DATE:   June 7, 1996

TO:     The Board of Trustees

FROM:   Ken Bergstrom
     	Catherine Weidner
    	Faculty Representatives to the CEC

Let us try to clarify what we feel the "CEC's" position was in the most recent list of personnel cuts. The minutes that have been distributed to the community are not "approved" minutes of that meeting. We were each asked to review them and make notes or changes, but our changes were not reflected in the distributed copy. We have, therefore, written a detailed account of what we feel happened at that meeting and will present them for review at our next scheduled meeting.

Our understanding of the meeting of Thursday, May 16, 1996 is the following:

Because the committee could not reach agreement on all areas of approved cuts in order to balance the budget, a series of scenarios was proposed. These scenarios entailed dividing the remaining cuts (approximately $421,000) among the budget managers according to current percentages of expenditures and each budget manager takes responsibility for cuts required within their area. For example, Student Services is 11% of the total expenditures, so 11% of the figure is theirs to cut, or $46,310. This proposal did not gain a majority of 70% in a vote of the committee.

A second proposal involved giving the entire amount to Richard Greene to cut from wherever he felt best. This proposal did not receive a 70% majority vote on the committee. After broad discussion, a second vote was taken, and two members stood aside in the vote, which would require a smaller majority in order to pass. One member stood aside from each proposal as it happens, so NO MAJORITY SUPPORT EXISTED FOR EITHER PROPOSAL.

After several hours of deliberation, the group agreed that whatever members chose to remain would have the full authority of the group, and nine CEC members remained to finish the task. It was agreed by the group that in order to reach a goal of $360,000 in Personnel costs, $300,000 in salaries would need to be cut. Two lists were generated: a list of positions and hires following the layoff guidelines and procedures, according to the Dean for Administration's list of employees by date of hire. This list generated the entire personnel of the College in rank by date of hire and order of eligibility to be cut. This list was numbered as follows:

- page 2 -

1. temporary/sabbatical replacement personnel
2. the 8 newly created/2 upgraded positions in 95/96
3. new hires in 95/96
4. new positions/hires from 94/95
5. half-time positions
6. full-time positions with oneyear contracts (all staff, administration, associate faculty)
7. faculty contracts up for renewal (three-year and one-year contracts)
8. Buyouts of current three-year contracts.

A second list was generated of IDEAS for further exploration that DID NOT share the full support of the committee, such as eliminating the Daycare or resource areas in the Campus Program. Again, these were not considered options for cuts, just a list of brainstorming ideas that did not share support across the CEC.

The committee agreed to send this prioritized process for personnel cuts to the President. Having been reminded by him that our recommendation may or may not be recommended to the full Board, committee members vocalized their concerns about what layoffs in certain cases would bring about in terms of increased losses in all academic programs.

The committee acknowledged that the level of cuts could easily reach $300,000 without even touching the full-time contracts of staff and full-time faculty. CEC did not approve the personnel cuts made on June 6, 1996. We approved an amount to be cut from Personnel and outlined a fair process based on date of hire and creation of new positions as outlined in the Personnel Handbook.

The cuts proposed by President Greene exceed the necessary level of cuts required and in no way reflect the intentions of the CEC. His cuts also eliminate 3 persons of color working for the College at this time, an issue that raised lengthy discussion on the committee in terms of efforts toward diversity. CUTS MADE:

Position				Salary Amount
Director of Financial Aid		  $  36,000
Coordinator of Off Campus Programs	     27,500
Coordinator of Campus Program		     22,000
Continuing Ed, Library Assistant	     13,800
Campus Associate Faculty (TOTAL)	    100,430
Director of CMSE/Associate Faculty	     34,000
Off Campus Co-Lead			     29,796
Off Campus Co-Lead			     35,856
Off Campus Half Time Core		     19,402
Housekeeping and Maintenance Positions	     36,000

	SUB TOTAL			    354,784
	20% Benefits			     70,956
	TOTAL			           $425,740

- page 3 -

So far, the amount of these cuts exceeds the need by $65,740. In addition, Greene alludes in his memo to consolidation of senior management, and the Executive Committee of the Board of trustees was read a list of cuts that included two senior administrators, which could increase this gap further by almost $100,000.

We felt that many other alternatives to these cuts were not fully explored. The committee did not have full agreement on budget numbers until the final days of deliberation, as full disclosure of the non-personnel expense budget was not broken down by category. There was also disagreement about how Miller and Cook projections and expenses were being counted (or not counted) in the budget.

We object to being used as the catalyst for these cuts. Richard Greene selected the personnel he chose to cut; some of these personnel are in line with our recommendations, but many are not. We outlined a clear process that still involved drastic layoffs, but that followed a fair and open process based on date of hire and creation of new positions.

We are prepared to make our alternative proposals to the trustees at the meeting next week, in hopes that the recent firings will be reinstated pending full investigation of the need for such drastic cuts which have such far-reaching implications across all our programs.

This clearly demonstrates Richard Greene's disregard for CEC as an internal management group for the College whose primary responsibility is to develop and monitor the budget. He was not at this meeting -he abdicated his responsibility to bring this group to consensus. His actions are outside of our process. We outlined a process and then he did what he wanted.

back to top