DATE: June 7, 1996 TO: The Board of Trustees FROM: Ken Bergstrom Catherine Weidner Faculty Representatives to the CEC
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:
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
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. ![]()
|