Tuesday, September 18, 2007

What’s going on in the SOCCCD?

1. THE “50% law” EMERGENCY. The law (see Ed Code §84362.d, et seq.) requires of community colleges that at least 50% of expenditures be devoted to “instruction,” i.e., faculty salaries and benefits. Our district’s expenditures have dipped ever so slightly below the 50% mark (we’re at 49.65%). We need to adopt a plan—and soon—to move back above 50%.

2. THERE’S THE TRUTH AND THEN THERE’S THE OFFICIAL STORY. Evidently, the district has been heading downward toward the 50% mark for several years. If so, this emergency comes as no surprise to the district, whose job it is to adhere to the “50% law.” Reportedly, the Chancellor nevertheless insists that the district found out about this problem “last month.”

3. MORE DISTRICT UNILATERALISM. I’m told that faculty groups are supposed to be involved in the response to this particular difficulty. Nevertheless, evidence mounted last week that the Chancellor had already developed a plan to address the “50%” problem. If so, he (i.e., the district) seems to be moving unilaterally. As I understand it, special all-college meetings are now scheduled that will give to faculty and other groups an opportunity to weigh in on how to address this problem. Expect Mathur to press for reductions in “reassigned time.” (Do take a good look at Ed Code §84362.f. It's interesting reading.)

4. Re COLLEGES’ ACCREDITATION MIDTERM REPORTS, DUE NEXT MONTH. As we have amply reported, at the 11th hour, the district has produced an obnoxious, poorly documented and inflammatory “response” document ("responding," it seems, to the Accreditors and to faculty). The folks who have for months labored to prepare drafts of the Accreditation Midterm Reports (intended to satisfy the Accreds that the colleges are making progress re trustee micromanagement, the climate of despair, etc.) were ordered last month to “incorporate” the verbiage of the “response.” The colleges were not pleased, in part owing to the timing, and in part owing to the poor quality of the response (which contains factual errors and lacks adequate documentation). These objections were clearly articulated at the last board meeting. I’m told that the Chancellor continues to pressure the report authors, not only to include the “response” verbiage, but to weave that verbiage into their carefully produced reports, something they are not inclined to do (they would prefer to isolate the district’s misbegotten 11th hour contributions in some fashion). The last board meeting before reports are sent to the Accreditors is in one week.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Who has to sign off on the Accreditation reports?

Anonymous said...

Yeah, is there any leverage there, with the signatures?

What can - or can't - we do?

Anonymous said...

I think the Senate refused to sign back when Kate was president - and then filed a minority report.

Or else Kate signed with a signing statement or something -and then filed a minority report.

Anonymous said...

I'm told that minority reports do not go over well with the Accreds. We'll not likely go down that path.

The IVC Ac. Sen. President stated last month that, with the inclusion of the "response," it is not clear she can sign off on the Midterm Report. The "district" has rewritten its response, but the new document is not much improved.

Anonymous said...

I hope she doesn't sign off. We've taken this crap for so long.

Anonymous said...

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.

--100 miles down the road

Anonymous said...

Kate refused to sign the whitewash--so they took her name off the cover sheet and sent it on. The ac. senate, the classified senate, and others generated another report--with far more documentation than the whitewash had! Accreds often find minority reports lack evidence--that one didn't. Maybe this version should just tack the chancellor's version on to the end to make it more visible that it lacks documentation and DIRECT evidence that the accreds want.

Anonymous said...

what?

Raghu not reading what he's signing?

Raghu not understanding what he is reading and then signing?

I'm shocked.

Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"

  This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...