Did you know. . .

•  That LCC has an extra $1.67 million available in its budget over the next two years?

•  That this amount will easily cover the administration’s claimed savings from program cuts recently approved by the LCC Board?

•  That the administration is presenting a plan to the Board to create a new administrative office and buy software (with annual licensing fees) that supposedly will “track” students and somehow guarantee their success?

Come to the LCC Board meeting this Wednesday, July 8, at 6:30 p.m. in the Boardroom of Building 3, and tell the Board what you think of these plans.

Read Dale Green’s eloquent statement published in the Register-Guard.

Read about the administration’s plan to create a new administrative office and buy software that requires annual licensing fees.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Over 70 percent of LCC faculty disapprove of President, Administration, and Board

LCC Faculty,

Please see the attached report showing the results of the recent Faculty Evaluations of the College President, Vice Presidents, Administration, and Board of Education.

As you’ll see, the first two pages provide tables displaying the responses to the quantitative questions, the first page in the form of percentages (%), the second displaying the actual numbers of faculty members responses to each question/response option.  The rest of the report lists faculty responses to each of the qualitative questions, with responses in alphabetical order.

We have provided extremely limited editing of the responses, including dropping reference to specific individuals other than individuals being evaluated, correcting spelling or obvious factual errors, editing a few responses not directly responding to the question or that were intended as advice or comment on other matters, etc; all such edits together likely constitute changes of less than 1% of the responses provided.

Finally, we note that when the Association conducted a similar survey in 2009, we shared the results only with the College President and Board, in the hope that the similar results would be taken seriously and would be the basis of significant efforts to address concerns raised by faculty members.  With faculty evaluations of the Administration and Board of Education even more critical, overall, this year, the Association Board believes it important that faculty and the college community all openly see the various views of faculty members regarding the Administration and Board of Education.

It is clear to us that our college is in a dire period, one that we can only find our way out of with much more open discussion of the merits and demerits of the current path we are on.

As you will see in the report, it is clear that while a portion of the faculty (25-30% of respondents) is generally supportive of the Administration and Board, a much larger portion of faculty (70-75% of respondents) is generally highly critical of the Administration and Board and wants to see serious changes take place in the management and oversight of our college.  We hope this report is the beginning of conversations and actions that lead to the significant improvement of our college, for the sake of all of its members.  With our regular academic year coming to an end in a matter of days, we look forward to engaging this discussion in a deep and significant way at the start of Fall term, and will provide an analysis of the (generally obvious) patterns found in the evaluations, along with recommendations and proposals to begin to address them.

Your Association

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Torch editor nails what ails LCC. From the Register-Guard:

“The college’s most pressing problem now is distrust and fear of the administration…. Whatever the causes that contributed to so much upset and position-holding, one thing’s for sure: Something at Lane needs to change.”  —Read more of Penny Scott’s op-ed in the May 29 Register-Guard.

And be sure to mark your calendar for this important open forum hosted by Faculty Council:

To All Members of the Lane Community:

What do you think of the recent program cuts approved by the LCC Board of Education? How should we respond? What comments or suggestions do you have to share?

Faculty Council, which provides a critical nexus of communication between faculty, staff, and administration, is hosting an open forum, “How shall we respond to the recent program cuts, and what course should we recommend moving forward?”

When: Tuesday, June 2, 3:00-4:30 p.m.
Where: Center for Meeting and Learning (CML), Room 104.

All members of the Lane community are invited to attend and be heard. Light refreshments will be served.

Faculty Council

Posted in General | Leave a comment

More excellent coverage on the Program Cuts debate

The LCC Torch continues its top-notch coverage of the Program Cuts debacle. Ten different perspectives fill pages of opinion columns, so the best thing to do is download the PDF file here. Some highlights:

Torch editor Penny Scott nails what really ails LCC. She also calls for new blood on the LCC Board.

LCCEA Action Team Chair Lee Imonen sends out a challenge to us all.

LCCEA President Jim Salt challenges administration to put their numbers up for scrutiny.

LCCEA Bargaining Co-chair Adrienne Mitchell lays out the numbers for all to see.

Electronics faculty Doug Weiss tells how attempts to respond to budget issues in the past were ignored.

Math faculty Dale Green says he can remain silent no longer.

Academic Learning Skills faculty spell out how curriculum improvements were held hostage to financial demands.

The Torch also offers commentary by President Mary Spilde and Board Chair Pat Albright. Any fair-minded reader should look at their words as well.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Hope sprung up last night, for 40 minutes…

LCC Faculty,

Four members of the college’s Budget Committee voted to oppose the Administration’s proposed budget last night, leaving a 5-4 vote in favor, but needing eight votes to pass the budget. For the first time in years, members of the Budget Committee stood up for principle and resisted the pressure to rubberstamp the Administration’s proposal. For the next 40 minutes these four brave members of the committee — Twila Jacobson, Carmen Urbina, Matt Keating, and Bob Ackerman — not only refused to approve the proposed budget, but criticized the process for being undemocratic and rushed, and the substance for including program cuts that were unnecessary and harmful. Bob Ackerman led efforts to pass proposals that would have restored the Auto Body & Paint and Electronics programs and turned the manipulative budget process on its head. It was truly a hopeful moment for our college, putting accountability back into a process dominated by the president and key supporters on the Board.

In the end, however, after the Administration and several Board members browbeat the rebels, using every argument and legal angle in the book (my favorite was Tony McCown’s hysterical “We won’t be able to spend or even receive money if we don’t pass this budget”), the two non-Board members of the Budget Committee reluctantly gave into the pressure, stating their opposition but agreeing to switch their vote to “Yes.” That and a quick phone call to a departed Board member gave them their eight votes, and the proposed budget was passed.

No doubt the Administration is celebrating again and thinking they won. But we may just have begun to see the crack in the juggernaut. A Budget Committee that insisted on being meaningful, that used their ability to say “no” to stop the machine, if only briefly. Congratulations to all four for standing up for reason. Let’s make this the beginning of the end for budgeting as we’ve come to know it with this administration.

Jim Salt
LCCEA President

Posted in President's Updates

Full Coverage of LCC Board meeting debacle

On Wednesday evening, May 13, the Lane Community College Board of Education voted 4-2 to cut two programs: Auto Body and Paint, and Electronics — striking a blow to the college and unleashing waves of criticism. Full coverage and many voices can be found in the May 15 issue of The Torch, the LCC student newspaper. We highly recommend reading the entire issue! Download the PDF version here.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

A Public Letter to Our Community: Proposed Program Cuts at Lane Community College

This letter to the citizens of Lane County was published in the May 12 Register-Guard:

Lane Community College Administrators are proposing to eliminate the college’s Auto Body & Paint and Electronics programs and to radically “restructure” our Medical Office Assistant (MOA) program. (Administration plans to “suspend” the MOA program were dropped last week in response to strong public objection). The Administration argues that we need to close these programs in order to save money and balance the college’s books. We respectfully disagree.

We believe that these proposed program eliminations and “restructuring” will hurt our would-be students and our community.  Students attending these Professional Technical programs get family-wage jobs with benefits, while the community attracts and holds onto jobs and industries that keep our local economy strong and provide a tax base for education and government services. Last month with less than two days notice, employers who would be affected by these program closures came to the LCC Board of Education meeting to implore the Board to reject the proposal, noting the high quality of the programs and the good wages and benefits and jobs they produce. Some stated that their companies wouldn’t even be in Lane County were it not for LCC’s program, and will likely leave if we close it. Dozens of students and community members packed the room, demanding and at times begging the Board to keep their dreams alive by keeping their programs intact. For many students, these programs are life changing. Our community needs these jobs, and our students and economy need these programs.

The college Administration argues these cuts are necessary to balance our budget; they project the college will save approximately $200,000 next year through these cuts (a figure that constitutes only 0.2% of the annual college budget). However, their projected “savings” ignore much of the revenue these programs’ students bring in (i.e., tuition and state support), and are based upon a gross assumption that somehow 75% of the programs’ students would still come to LCC despite us having closed the program they were coming here to attend. Their assumption was made with no explanation or evidence and ignores actual student surveys that show that less than 10% of current students in these programs would have attended LCC if we hadn’t offered their program. The reality is that when factoring in all of the revenue and student surveys of its impact on enrollment, cutting these programs won’t help the college budget, it will hurt it, just as LCC’s many program cuts did back in 2002.

When faced with evidence about the actual economic impact of their proposal, the Administration has pointed to employer interviews, state employment projections, and supposed analyses of program currency to justify their proposal. However, as reported last week in the Register Guard (“LCC course cuts draw fire,” May 7, 2015), many of the employers interviewed have publicly condemned the conclusions “drawn” from their interviews, strongly supported the programs, and made clear that they rely heavily upon these programs and their students. Similarly, the state employment data the Administration cited capture only a small fraction of the types of jobs that students in these programs obtain, and analysis of these programs demonstrates they are among the most advanced in the entire region. Students come to our programs because they offer the best education available, and do so at a fraction of what many other institutions charge.

The Board of Education is being asked to make a final decision tomorrow evening, Wed., May 13, 6:30 p.m., Building #3, Room 216, on LCC’s main campus, 4000 E. 30th Avenue, Eugene. This is a public meeting, and we strongly encourage supporters of public education and would-be employers of our students to demonstrate your support for career technical education and LCC’s full community college mission.

You may also email Board members at:

Pat Albright, Chair:
Matt Keating, Vice Chair:
Robert Ackerman:
Gary LeClair:
Tony McCown:
Rosie Pryor:
Sharon Stiles:

Lane Community College Education Association:        

Posted in Action Team

LCCEA Update: May 1, 2015

LCC Faculty Colleagues,

Greetings. I hope this finds you a well. A quick update on a few matters:

A.) As you have likely heard already, our OEA-supported lawsuit against the illegal reductions in PERS rights was largely victorious yesterday. The Oregon Supreme Court threw out most of the “revisions,” restoring the right to a proper COLA adjustment for retirees. While they did let stand the elimination of the provision covering state taxes for PERS retirees living outside of Oregon, and the COLA reduction will apply to employee income earned after this cut was enacted (May 2013), this still represents a huge victory for Oregon’s public employees and our retirement rights. We’re told it results in over $4 billion in restored benefits for retirees over the next 40 years! This welcome and expected development should serve as a positive message to Salem that funding Oregon’s schools and public services needs real revenue reform, not further reductions in public employee compensation and retirement benefits.

B.) The Administration informed us this week that they are withdrawing THEIR proposal to discuss modifications of our contract renewal, and plan to implement the contract “rollover” as-is. While that is their right, it is surprising since they were the first to propose such modifications. It appears that once the idea was raised to the higher levels of the Administration, such “discussions” were overruled, something that we find surprising since had we agreed to discuss “moving money” that otherwise goes to picking up insurance costs and instead put some of it on the salary schedule, which would have saved the college money in the long run since insurance inflation rates almost always are higher than consumer inflation rates. And since faculty would also have paid taxes on any monies moved to the salary schedule, the Administration’s decision is ultimately a good thing for faculty as a whole and in the long run.

As a result of the Administration’s change in position, the contract will be rolled over as is, meaning:

•    The salary schedule will be reduced by 0.09% (i.e., -.0009, just under one tenth of 1%) to reflect the virtually zero inflation in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). It’s possible the Administration will decide to keep the schedule the same since it may not be worth the effort to change all of the salary schedules and associated documents and procedures to reflect the tiny change; the Administration hasn’t clarified that issue yet;
•    All faculty — contracted and part-time — will earn full steps (3.75%) as they earn eligibility until they reach the top of the salary schedule (contracted = one step per year; part-time faculty = one step per each 21 credits taught;
•    Employee “out-of-paycheck contributions” for Plan A will remain the same and the employer will pick up the full 8.05% insurance rate hikes that we were notified of yesterday; other medical plans’ out-of-paycheck rates will decline somewhat, since they receive the same employer dollar contribution (up to 100% pick up) but have lower premiums. With the insurance rates now known (OEBB will formally post these by today), the Association’s Faculty Insurance Committee will meet to review the plans, make any changes in what plans are available to faculty, and make recommendations for faculty to consider in plan selection for our next insurance year. Once the Insurance Committee finalizes the plans for next year, Human Resources will be able to produce final plan rates for faculty to review and consider.
•    MOAs that are set to expire on June 30, 2015 likely will do so. These MOAs include the “teach out” provision (Article 41.6), the “overload rights” for part-time and contracted faculty, and the “Teach Only” MOA. The Administration was opposed (in some cases strongly) to extending these MOAs, so there was no guarantee that the “modification discussions” (or formal bargaining) would have provided any different outcome, and some of them were jointly established to reflect needs arising from the “student surge” during the Great Recession, the former of which has obviously disappeared.

The Association has discussed with the Administration issues arising from the ends of these agreements, including clarifying the final date for faculty to notify the college of their election of the “teach out” provision. By contract, that deadline is June 30, although there are other considerations that we are discussing with the Administration, and it may need to be sooner than that; we will report on this when matters are more clear. As such, faculty members considering using this provision should make a near-final determination now. However, we do note that even without Article 41.6, faculty members may always request partial unpaid leaves of absence, and thereby reduce their workload similarly. Doing so would provide similar benefits of Article 41.6, with the advantage that one’s PERS retiree benefits would continue to grow. (Under some circumstances employees may be able to do so even while retiring from PERS, provided one remains below the 1039 hours worked per calendar year; more on this after further study and discussions with HR).

C.) Finally, the struggle continues to get the Administration and Board to recognize that the Administration’s proposal to eliminate the Auto Body & Paint, Electronics, and Medical Office Assistant programs would result in a net negative impact on the college budget. We met with Administration representatives last week and provided detailed evidence that the Administration’s numbers exaggerate the expenses that would be saved, ignore the majority of the revenue these programs bring in, and assume with absolutely no evidence or logic (despite the counter evidence we provided) that up 88% of the students who come to LCC for these programs would somehow come here anyhow, and bring with them the tuition dollars and state reimbursement that our college depends upon. The Administration’s “response” was simply non-responsive, saying they “stand by their analysis” despite all of the evidence against it. Frankly, it is little more than stereotypical bureaucratic stonewalling, the kind that has no place at an institution of higher learning, let alone in a matter that will have such significant effects on the lives of faculty members who have dedicated their lives to these programs, not to mention to impact on our would-be students and our fiscal bottom line!

We will have two more chances to get the “powers that be” to recognize this would be a net fiscal hit on the college: first, in the Budget and Finance Subcomittee’s work, and if not successful there then to the Board of Education itself. The Subcommittee is supposed to be the place where budget recommendations to the Board come from and where such economic issues are resolved; next week’s Budget Forum (Tuesday, May 5, 2:00-3:00 p.m., CEN 103/104) is an excellent opportunity for faculty and others to come see if the Administration will agree to adhere to simple empirical norms, or if they’ll stick to their “we’re management, we don’t have to pay any attention to reality or empirical evidence, we get to decide” stance. If it’s the latter, it will be up to all of us to demand that the Board of Education stop listening to the Administration’s recommendations when administrators simply refuse to respond to the overwhelming evidence and basic logic that their recommendations are obviously fatally flawed. (The Association’s empirical analysis of their proposal is nearly complete, awaiting only the Administration’s provision of information we formally requested weeks ago but that they have refused to provide, citing “FERPA” issues. Even without the “missing” data, it’s clear that our college will be worse off financially without these programs and the revenue that they attract)

Finally, we note that when pushed, some administrators have implicitly recognized this conclusion, but then responded bizarrely that “but there were other factors that were used to select these programs for elimination.” Such a response completely ignores the fact that the ONLY reason for cutting the programs was because the Administration claims they need to do so to save money. The “other data” they cite are only used to determine WHICH programs should be cut. Obviously, if cutting the programs costs the college in the end, the need to determine which programs to cut is beyond pointless and the “other data” are moot! Of course, the Administration’s “other data” are as flawed as their economic numbers, but once the fatal flaw in their economic projections are recognized, there’s no need to go to the “so which net revenue generating programs should we cut” stage.

Frankly, the Administration’s entire “management” of this issue would make Alice prefer to head back down the rabbit hole in the search for sanity and logic. Since we don’t have that choice, and since the Administration has yet to show any signs of recognizing the illogic and empirical vacuousness of their proposal, please plan on attending the Board of Education’s May 13th meeting, 6:30 p.m., where a final decision on the Administration’s proposal is expected to be made by the Board. If the Administration can’t be made to recognize reality, we all need to come together to implore our Board to do so.

D.) We’re finalizing the date/time for our Spring LCCEA Membership meeting, and will announce it shortly.

Happy International Workers Day!

Jim Salt
LCCEA President

Posted in President's Updates

LCCEA Bargaining Team Report: Contract status and related discussions with the Administration

LCC Faculty Colleagues,

We are writing to update you on our current contract status and related discussions with the Administration:

1.  In many years most of us would support a contract proposal that would provide at least full COLA, full steps, and 100% employer pickup of the insurance rate hike.

We actually now have that option available to us for next year.

In recognition of our contractual rights and economic interests, the Association notified the Administration that since neither party gave notice to the other of its desire to modify our current College Bargaining Agreement (CBA), that Article 2.2 (see below) provides that the CBA was “automatically renewed” for the 2015-2016 year.

As a result, all economic and non-economic language continues, with the sole exception of any agreements with an expiration date of June 30, 2015 (see below). This means that the provisions of Articles 26 and 33 apply (i.e., Salary and Insurance, respectively), which include full steps for all eligible faculty as earned (both contracted and part-time faculty), the employer picking up 100% of the insurance rate hike (rates still TBD, but preliminary information suggests 8.8% hikes), and a COLA equal to the current Consumer Price Index (CPI rate). The latter, due to recent deflation in energy costs, came in almost exactly at zero this year (-0.09%, to be precise), which means that the salary schedule remains essentially in place, which in turn causes the Cost Neutrality language in Article to kick in, with the result that the Employer picks up the full insurance rate hike.

So in short, the “automatic renewal” of our contract provides full COLA, full steps for all eligible faculty, and full employer pickup of the insurance hike (other economic agreements, such as the Section 125 language, FPD rate, etc, all remain the same).

This notification to the College is unanimously supported by the Association “Pre-Bargaining Team” and our Executive Committee, and the College has acknowledged this right of the Association and the provisions of Article 2.2, as we understand them.

2.  Given that the consumer inflation rate is virtually zero while Article 33 would provide 100% employer pick up of insurance rates, both the College and Association expressed a willingness to discuss possible modifications to renewed agreement for next year, which could include moving some of the monies that otherwise go to picking up the full insurance rate hike and instead move some of it to the salary schedule. We’ve also noted some possible mutual interest in other possible modifications, based upon other pressing issues and interests. Discussions over such possible modifications would be done under the provisions of Article 3.1 (below), which requires the College and Association to meet upon request to discuss possible revisions to the contact, but would not constitute formal bargaining. If no such agreements are reached, since the contract has already been renewed as is, it will be implemented as such.

3.  Several MOAs are currently slated to expire on June 30, 2015, including Article 41.6 “Teach Out”, “Overload Rights” for both part-time and contracted faculty, and the Teach Only MOA; the Assignment Rights MOU also expires, but it only integrates other agreements, including some of the expiring MOAs, and therefore needs updating anyhow. These MOAs could be included, or not, in any such “modification discussions”; any Association modification proposals will be determined by faculty discussion and survey responses (see below). Please know that the Association has pushed the Administration to renew/make permanent the “Teach Out” agreement (Article 41.6), but to date the Administration has rejected our proposal.

4.  This “automatic renewal” and any possible modifications will be discussed in detail at the Spring LCCEA Membership Meeting next week (date/time/location TBA shortly), and we may provide additional details in the next few days. Following the Membership meeting we will survey the faculty on these matters. Finally, if the Association and Administration do agree on any modifications of the renewed agreement, the modifications will be subject to a faculty Ratification vote.

2.2  Renewal of Agreement. This Agreement shall be automatically renewed from year to year unless the College or the Association gives written notice to the other after January 1 and not later than February 1 prior to the expiration date of its desire to modify the Agreement for a successive term or to terminate the Agreement. [highlight added]

3.1  Alteration of Agreement. The provisions of this Agreement or properly executed Memoranda of Agreements may be altered at any time upon the mutual consent of both the College and the Association except that neither party shall refuse to meet with the other for the purposes of alteration except as provided in this Agreement and Memoranda of Agreements.

Your Association “Pre-Bargaining” Team:
Adrienne Mitchell, Co-Chair
Jim Salt, Co-Chair
Dean Bergen
Kelly Collins
Deanna Murphy

Posted in Bargaining

Over 100 Rally to Defend Our Programs: Report on Wednesday’s Board of Education Meeting


More than 100 employers, students, faculty members, classified staff, and members of our community came to Wednesday’s LCC Board meeting with barely a day’s notice after learning that the Administration wants to cut our Auto Body and Paint, Electronics, and Medical Office Assistant programs. Dozens of students, many dressed in MOA medical scrubs, supported their colleagues’ call to maintain programs that provide good jobs with family wages and excellent benefits, and defended the quality of their programs from the spurious and unconscionable criticisms of top LCC administrators who secretly reviewed a number of our programs, with no knowledge let alone involvement of our faculty, using “methods” even our students recognized as worthless. A number of the students plan to start their programs this fall, some having been at LCC for a year or two, spending lots of money taking classes to prepare to start the program, and who would not be part of any “teach out” for students already enrolled. Employers of past graduates of these programs came to make clear these are top-notch programs and faculty, much needed in the community, that provide great jobs for employees and that strengthen our economy; some were even “respondents” in the “survey” the Administration is using to justify their claims about program quality, who were livid that they were being used in this assault on programs that they have the greatest respect for, and depend upon to educate their future employees. Faculty members teaching in the programs challenged the grossly false claims about their programs, demonstrating just how valuable these programs are, to our students and our community. Others decried the Administration’s call to establish a robust program review process, which ironically was completed just the day before, contrasting that professional review process with the secret and scandalous “review” that passes for the Administration’s “management” of this issue, while others noted the continued failures of this Administration, including the long list of Accreditation Review findings against the college, and this latest nonsensical claim that closing programs that generate more revenue than they cost is somehow “necessary” to balance the budget.

On that last point, the Association presented evidence that the Administration’s key assumption, that somehow 75% of the students who come to Lane would come here even though the career tech program they want to attend was eliminated, is nothing more than wishful thinking, necessary to justify calling for these programs’ closures. Rather than pulling self-serving numbers out of the air as the Administration has done, the Association surveyed the current students in these programs yesterday, and as you’ll see below, only 5 of the 56 students completing the survey, or 8.9%, said they would have come to LCC if their program had not been offered. Most would look for another school, and some wouldn’t have gone to college.

The Admin claim that somehow 75% of students would come anyhow is simply not justifiable. (In response to Vice President DeWolf’s claim that they’d reach out to students to encourage them to attend other programs: How do you reach out to students who aren’t here in the first place?)

Plugging in the results from this survey into the Administration’s calculations, correcting for their other errors in projecting expense savings from the closures (e.g. projecting savings of a contracted faculty salary and OPE when they know that by contract the full-time faculty member would displace part-time faculty, and therefore the savings would be only the part-time salaries), and including the many additional sources of revenue the Administration leaves out of their calculations, shows clearly (see below) that cutting these programs would COST our college money, not save it (and that doesn’t yet factor in the net revenue when including all of the courses that these programs’ students must take as prerequisites). It’s only through spurious empirical claims that the Administration can maintain cutting these programs will help the bottom line.

Q and A

Q.  How did the Administration respond?
A.  They maintained the same arguments, ignored the evidence about their 75% assumption (until Board member Gary Leclair pressed them on it), and argued that the Board either needed to do this or do something else they don’t want to do, ignoring all of the evidence that this would increase the deficit, while seriously harming many many lives.

Q.  How did the Board respond?
A.  The Board found itself in a difficult position, typically believing they need to show “support” for the Administration and largely depending upon the Administration for information. But many clearly recognized that claims about the savings and criticisms about the quality of these programs were facing very strong evidence to the contrary. Several strongly requested that “both sides” work together to adjudicate the starkly contrasting empirical claims, a request that we welcome and will take up, but one that President Spilde responded to by typically saying that “staff” (meaning Administrators) would review our numbers and give the Board a report, which no doubt would leave the Board with the same competing claims, forcing them to decide between “supporting” an Administration, or believing the many, many voices of faculty, staff, students, employers, and community, and the evidence we’ve provided that the Administration’s numbers are simply invalid. We will be calling on the Administration to fully and publicly share and defend their calculations, and to defend their wild assumption that somehow 75% of students that come to Lane to take our programs and many other classes to prepare for them will simply stay at the college if their programs are eliminated.

Q.  What happens next?
A.  The Board takes up this issue again, and will likely make its decision, at its May 13th meeting. That gives us all five weeks to demand the Administration step back from their nonsensical “plan” to “balance the budget,” to expose the illogic and lack of evidence for it, to help demonstrate the value and quality of these excellent programs, and to demand that Administration stop secretly “reviewing” our programs with absurd “methods” and data and to work with the faculty in truly professional program review processes. Please take every opportunity to encourage the Administration and the Board to take the obvious steps here. There will be many calls for action and ways to stop this assault on our programs, our faculty, our students, and our college. It’s up to each of us to stop this.

Posted in Bargaining