WEDNESDAY'S "OPEN FORUM" concerning the SOCCCD's noncompliance with the “50% law" was good in every way that I can think of. Standing before a relatively large gathering of college personnel, Irvine Valley College President Glenn Roquemore briefly explained our situation, namely, that the proportion of our expenditures on “instruction” has dipped below 50%, contrary to requirements defined by statute.
He seemed to indicate that the DRAC (the District Resources Allocation Committee, which comprises faculty reps, among others) is the venue in which a “fix” will be developed, and that’s good news, for some of us had worried that Chancellor Raghu Mathur intends to blow off shared governance as per usual. Not so, apparently.
District Director of Fiscal Services, Beth Mueller, was on hand to answer questions, and, I have to say, she seemed to answer our queries forthrightly and to the best of her ability. And there were lots of questions, good ones.
IVC Director of Fiscal Services, Davit Khachatryan, gave a helpful PowerPoint presentation. Our district, he said, is out of compliance with Education Code 8462 for 2006/07, though not by much. According to the latest figures—provided by Beth—we’re at 49.76%. We're talkin' $257,000 — far less than, say, the Chancellor's inexplicably high salary.
That sounds like an insignificant amount in the grand scheme of things, but, for a variety of reasons, a fix will be very difficult, and the consequences of not fixing the problem will be serious.
If we fail to correct the matter, state apportionment funding will be withdrawn, despite our Basic Aid funding.
Davit listed numerous actions that could be taken by the college that would “help,” including faculty salary increases and new faculty hiring. Among the various other helpful actions, Davit seemed to favor adding more classes at ATEP, our district’s new instructional site in Tustin, though that suggestion proved to be somewhat controversial. There was lots of discussion and, for once, it wasn't silly.
The district is applying for a one-time waiver (re the 50% requirement), which is granted only in cases of extreme hardship or when faculty salaries are high compared to neighboring districts. Given our district’s healthy finances, we cannot plausibly claim hardship. When pressed, Beth opined that, if we seek a waiver, claiming the second condition would seem to be the more promising approach.
The audience looked skeptical.
Wendy asked Beth whether the district views our being granted a waiver as likely. Beth said she didn’t know.
But the facts seem to be clear enough. We likely won’t qualify for a waiver. So we have a real problem.
Some members of the audience (including me) pressed to learn how the noncompliance could have been allowed to occur, given that the district moved steadily downward toward the 50% line for the last five years. Our crossing over that line didn't just suddenly happen. But administrators generally deflected such questions.
(Recently, one of our readers [who writes often and knowledgeably] posted this remark:
All community college districts must file a budget report with the State of California each year. It's called the CCFS 311, and it's due every October 15. Part of this form — and your CFO and CEO must verify its accuracy under penalty of perjury — includes the 50% rule calculation.
If your Chancellor is unaware of this, then he hasn't been reading what he's been signing. (End)
— The State Chancellor's Office has this form. It's a PDF file. Check it out.)
It does seem clear that this "new" problem — the Chancellor insists that it was discovered "just last month"— is a DISTRICT problem.
It will be interesting to see whether and how the Chancellor will explain this nasty little predicament, come Monday night.
I’ll be watching Raghu’s pointing finger. You know the one.
P.S.: I do believe that another "forum" will be held this morning (Thursday) at 9:30. LIB 213.
GRATUITOUS IMAGERY:
Kids whispering at last week's IVC 9-11 ceremony.
Sunny the cat poking around near my chifforobe.
27 comments:
What happens if we lose the state apportionment funding?
Does Raghu have a plan in place to deal with possibility?
Who loses their job first?
And you've been told what happens when someone points his finger: three fingers point back at HIM. What is Raghu's salary again?
Beth seemed to be laughing a lot, considering the gravity of the situation.
I mean, I have never seen her so chuckly.
What's up with all the smiles?
The Chancellor makes well over $300K, including benefits. He's received substantial raises during this period in which we've descended consistently toward the 50% line.
Beth may have chuckled, but she seemed also to sense the gravity of the situation.
I do not doubt that these people take the problem very seriously.
Perhaps her chuckling was due to the utter fucked-up-ness of the situation - that is her laughter was in porportion to the disaster.
I mean, why asked on what grounds would the district claim an exemption she just seemed to dissolve into giggles.
ha ha ha ha ha
It was sort of sweet.
Is it true that they plan to sell off the Performing Arts Complex to make up the difference? Or ATEP?
Perhaps Chunk did not adequately convey that Beth was between a rock and a hard spot, for she cited two conditions under which we can apply for a waiver, and neither seems to apply.
I'd chuckle, too, though more sardonically. We are SO screwed, and it looks like all evidence points to Mr. Goo refusing to take his people's advice.
Listen to Mathur: he's been making a case for the "contradictory" nature of the state's requirements for some time now. He's preparing to defend himself.
Is there another meeting today?
okay, okay so we are so screwed - but who is going to get hurt by this?
I mean, are we talking lost jobs?
It's bad, but it ain't that bad. Don't worry. Not yet anyway.
easy for people with tenure not to worry - but what about the new hires and the staff?
Are other districts in this predicament?
If this has happened to other districts before - what happened to them? What did they do? What was done to them?
I think the CCA would have that kind of info - on other districts that have messed up like this. Maybe someone could ask them to share it.
What happens if we lose apportionment? Well, Chunk noted that there are still funds that can be held; and the new figure becomes the base for future years' funding. Not so significant for basic aid districts, but as Ragu says, "we can lose b-a status at any time." Solutions are NOT ATEP classes any more than classes taught at SC or IVC by part-time faculty. The solution has to be long-term. I recommend: finishing up faculty contract negotiations, reduce ATEP staff/admin, curtail all Board travel, and get rid of the real problem--the incompetent district leader. Ask the statewide senate or FACCC or CAA about waivers in the past. They have the history.
Does anyone know the dollar amount that would put the district over the line? Is it it more than, say, a half millions dollars?
Has anyone thought of a possible recall against Fuentes and the rest of the "Gang of 4?" or even just Fuentes? Maybe that would be significant part of a long term solution?
Chicken Little Liberals - Nothing But Doom And Gloom - Pathetic!
More classes at ATEP? Hmm. Apparently Mathur just had an planned spring class for ATEP cut and sent back to IVC. A class by the way that could have provided a nice shot-in-the-arm for the enrollment and headcount concerns of ATEP.
Hate that rat bastard!
Love that Sunny Girl!
More of the little beast!
Cut kids.
Republicans?
Wow, I had no idea that the messages posted here were "filtered". The one I left earlier is now gone!
10:29
Now, let's put on our thinking cap. Why do you suppose I keep deleting your comment?
Suppose I were to discover that, say, Dean X's daughter has some sort of medical condition. Would we write about that? No, we would not. It crosses a line.
Get it?
7:49, the recruitment office is open for you big brave righties.
Say after me, hup, two, three, four, and repeat.
There you go. That's a big boy.
If the district has a "Problem," how about a 12 step program for the District and its Board Members, Chacellor, and VPs?
So now, what do we call the program? Screwballs Anonymous? Imagine the sharing at the meeting.
If you truly want to understand the 50% law, conditions for the waiver and what is required, it is very easy to get informed properly.
http://www.cccco.edu/divisions/cffp/fiscal/standards/fifty_percent_law.htm
http://www.cccco.edu/divisions/cffp/fiscal/standards/fifty_percent_law.htm
.../standards/fifty_percent_law.htm
Post a Comment