Second in a series...

Colleagues,

Over the past couple of months you have no doubt heard of the District's plans to cut the budget, including the District's request that the bargaining units concede contractual items as their "fair share" give back to help solve the budget problem.

While we clearly agree that the lack of the political will at the State level has reduced available funding to school districts and all publicly funded institutions, we don't agree that we are at a point in the SDCCD where we need to be considering take-backs.

Referencing the budget data that follows the Chancellor's message below, items 8 & 9 are the areas where the bargaining units are expected to "give-back" to help solve this problem.  These two items total about $6 million.  (It's not necessary for us to get into the nuances of one-time vs. continuous resources for this analysis.)

For argument's sake, let's say we agree there is indeed a $6 million problem that we need to help solve.  (Keeping in mind, the "fair-share" approach was not negotiated with us, it was not part of our three year RAF agreement, nor was our input solicited in devising it.)

Item #1:  Hiring Freeze
Stated faculty savings are based on filling behind full-time faculty positions with adjunct faculty.  We all know we are over cap (i.e.; we are running more class sections than the Sate is paying us to run), so there really is no need to back-fill contract faculty vacancies with new adjunct faculty.  Instead, these vacant position should be de-funded completely.  Additional savings:  69.64 FTEF X $39,000/Adjunct FTEF = $2,715,960.

Item #11:  SERP Savings
The District only estimates $1.2 million in savings.  However, in their own item #1, for 125 positions, they estimate $5,858,420 in savings, yet in item #11, for 97 positions, they only estimate $1.2 million in savings.  Simply applying the exact same calculation used in District item #1 to estimate the $5,858,420 in savings would yield $4,280,708 in savings, not the stated $1.2 million, which represents an additional savings of $3,080,708.  Add to that the adjunct savings for not backfilling the faculty positions, and you generate an additional savings of $2,301,000.  Hence, we have in total a real additional savings of $5,381,708 from the SERP.  (We did not include the yearly cost of the SERP to the District, but we also used average faculty salary values, rather than the much higher salaries of likely retirees.)

Although not included in the District's analysis below, part of their $32 million "reduction goal" comes from including $2.93 million from a 2008-09 fiscal year one-time deficit factor, which was restored to the District the following year.

So, in short order, we can quickly identify $11,027,668 (nearly twice the District-wide employee "fair-share" goal) in additional on-going, continuous savings if the District would simply revise its projections to make them more accurate.

Hopefully, this gives you just one example of why we are steadfast in our opposition to take backs.  

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding the foregoing.

In Unity,

Jim Mahler, President
AFT Guild, Local 1931

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Constance Carroll" <ccarroll@sdccd.edu>
Date: December 2, 2009 4:25:21 PM PST
Subject: CHANCELLOR'S BUDGET MESSAGE (December 2, 2009)

December 2, 2009

Chancellor’s Message: Budget Update

Dear Colleagues and Friends:

In searching for a new metaphor to describe our budget situation, I have come across the notion of building bridges.  Let’s use the Golden Gate Bridge as our example: the amazing suspension bridge that connects Marin and San Francisco Counties, spanning the Golden Gate Channel from San Francisco Bay into the Pacific Ocean.  Authorized by the legislature in 1923, the bridge took four years to construct - from 1933 to its grand opening in 1937.  What is most interesting to note was its progression, from the towers to the arches to the horizontal supports that were lowered and gradually connected to each other for the walkway and traffic corridor.  Its planning was actually a sequence of connections.

Our own financial “bridge building” in the San Diego Community College District began during 2007-2008, when rumors of state budget turmoil ahead caused us to put some immediate protections in place, notably a partial freeze on hiring. This was our first connection to the twin budget years (2008-09 and 2009-10) in which the Governor and Legislature enacted enormous cuts, which had an impact on our District of approximately $32 million (more if one factors in the impact of internal inflationary costs). 

The most troubling of these reductions was the enormous cut of categorical programs, without the relief we had been led to expect would come from federal stimulus dollars.  Instead of receiving $130 million to offset these massive categorical program reductions, the California Community Colleges System received only $35 million, and even that will be gone next year.  Our bridge connection to July 1, 2010, is well underway, with many reductions already behind us but with more reductions still to be effected.   As soon as we reach that point, we will complete the 2010-11 budget with a new bridge connection to 2011-12, and, we hope, a somewhat improved situation by that time.

We will know more about what 2010-11 holds in store for us when the Governor begins the process with his budget proposal in January. On the negative side, we have heard new California deficit estimates ranging from $7 billion to $21 billion, although there are some slowly emerging rays of hope at the global and national levels that may even help California.   For example, the improvement in investment portfolios may head off some of the projected STRS and PERS employer contribution increases, since their own portfolios have shown an upturn.  The “best” case for next year’s budget seems to be that it will be “flat;” the “middle” scenario looks like a 2% cut; and the “worst” case, well, it would be awful.  Let’s not go there right now.

We are still moving forward with our essential strategy, with the protection of core classes and employees still at the heart of our effort.  You will see in the budget reduction outline following this message the basic proposal that we are now working on, which the Cabinet, the District Budget Development Committee, the District Governance Council, and others are now addressing.  As part of this process, we want to keep the strategies public, and the numbers transparent and accessible to everyone in the District.

We are also part of several advocacy efforts.  Our District and Board will be coordinating local legislative contacts, along with the AFT Guild, and will also coordinate the legislative advocacy effort in Sacramento this January on behalf of the San Diego and Imperial Counties Community Colleges Association (SDICCCA).  We will be working on advocacy with the System Office, with the Community College League of California (CCLC), and with a special coalition of large urban community college districts.  We will also join forces at the appropriate time with our friends in the University of California and California StateUniversity systems as part of a combined higher education advocacy push.  And we will work with K-12 and other public agencies.  As most of us have said on a number of occasions, the budget problem is too large for the state to solve simply by making reductions.  New revenue and revenue enhancement need to be prominent parts of the solution.

In the meantime, I have two requests:

We are going to do our best to get through this financial crisis. Thank you, as always, for your patience, understanding and support.

Sincerely,

Constance

Dr. Constance M. Carroll
Chancellor

Budget Reductions to Date (2008-09 & 2009-10)