KEY TO GRAPHS & DOCUMENTS
1. Our district’s percentage of instructional spending over a five-year period. The law requires at least 50%.
2. The district’s performance for 2006-07. (50.03%)
3. The district’s projected performance for 2007-08. (46.35%)
4. The district's performance over the last four years. (District chart.)
5. Comparison of Saddleback College, IVC, ATEP, and the entire district re % of instructional spending.
All data provided by SOCCCD. (1 & 5 by Chunk, using these data. See.)
I'VE BEEN SIFTING through the district's data concerning compliance with the 50% Law—that's the law requiring that at least 50% of district expenditures be on "instruction" (i.e., instructor salaries and benefits, essentially). (Click on the pics to enlarge them.)
The consequences of noncompliance are severe. No district can afford to screw up on the 50% Law, that's for sure.
As you know, about a month ago, Chancellor Raghu Mathur spread the word that the district dipped below the 50% mark for 2006-07. This discovery, he said in various settings, occurred "just last month!"
The news inspired all sorts of speechifying, carping, and scrambling, including a closer look at expenditures. The latter revealed that we were not out of compliance (for 06-07) after all. But we were only barely above the 50% line. (50.03)
Since we are well into 2007-08, there is a danger (no, a likelihood) that we will be out of compliance for this year. Thus, a committee was hastily assembled to examine the situation and arrive at recommendations for responding to the expected difficulty. That committee is commonly known as DRACula. (I got the data on this post at an Academic Senate meeting. Two Senate officers are members of that committee and they provided these data, which, naturally, are not confidential.)
Soon, Mathur will do what he does: (1) no matter what the facts are, he'll deny that he is to blame for the difficulty and for failing to foresee it, (2) he'll blame others, and (3) he'll use the crisis as an opportunity to undermine that which he seeks to undermine (e.g., reassigned time).
It is important, then to be armed with the data. So check 'em out.
A FACTOID: The notion that this tendency downward (to near and then below the 50% line) was "just discovered" is nonsense. Each year, district officials must sign a form that prominently displays the "50%" calculation for the district. That we've been rapidly sliding south for years must have been plain to Mathur and Co. (It is the district, and not the colleges, that is responsible for complying with this law.)
Why didn't Mathur and Co. catch this? You'd think a guy who makes $300,000 a year would be on top of stuff, right?
ANOTHER FACTOID: the district projects that SOCCCD will be at about 46% for 2007-08!
Good Lord!
YET ANOTHER: The projected expenditure at ATEP for 2007-08 is $4,707,619. (Only 5% is instructional.) Compare that figure with the amount the district must spend on instruction (beyond status quo/projection) in order to hit 50% for 07-08: $4,772,395. See graphics.
ONE MORE: How common is 46% among California community college districts? I've only got "comp" data for 2005-06 and earlier. During that year, Copper Mountain district was at the bottom with 43.46%. The next worst was COMPTON—the district that got its accreditation pulled. They were at 46.24—almost exactly our projected level for 2007-08. (The next worst were two at about 48 and a half. All other districts were at 50% or above.)
I have more data—e.g., re general costs shared by the district and the colleges/ATEP. Let me know if you want to see that as well. Further, DRACula met again today, and I hope to receive a report. So stay tuned.
UPDATE:
For further 50% documents, click on this link
23 comments:
Uh-oh.
Isn't DAVE LANG some kind of numbers man, an accountant or something? Why didn't HE see this coming?
Oh my God. We're doomed!
Well, we're not doomed, but the only way we can address this problem is by hiring and by giving faculty raises. Like it or not, that's what we've gotta do.
And, yes, Dave is an accountant, but there is no reason why he would be familiar with the 50% Law. That's what the Chancellor is for.
Unfortunately, our Chancellor is not only loathsome, but incompetent.
I saw the data in the Senate. The amount the SOCCCD is out of compliance in terms of dollars, $4.7 some million is almost exactly the same amount of dollars, $4.7 some million that it costs to fund the ATEP 8. No secret where this problem lies.
Excuse my ignorance, but what is the problem with dishing out some raises and hiring new faculty?
"the only way" - Spoken like a true faculty unionist, 9:04.
8:35 What is your solution?
Surely Dave, the accountant will be able to look at the numbers, add 'em up - and see where the problem lies, right? and know whose problem it is, right?
5:21--
Suppose you try to solve the 50% problem by hiring new full-time instructors. The problem is that it is more expensive to hire a new full-timer than to hire the part-timers necessary to teach the same classes. Where's the money gonna come from? Well, it must come from ceasing to pay for other things that you've been paying for.
And just what will that be?
8:35, I suggest that you take a reading class. You seem to have comprehension issues. You'll observe that it is with regret that I said that we'll have to hire new faculty and/or raise salaries. I said this, not because I'm a unionist (I'm not), but because it is a fact. Our 50% problem is that we are not spending enough on "instruction," and "instruction" is INSTRUCTORS. And you can spend more on INSTRUCTORS either pay hiring more or by paying the ones you've got more or both.
Don't be an idiot.
Look at ATEP.
8 administrators and classified personel, hardly any faculty, a few little paltry metal looking buildings and lot's of basic aide money spiralling down that drain.
Neither of the colleges have ever received that proportion of managerial and classified support - ever.
Repeat after me, its nothing more than mismanaged ATEP.
Why does ATEP have 8 administrators and classifed staff, hardly any classes, no full time faculty, -- Yet, at the two colleges we have large Divisions and Schools with hundreds of class sections and faculty but with only one Dean assigned to manage two schools at a time? Not very appropriate, efficient, helpful, or certainly not fair.
Good reporting Chunk...particularly for a non-numbers guy.
Dave Lang needs to wake up and start being responsible for his contributions to this mess. Board President Lang has expertise in the area of finance and budget. Deputy Chancellor Poertner is also a budget guy. The data are extremely clear to any one who cares to avail themselves. This District, with it's anti-faculty, anti-education Chancellor, will do anything to avoid spending it's billions of dollars of OC tax revenue on instrutors and instruction, depite what some silly law requires. Let's see how President Lang explains how this is really the faculty's fault. I can hardly wait.
Here is the Mathurian spin: the real problem has nothing to do with the 4.7 million dollars budgeted for ATEP in 2007-2008(despite the fact that the data shows the District will be 4.7 million dollars short of meeting the 50% target. That little detail will be passed off as a silly coincidence. Rather, according to Mathur, the real problem has to do with the fact that there are five faculty members recieving reassigned time at IVC. Wanna bet Lang will buy it, despite his budgetary expertise?
There is a bigger problem. The Administration at the District, with NO students, expect to grow as fast as the schools. Take a look at the number of Vice Chancellors with their six-figure incomes.
It seems they have administrators in charge of other administrators.
You're the idiot, 9:40, for following this blog and believing it reflects reality. Just stay in your safe comfortable classroom and shut the fuck up.
Now, now, boys. Let's not get into name-calling.
Chunk's reporting is factual. He's using the data provided by Poertner, the Deputy Chancellor.
Don't want to believe this? Why on earth not? It's not like Chunk is Fox News. He seems to get his facts right.
Chunk's data come straight from the Office of the Deputy Chancellor, Gary Poertner and this information and more was presented at both Senate meetings on October 10th and October 11th.
The District had to provide the data because the Faculty Association and the Senates filed a Public Records Act Request pursuant to the Government Code. The District had to comply or we could have filed a complaint in Court. Additionally, the District is obligated to provide accurate data or face a PERB complaint because this data is pertinent to contract negotiations. All of the data the District has provided is simply a matter of public record. As 100 Miles Down the Road has pointed out, every District is required to file a 311 report with the State...the records Chunk is referring to are simply the SOCCCD's 311 reports and a few other reports produced by the Office of the Deputy Chancell. This is not rocket science. The data used in this story are accurate and has been provided to all members of the 50% Law Advisory Council (DRACula), formed by Mathur, because by law (Education Code), the District must involve the Faculty Association/Senates in the deliberations.
Chunk's reporting is dead straight on and his data is reported accurately.
We met with Deputy Chancellor Poertner on Friday, October 12, 2007, to discuss the Public Records Act Request and there are two remaining documents the District must provide. The District has been forthcoming in complying with the request.
BTW, 100 Miles Down The Road, if you are still following this story, I am not clear about how the reserves figure into the 50% calculations. Could you please explain?
6:02 what meetings have you attended recently?
Wendy
Chunk, You mention that you will have other data and you would post it if we asked. Yes, I want to see all of it, including the data on "Location 9".
1:02--
I'm not sure I've got anything on Location 9, but I will provide what I've got. Stay tuned.
So what Chunk? 50.3% for 06-07. Why be such an alarmist? Don't be such a chicken little, all the district has to do to correct this is hire some faculty... Is that so hard? problem solved! Duh!
PS: The sky isn't falling!
The difference between 06-07 and the projected short fall for 07-08 is a lot more than the differences between previous sets of years. The 07-08 projected shortfall of circa $4.7 million, (and 46%), is quite significant - that's a lot of faculty hires 12:22am. So, if it is so, then let's get going and hiring, (the sooner the better), plus, let's finish the contract negotiations and make any raise retro to this year. Also, let's not cut classes so quickly.
The biggest fib in all of this is that this came as a surprise to the district leadership, especially in light of the 311 reports. The Chancellor is either a sleep at the wheel, which would seem to imply negligence, or, just not being truthful, which would seem to imply, well, - not being truthful.
Eitherway, the buck, (so to speak), stops with him.
This was no surprise to the district, Poertner said so in a public meeting a few weeks ago at IVC.
How many of these Chancellor gaffs does the Board of Trustees need, especially Lang and Wagner, to do the right thing? Talk about being liberal in their tolerance.
Post a Comment