeles Pierce College.

Newly elected members of the FACCC Board of Governors will assume office at the annual Board of Governors Retreat, June 25-27.

On May 14, the governor presented his revised budget for the next year.  While he recommended  serious reductions to many important social programs, the community colleges did not see any new reductions in funding.   The 2.2% growth funding remains in the May revised budget as does the
-.38% COLA.  Also unchanged is the proposal to put the EOPS program in the flexible category (this means Districts may move money out of that program into another categorical or visa versa), which the faculty advocacy groups will continue to oppose and work to persuade legislators not to enact.  The Governor’s proposal to eliminate the CalWORKs program could have repercussions for the community colleges; that is being analyzed by the Chancellor’s Office, FACCC and the League.

On the legislative front, SB1440, the Transfer degree bill, continues to make it’s way through committee hearings.  SB1807, part-time faculty re-employment rights, is currently in the Appropriations Committee (bills are sent to the Appropriations Committee to determine if there any cost implications).  A bill of great concern to faculty advocacy groups is SB1143, the Community College funding bill, which would essentially change community college funding from the present system based on enrollment in the third or fourth weeks to a system that would require another census point at course completion.  FTES would then be calculated using the average enrollment between these two census points. Calculations attempting to gauge the effect of this bill on community college funding indicate that if this bill passes, funding will be reduced by 8.5% or approximately $400 million.  The rationale for this bill stems from the desire to increase completion and success rates.  This issue is gaining greater traction in the Legislature this spring.

Clearly, there is much advocacy work to be done in the coming weeks.  All faculty can contribute to advocacy to maintain EOPS in the mandated categorical group and to defeat SB1143 by going to the FACCC website and use the Point and Click feature to send emails to the authors of these bills registering your opposition. At a recent hearing in the Assembly Higher Education Sub-committee Number 2, Julia Brownley forcefully indicated that she was not interested in reducing categorical funding nor changing the status of the EOPS program.  FACCC sent her a message thanking her for her strong position.

By Sandi Burnett

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordability Act .  This law will result in major changes to the American health care system over the next several years, including Medicare, private insurance, and employer-based, group coverage such as SMC’s CalPERS coverage for full-time faculty and Kaiser coverage for qualifying part-time faculty.  Several changes take place right away, while others are phased in through 2020.  Here are a few selected provisions which are relevant  to us and when they take effect:

2010:

Group health plans are prohibited from placing lifetime caps on coverage.

Insurers are required to permit children to stay on family policies until age 26 (if the young adult is not eligible for employer coverage).  For CalPERS, coverage begins after open enrollment – effective January, 2011.

Medicare beneficiaries who hit the “donut hole” in 2010, will receive a $250 rebate check and the “donut hole” will be gradually eliminated by 2020.

Indoor tanning services will have a 10% tax.

The FDA will be allowed to approve generic versions of biologic drugs like insulin, interferon and growth hormone.

New investment in training programs will be provided to increase the number of primary care doctors, nurses, and public health professionals.

2011:

Insurers in the large group market are required to spend at least 85% of premium income on medical services and quality activities for beneficiaries.

Certain people with disabilities will be provided with community-based attendant care.

Chain restaurants and food sold from vending machines will be required to provide nutritional information.

A long-term care insurance program will be created through voluntary pay-roll deductions to provide benefits to adults who become disabled.

The FA will be monitoring these changes and will communicate with you about them as they occur.

By Sandi Burnett

In April, Pierce College Professor Kathy Daruty presented a no nonsense, no sales pitch, personal finance workshop designed for our faculty.   We are grateful that she accepted the invitation to give a presentation to our faculty members for the second year in a row.  Her background in both finance and philosophy gives her the capacity to reasonably explain money mysteries with a human touch, “let’s talk about what gives you sleepless nights.”

The FA will schedule more opportunities to learn from her next year.  In the meantime, her handout material is posted on the FA website (www.smcfa.org).

Here are a few links that may help:

CalSTRS retirement calculator: http://www.calstrs.com/calculators/retbencalc.aspx

CalPERS retirement calculator: http://www.calpers.ca.gov/

Social Security: www.ssa.gov

Part-time faculty have the right to apply for unemployment benefits during breaks between semesters when they are not employed as well as during semesters when all their teaching assignments have been cancelled.For example, even if you have been offered an assignment for the fall 2010 semester, you may still be eligible to receive unemployment compensation from the date of the end of final exams week in June through the date of your first class in August.

Be sure to let EDD know that you are a temporary, part-time employee who has been laid off for lack of work. (Do NOT say you are on a break.) If you have been offered an assignment for the Fall, explain that you have a tentative assignment for the upcoming semester and that your assignment may be withdrawn at the District’s discretion at the last minute because of funding, enrollment, or other changes. You should also mention your entitlement to benefits under the Cervisi decision, which states, “an assignment that is contingent on enrollment, funding, or program changes is not a ‘reasonable assurance’ of employment.”

If your application is denied, be sure to appeal. You may also consider contacting the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges (FACCC). Andrea York, Director of Governmental Relations, (ayork@faccc.org / (916) 447-8555) is working with EDD staff to resolve these denials.

To file an application:
On-line: https://eapply4ui.edd.ca.gov/
By phone: Monday through Friday,
Except holidays; 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m
To file in English: 1 (800) 300-5616
To file in Spanish: 1 (800) 326-8937
To file by TTY for deaf or hard of
Hearing callers: 1 (800) 815-9387
By fax: 1 (866) 215-9159
By mail: EDD
MIC 40-NET
P.O. Box 826880
Sacramento, CA 94280-0001

By Matt Hotsinpiller

During 2010, anyone may convert a traditional IRA or 403b to a Roth IRA or Roth 403b.  Roths were previously only available to savers whose adjusted income was under $100,000.  This may be a wonderful opportunity for you to retire with a nice stream of untaxed income.

What is the difference between traditional and Roth accounts?  When putting funds in a traditional IRA or 403b, you use pre-tax dollars.  This allows you to pay less tax in the current year.  The funds are not taxed while they grow in the account, but they are taxed when you take distributions.  Roths reverse these steps.  The initial money you put in Roth accounts are post-tax, so you have less discretionary income that year.  However, the funds grow without being taxed, and there is no tax when you take distributions.  Distributions are not as simple as the following example, but I hope you will play along with me for the purpose of illustration.  If you are in a 28% tax bracket, a traditional 403b distribution of $10,000 would net you somewhere around $7,200, whereas your Roth distribution would net you the entire $10,000.

So how does one make the conversion?  First, you must declare the existing traditional account taxable, so you pay tax on all contributions and earnings to date.  With that and some fairly simple paperwork, the IRS will now allow all future growth and distributions from this account to be tax-free.

Why doesn’t everyone take advantage of this?  Untaxed income in retirement sounds great, yet this conversion is not for everyone. Conventional wisdom suggests there are three tests for the conversion:

You expect your tax bracket to be the same or higher in retirement.  This will not be the case for many of us.  However, if you are reading this and have been putting money aside, it is possible.  Furthermore, it is impossible to predict what future administrations will do to the tax code.
The conversion seems to work best for those who can pay the tax due for the conversion from cash on hand rather than out of the retirement account. The benefits of the conversion generally require ten years to bear fruit. If these conditions apply, a conversion may be a very wise move for you.

The June 7 issue of Forbes magazine suggests a visit to www.fairmark.com, which is a site run by tax attorney Kaye Thomas.  There he offers specific advice on the conversion.  You may also want to visit an online Roth conversion calculator.  I tried the calculators at Vanguard and TIAA-CREF and found them both to be helpful.

As with all financial decisions, you’ll have to do a bit of homework to determine whether this conversion is right for you.  Also, remember it is wise to work with a tax professional and a financial planner to aid you with your financial decisions.

Voting closed April 30 for the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges Board of Governors Election, and Santa Monica College’s own Dennis Frisch has been elected President-elect.  He will serve one year as President-elect.  Then, starting August 2011, he will serve a two year term as President.

Dennis has been a member of the History Department at SMC since 1986.  He serves on the Executive Committee of the SMC Faculty Association as the Director of Government Relations (he is a regular contributor to the FAB with his “From Sacramento” column). He is SMCFA’s representative to the Southern California Faculty Alliance.  In addition, he has served as Executive Secretary of CCCI since 2004.  His contributions to  FACCC include serving as Vice President from 2008 to the present, Treasurer from 2007 to 2008, and Governor at Large from 2005 to 2007 . He  also served on the Membership, Policy, and Professional Development Committees.

Dennis brings a comprehensive understanding of the local and state issues that affect community colleges, such as adequate funding, 50% law challenges, and accreditation.  Dennis has helped pass legislation on several important issues that benefit part-time faculty.

We are fortunate to have Dennis among us and working on our behalf.  Well done, Dennis.

By Mitra Moassessi

On July 14, 2009, President Obama announced the American Graduation Initiative (AGI). He called for an additional 5 million community college degrees and certificates by 2020. Under this proposal the federal government would have provided $12 billion over the next ten years for community colleges.

Now is the time to build a firmer, stronger foundation for growth that will not only withstand future economic storms, but one that helps us thrive and compete in a global economy. It’s time to reform our community colleges so that they provide Americans of all ages a chance to learn the skills and knowledge necessary to compete for the jobs of the future. – President Obama

In March of 2010, after eight months of optimism and high expectations, our elected representatives made the final decision on the combined health care and student aid legislation.  One casualty of the last day’s deals was AGI.  Instead of providing $12 billion for community colleges, the final reconciliation bill provides $2 billion over four years ($500 million for each of the next four fiscal years 2011-14) for community colleges and career training. Community colleges became an unfunded priority resulting in disappointment for many community college leaders.

For California community colleges this was another disappointment, coupled with a previous cut in funding to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The state budget, enacted in July of 2009, assumed that $130 million would be available to the community colleges in the ARRA fund.  Two months later, in September of 2009, the final allocation was only $35 million, approximately ¼ of the initial estimate, resulting in substantial cuts to categorical programs.

On January 6, 2010, in his State of the State address, Governor Schwarzenegger made higher education a priority.

And we can no longer afford to cut higher education either. The priorities have become out of whack over the years. Thirty years ago, 10 percent of the general fund went to higher education and 3 percent went to prisons. Today, almost 11 percent goes to prisons and only 7 1/2 percent goes to higher education. Spending 45 percent more on prisons than universities is no way to proceed into the future. What does it say about a state that focuses more on prison uniforms than caps and gowns? It simply is not healthy. I will submit to you a constitutional amendment so that never again do we spend a greater percentage of our money on prisons than on higher education. – Governor Schwarzenegger

Two days later, on January 8, 2010, the Governor released his proposed state budget for 2010-11. The proposal contained significant cuts to community colleges, including: (1) negative 0.38% in COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment); (2) a $10 million cut to EOPS (Extended Opportunity Programs and Services);  (3) a $10 million cut to the Part-Time Faculty Compensation Fund; and (4) maintaining all categorical cuts approved in 2009-10 without backfilling $35 million provided in 2009-10 through ARRA funding.   The positive news in the proposed budget was $126 million to fund 2.21% enrollment growth.

Interestingly, the proposed budget reduces COLA, after maintaining COLA at 0% for two years. This cut in COLA is made despite providing growth money.  Essentially, the government is providing funding and recognizing growth while simultaneously cutting funding to maintain that growth. Does it make sense to encourage a family to have more kids and, at the same time, cut their funding to provide for the kids they already have?

Nevertheless, California community colleges have proven that they can often do more with less.  According to Jack Scott, the California Community Colleges Chancellor, “in 2009-10, 200,000 unfunded students attended community colleges, and providing $126 million in growth funding for 2010-11 would allow access for approximately 60,000 students.” That still leaves us 140,000 unfunded students.

In a few days, Governor Schwarzenegger will release his May revised budget and our elected representatives will start their annual dance around the budget.  Only time will tell whether or not, once again, education becomes an unfunded priority, and whether prisons will continue to be more important to our government than education.