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.