|
September, 2003 Volume 14, Issue 1 - Eleven Questions for the Trustees |
 |
 |
 |
By Lantz Simpson
The trustees’ version of the budget crisis has been so riddled with contradictions that eight different versions of cost saving measures for SMC were offered between March and July, all with different numbers. As VP Tom Donner told FA leaders on July 7, “the budget changes every day.” The official line has been that the entire budget crisis is Sacramento’s fault and that any actions taken by the trustees, including the abolition of programs, were actions forced upon them by Sacramento. However, facts that the trustees should have seen as vital were blatantly disregarded. For example, the trustees acted to abolish programs based upon budget projections that their own lobbyists were saying were not accurate. It is a fact like that and other facts that demands our attention, and leads me to pose a series of questions for the trustees, all of which should be answered by the trustees themselves, clearly and in writing.
First question: When the administration announced in January that it was going after programs, why didn’t the trustees order the administration to present an alternative proposal? The first principle of leadership in times of crisis and uncertainty is to prepare alternative proposals. This was never done. (The second principle is go to war last, not first.)
This leads to the next question: What was the criteria used by trustees to determine which programs and full-time positions were to be eliminated? A truthful answer can not possibly be that it was because of the budget crisis. The administration agreed to a retirement incentive which gave a bonus to five faculty on the May 15 hit list who were old enough to retire. That left three faculty who were terminated with no bonus payment. The only full-time positions eliminated on May 15 were those for which the targeted faculty had no faculty service area to go to. Those faculty on the original March 15 list who have FSAs were not laid off. The only logical inference from the above set of facts is that the eliminations were not based solely upon budgetary reasons, but on something else.
Hundreds of students and dozens of citizens appealed to the trustees not to eliminate the programs and to find another way. All of the eliminated programs had served working students for years and years. No one from the community stepped forward and asked that the programs be eliminated. Yet, the trustees ignored the wishes of its constituents (with the courageous exception of Trustee Nancy Greenstein) and approved the administration’s recommendation anyway. Why did the trustees fail to serve the wishes of the community they represent?
The majority of trustees would identify themselves as progressive. The majority of the voters in the SMC district would also identify themselves as progressive. Yet, the elimination of programs for working students is a right-wing attack on working people. In addition, the attitude and behavior of the trustees regarding relations with their employee unions over the last eight years can only be termed reactionary. Why do progressive trustees rule the college as reactionaries?
Throughout the spring and the summer, both employee unions, CSEA and the Faculty Association, begged the trustees to make a deal that would save the college millions of dollars. At any time the trustees could have instructed their negotiators to make such an agreement, but on July 7, the FA was turned down flat again. Now it is too late. Why wouldn’t the trustees cut a deal with the unions to save the college millions of dollars?
Out of the blue in mid-May, the administration pushed for a change in health benefits (in order to save money) when it knew full well that the FA did not have time before the end of the semester to educate its members to vote for such a major change in the collective bargaining agreement. Why didn’t the trustees order their negotiators to present a new health plan by April 1, in time to make a change?
Next question: Why were there no trustees or administrators from SMC at the June budget workshop in Glendale? In Sacramento, faculty and trustee lobbyists agreed to put their differences aside and form the Community College Coalition. This coalition put on a series of budget workshops in June to explain the budget deal that had been put together for community colleges. At the Glendale workshop, there were approximately thirty administrators and trustees from around southern California in attendance, along with about thirty faculty. The trustees’ lobbyist, Scott Lay of CCLC, clearly informed the Glendale audience what the budget deal would be: a “flat” budget, which meant that CC’s funding would remain exactly the same for FY ’04 as it had been for FY ’03. His prediction was precisely correct. This is exactly the budget that Gov. Davis signed in early August. All of this contradicted the official trustees’ line that the budget would contain devastating cuts. If the budget is flat, why is there a 26% reduction in sections for the fall?
The irrational and unbelievably bad decision by the trustees to eliminate programs was a major factor in June’s 86% “no confidence” vote in the college president. The trustees responded by immediately announcing that they had confidence in the president. Why do the trustees have confidence in the president?
In light of all the above facts, why did the trustees vote over the summer to extend the president’s contract?
There has been almost ceaseless conflict and upheaval at SMC since 1995, which leads to my final question, do the trustees oversee the kind of college that they want for their community? Sadly, given all the actions the trustees have taken to lead us into this dysfunctional mess, I must conclude that the answer is yes.
|
