Lane Community College Education Association

LCC faculty colleagues,

Please below a memo from LCCEF, LCCEA, and Student Government leaders regarding concerns about the proposed 2023-2024 budget.

To: Board of Education Members and Budget Committee Members

From: LCCEA, LCCEF and ASLCC

Re: Open Letter to the Lane Community: FY24 Proposed Budget Drains Ending Fund Balance

CC: Stephanie Bulger

Esteemed Members of the Board of Education and Budget Committee,

We are writing and speaking on a matter of public concern. We urge you to not approve the proposed 2023-2024 budget and to ask the Administration to present a new, fiscally responsible plan instead. 

Unless there is an unanticipated, dramatic increase in student enrollment, the proposed budget will propel LCC into a serious fiscal crisis next year and necessitate major program and service eliminations.

The proposed budget document balances the budget by using $4,398,890 of the General Fund Ending Fund balance – well over half of the General Fund Ending Fund Balance. (See p. 38 of printed budget document/ p. 44 of electronic proposed budget document. )  According to the proposed budget, the General Fund Ending Fund balance will only have $3,435,560 at the end of FY24. 

This plan is not consistent with Board Policy 245*, which requires a 10% reserve in the General Fund (i.e., Fund I). While on rare occasions, some of the ending fund balance has been used to balance the budget, the amounts have been considerably more conservative and only used when there are also sufficient reserves across all funds.

LCC just restored the General Fund Ending fund balance through careful, responsible budget planning over a three year period in accordance with BP 245. The proposed budget would not only wipe away the majority of the ending fund balance in Fund I, it would also take total reserves across all funds (not including Bond funds restricted for construction projects) down to a total of $9.6M – an amount lower than any year since 2007.

Other options are possible. For example, the Budget Development Subcommittee (BDS) passed budget balancing scenarios that would reduce the budgeted amounts for M & S (Materials & Services) by up to $1.7 Million from the projected FY24 amounts based on a thorough review of actual spending this year. Instead, the proposed budget increases M & S allocations for Funds I & IX by $1.4 Million to a total of more than $19 Million for M & S in these two funds. The BDS also passed budget balancing scenarios that would hold some of the 44 vacant positions from all employee categories open for next year, a typical strategy used to balance the budget.

In addition, LCCEA proposed the postponement of extra faculty positions that are not required by the contract to 2024-2025 to ensure more stability across years. The Administration declined this proposal, stating a preference to maintain management rights to add positions one year in order to make layoffs the next year noting that, “retrenchments allow the College to make structural adjustments in response to student needs.”

Instead of implementing reasonable cost containment measures, it appears that the Administration has created a proposed budget that entirely balances the budget by draining reserves at the alarming rate of more than half of the General Fund Ending Fund balance. While state funding will not reach what we collectively would like for the legislature to allocate, state funding is increasing by approximately 6% for the next biennium; tuition has been increased by 5% by the Board of Education, and property tax revenue will increase as well.

For all of these reasons, we have no confidence in the budget planned for FY24. 

We urge you to not approve the proposed 2023-2024 budget and to ask the Administration to present a new, fiscally responsible plan instead. There is time for a new plan to be developed and approved before the end of June in accordance with Oregon Public Budget Law.

Voting to approve the proposed budget would thrust LCC into a serious fiscal crisis next year unless there is unanticipated, dramatic enrollment growth.

Our campus community and the people of Lane County whom you represent are counting on you to make fiscally responsible decisions. 

Sincerely,

LCCEF Representatives:

Frankie Cocanour, LCCEF President and Classified Professional
Buck Potter,LCCEF Vice President of Labor Relations, Classified Professional & BDS Member
Dawn Rupp, LCCEF Grievance Officer, Classified Professional
Colin Vurek, LCCEF Vice President of Organizing 
Fiora Starchild-Wolf, LCCEF COPE Officer and Classified Professional
Marleena Pearson, LCCEF Communications Officer, Classified Professional
Skye Nguyen, Membership Officer Classified Professional
Mark Jordan, Chief Labor Delegate

LCCEA Representatives:

Adrienne Mitchell, LCCEA President and BDS member
Aryn Bartley, LCCEA Secretary
Marge Helzer, LCCEA Treasurer
Christina Howard, LCCEA Vice President for Career Technical Faculty
Peggy Oberstaller, LCCEA Vice President for Part-time Faculty
Rosa Lopez, LCCEA Vice President At-Large
Wendy Simmons, LCCEA Vice President for Learning Advancement
Kate Sullivan, LCCEA Vice President for Transfer Faculty
Gary Mort, faculty member & BDS Member

ASLCC Representatives: 

Nikhar Ramlakhan, Lane SGA President
Amaya Carricaburu, Lane SGA Vice-President
Shoichiro Kamata, Lane SGA Senator
Hina Tamura, Lane SGA Senator
Ilhan Haniff, Lane SGA Senator
Mussango Moneyang, Lane SGA Senator
Ryuto Susumu, Lane SGA Senator
Sawyer Smith, Lane SGA Senator
Owen Robles, Lane SGA Senator

*Policy Number  BP 245

Policy Category  Budget and Finance

Policy Name  Ending Fund Balance

Lane Community College shall maintain an unrestricted General Fund Ending Fund Balance equal to or greater than 10% of total expenditures and transfers.

The Ending Fund Balance target shall include the Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance (UEFB) as set by board policy BP 295. When the Ending Fund Balance falls to 9% or less, the college shall adopt a plan to replenish the Ending Fund Balance to 10% within three years. When the Ending Fund Balance exceeds 11%, balances in excess may be set aside for reserves or investment in one time expenditures.

If the total Ending Fund Balance (including restricted) falls to levels that require short-term borrowing, the levels set by this policy shall be automatically reviewed and adjusted as necessary.

LCC Faculty Colleagues,

I am writing with a few important, time sensitive updates for all faculty.

Contracted Faculty FTE and Implications for the Next Two Years

As reported in several LCCEA and faculty meetings, the College and LCCEA engaged in discussions regarding eight extra faculty positions that are required by a grievance settlement. These positions are in addition to the regular contractually required full-time faculty FTE. (Please note that there is no one-to-one correspondence between current faculty postings and these extra 8 positions nor the required contracted faculty FTE. )

Because the minimum faculty FTE is slated to decrease considerably in 2024-2025, postponing some of the extra positions from 23-24 to 24-25 would provide more continuity, stability in faculty FTE across the next two years and greater job security for both contracted and part-time faculty. 

The Administration declined, reserving their rights to make retrenchments, noting, “retrenchments allow the College to make structural adjustments in response to student needs” even though postponing extra positions positions would result in savings, mitigate pressure on the budget, provide stability to programs across campus, and reduce the need for retrenchments and program cuts due to budgetary needs in the next two+ years. 

In addition, the Administration declined all proposals to offer a retirement incentive this year – another fiscally responsible strategy which would have alleviated pressure from next year’s budget.

FY24 Budget

You likely recall a recent joint message from LCCEF, LCCEA, and Student Government citing concerns about the FY24 budget process. To date, (aside from the newly announced elimination of the health clinic), no information has been made available by the Administration about any plans for balancing the budget for next year even though the Board and its appointed Budget Committee are scheduled to have their first budget meeting next Wednesday, May 3 in accordance with Oregon public budget law. We remain deeply concerned about the lack of transparency as well as what could amount to effectively removing both campus stakeholders and the publicly elected Board of Education, who represent the people of Lane County, from any opportunities for meaningful input into the budget before the official (120+ page) budget document is drafted and presented for approval. This is unprecedented.

Planned Elimination of the Health Clinic

On Tuesday, Administrators informed the classified professionals and faculty working in the campus health clinic of their decision to close the clinic by or before the end of Fall term. While the meeting was taking place, the email to all campus went out with notification about the clinic and a note about “expanding” health services for students. 

To be clear, the Administration stated that their plan is to permanently close the clinic and to explore the possibility of outsourcing with third-party companies to provide telehealth. The clinic does currently provide some services via telehealth and is ready to expand those services if allowed, and could break even or generate net revenue if, for instance, all credit students were assessed the clinic fee to access telehealth and/or in-person services, which could also be extended to non-credit students.

The process of administration notification about retrenchments (i.e., layoffs) has a specific timeline required by our faculty contract, which includes meeting(s) with LCCEA to discuss alternatives over a period of at least thirty days. This did not take place. Faculty working in the clinic and LCCEA representatives, along with classified professionals, were invited to the meeting shortly before it began. For this reason, Christina Howard and the LCCEA Grievance Team will take up this issue in order to better protect affected faculty and all faculty in the future. 

Student Concerns About the Health Clinic

Student leaders are rallying to support the Health Clinic, a service they find critical. Please find below a message from Nikhar Ramlakhan, President of LCC’s Student Government. Nikhar is asking that faculty share the message with students in their classes and in Moodle announcements. Thank you for your support for students and for sharing this message from the Student Government leaders!

Message from Nikhar to share with your students —

Dear LCC Students,

The LCC Health Clinic may be shutting down at the end of the Fall 2023 term. I understand that the Health Clinic is important to many of you for its convenience and affordability. The Lane SGA and I are trying to prevent this decision and need your help. Please consider supporting us at the next Board Meeting on May 3rd at 6:00pm. If you are willing to offer your support in this matter, kindly fill out this form. Together, we can save the Health Clinic and ensure that it remains as a crucial service here on our campus.

Sincerely,

Nikhar Ramlakhan | Lane SGA President

— End message

Faculty Meeting– Monday at Noon

LCCEA is holding a meeting Monday, May 1, noon – 12:50 in 30/121 and on  Zoom.  The meeting is intended as an opportunity for faculty to share questions, concerns, ideas, etc. about the above issues and will not have a formal agenda. Action Team Co-Chair, Wendy Simmons, will have LCCEA t-shirts on hand for faculty members who wish to stop by to pick one up.

Solidarity Actions

1. Please consider wearing red to attend the LCC Board of Education meeting Wednesday, May 3 at 6:00 p.m. to support the student rally for the Health Clinic and to support our faculty and classified professional colleagues impacted by the planned clinic closure.
2. In order to show solidarity with our classified and faculty colleagues who work in the Health Clinic, LCCEF and LCCEA are asking classified and faculty members to wear union shirts and/or red to the May 5 Spring Conference, which will be held on campus in person all day next Friday, May 5.

Save the Date

The LCCEA Spring Term meeting for all members will be May 17 at 3:00 p.m.

My best,

Adrienne

LCC Faculty Colleagues,

Your LCCEA Bargaining Team met with the College again today to continue negotiation over impacts of Common Course Numbering* (i.e., CCN) and Working Conditions to take effect after our current MOA expires at the end of Spring. Thank you to the faculty who attended today’s session – your support is greatly appreciated!

In order to facilitate negotiations, your team provided updated proposals (below) on ground rules and Common Course Numbering to the College Team last Friday.

LCCEA proposed for CCN:

• Release time for statewide committee chairs for two terms instead of three, and
• A formula for curriculum development funding for affected courses. 

The College provided no response to either of these two proposals, continuing to maintain zero compensation for courses that must be revised or created due to state mandated CCN changes. The College stated they intend to make no changes to either of their proposals.

In addition, the College stated that they do not see the provisions in our Working Conditions proposal (such as water safety, ongoing use of high-quality air filters in the HVAC system, etc.) as a working conditions issue. We were also surprised to hear them state that they “do not have an interest in having a plan for things that may happen.” 

The College also made a “Digital Accessibility and Course Accessibility Continuity Plan”  proposal (below), which is largely irrelevant to the current negotiations. The proposal would create numerous new requirements that are not allowed by our current contract. Their proposal would also require each instructor to come up with their own plan in their syllabi to describe how teaching and learning would be conducted if the College declares an emergency, which is interesting given their stated lack of interest in negotiating any coordinated plan for public health emergencies.

Your LCCEA Team declined the College’s proposals.

Given the state of negotiations, LCCEA requested mediation, and the College agreed. The next step will be for a state-provided mediator to meet with the parties to attempt to reach agreement. 

Your LCCEA Bargaining Team

Cynthia Campos, OEA consultant

Sarah Erickson

Adrienne Mitchell

April Myler

Peggy Oberstaller

*CCN assigns the same course number to comparable courses across all community colleges and universities to streamline transfer from two- to four-year post-secondary educational institutions. The changes once determined by statewide committees must be implemented by each institution, including LCC.

LCC Faculty Colleagues,

Please find below a memo to the Board of Education and Budget Committee from Classified, Faculty, and Student leaders.

To: Board of Education Members and Budget Committee Members

From: LCCEF, LCCEA, and ASLCC

Re: Concerns about the FY24 Budget Process

CC: Stephanie Bulger

Esteemed Members of the Board of Education and Budget Committee,

We are writing and speaking to share our serious concerns about the FY24 budget process. 

The process was complicated by many staffing transitions and a lack of continuity in the budget and finance departments. (After the budget manager and Controller both resigned in May 2022, neither position was filled on a permanent basis until a new Controller began in late January. The budget manager position has only just been posted. In addition, the VPFO position has not been filled for many months and has not had consistent, permanent staffing since January 2020.)

The Budget Development Subcommittee (BDS) and College Council both approved budget balancing scenarios with 2% and 3.5% tuition increase but did not consider prior to your April Board meeting a scenario with a 5% tuition increase. For this reason, stakeholders were surprised by the presentation to the Board, implying that the 5% tuition increase was based on a BDS recommendation.

Specific concerns about the budget process include but are not limited to:

1. FY22 audit was not completed until February when it is typically publicized in November or December at the latest. The audit contains a note* about spending that exceeded the parameters of Oregon budget law in Fund VIII, which allows spending variations of 10%. No explanations from management are available to explain the expenditures in excess of the 10% allowed by state law.
2. The Budget Development Subcommittee had to cancel several meetings because administrators could not provide the data necessary for the BDS to do its work.
3. Data provided to BDS was erroneous. For example, one figure provided indicated that $1 in tuition increase would amount to revenue of $200,000, but that figure was 19% above the correct amount.
4. The process was also delayed substantially because the departmental budget planning which is scheduled to take place in Fall term each year still had not taken place when the BDS finalized its work in March.
5. A dearth of information about the budget has been presented to the Board of Education.
6. The tuition scenarios presented to the Board of Education at the April 4 meeting were NOT developed nor approved by the BDS nor by College Council. The presentation to the Board states that the 5% tuition recommendation was based on the BDS recommendation, consultation with student government leaders, etc. The 5% increase was a surprise to all stakeholder groups. The BDS and College Council, including student government representatives, did approve two balanced budget scenarios with 2% and 3.5% tuition increases depending on state funding level. These scenarios approved by BDS and College Council include not only a tuition increase but also expense reductions that comprise the vast majority of funds needed to achieve a balanced budget. This disconnect between the presentation to the Board and the actual approved  consensus budgets reduces stakeholder confidence in the administration’s investment in our shared governance system and raises questions about accountability.

7. Managers have informed the BDS that changes are made to the budget after the BDS completes its work and after the Board has reviewed and approved the budget each year, calling into question the important, statutory oversight role of the Board of Education.
8. For instance, when the BDS, College Council and Board of Education have, as is typical in past years, approved a budget with a figure for decreasing staffing expenses (i.e., not filling vacant positions), managers have informed BDS members that the vacant positions are NOT removed from the budget. This exacerbates pressure on the budget and virtually guarantees that each subsequent year will begin with substantial projected deficits.
9. Long-term systemic issues with the LCC budget such as Titan Court, which drains $500,000 – $700,000 from the General Fund, have not been addressed.
10. There is no plan for restoration of the Ending Fund balance even though the BDS and College Council approved a transfer to the general fund in order to address the depletion of the General Fund Ending Fund balance. It is unlikely that LCC will comply with the Board’s ending fund balance policy.
11. Frequent changes in publicly presented information about actual expenditures from FY22 reduce confidence in data presented to the Board and more generally to the public. See table below. 

FY 22 Accounting Change impacts
Date of reporting of Actuals	Report Source	Fund I net reported	Fund IX net reported	Total net reported
11/30/2022	Report to Board	$782,452	$1,286,082	$2,068,534
1/4/2023	Report to Board	$218,132	$1,286,082	$1,504,214
2/10/2023	Audit Statement	$182,470	$1,273,870	$1,456,340

12. LIkewise, changes to projections for FY23 and FY24 changed frequently and substantially throughout the budget development process.
13. Historically, budget deficit projections have proven to be erroneous, contributing to scarcity thinking and short-sighted decision making. For instance, in January 2022, it was projected that FY22 would end with a $2.9M deficit (See O22 on 1.22.2022 tab. However, just five months later FY22 actuals were documented with a net positive of $324,915 in Fund I and $1.3M in Fund IX (See FY22 actual column in Board Budget Update at the end of this message)
14. There are unresolved questions regarding the appropriate use of Bond funds and insufficient deferred maintenance projects completed with Bond funds, in contradiction to our collective promise to the Lane County community in passing the Bond.
15. While the Board did vote on a tuition increase based on the Administration’s presentation at the April 4 meeting, no information has been publicly presented about how, even after the increase, the remaining $3,178,215 deficit will be addressed.

For all of these reasons, we cannot in good confidence support the budget planned for FY24. We urge you as the Board of Education and Budget Committee to ensure that you are provided all details of the planned budget before the budget document is printed. Because no information has been presented publicly about how the remaining $3,178,215 budget gap will be addressed, it will be critical for the Board and Budget Committee to take a more active role in ascertaining and reviewing the proposed changes. Ensuring that detailed information is presented publicly for your consideration is crucial to maintaining fiduciary responsibility and accountability to the voters of Lane County.

Sincerely,

LCCEF Representatives:

Frankie Cocanour, LCCEF President and Classified Professional

Buck Potter, LCCEF Vice President of Labor Relations, Classified Professional & BDS Member

Dawn Rupp, LCCEF Grievance Officer, Classified Professional

Colin Vurek, LCCEF Vice President of Organizing 

Fiora Starchild-Wolf, LCCEF COPE Officer and Classified Professional

Marleena Pearson, LCCEF Communications Officer, Classified Professional

Tracy Weimer, LCCEF Recording Officer, Classified Professional

LCCEA Representatives:

Adrienne Mitchell, LCCEA President and BDS member

Aryn Bartley, LCCEA Secretary

Marge Helzer, LCCEA Treasurer

Christina Howard, LCCEA Vice President for Career Technical Faculty

Peggy Oberstaller, LCCEA Vice President for Part-time Faculty

Rosa Lopez, LCCEA Vice President At-Large

Wendy Simmons, LCCEA Vice President for Learning Advancement

Kate Sullivan, LCCEA Vice President for Transfer Faculty

Gary Mort, faculty member & BDS Member

Lane SGA Representatives:

Nikhar Ramlakhan, President 

Amaya Carricaburu, Vice President & BDS member

Ilhan Haniff, Senate Seat 3

Ryuto Susumu, Senate Seat 5 

Owen Robles, Senate Seat 7

* Note 10, p. 49 of the official FY22 audit states, “The College budgets all College funds required to be budgeted in accordance with the Oregon Local Budget Law on a Non-GAAP budgetary basis. The Board legally adopts the budget before July 1 through a Board resolution. The resolution authorizing appropriations for each fund sets the level by which expenditures cannot legally exceed appropriations. The level of control established by the resolution for each fund is at the major expense function level (i.e. Instruction, Community Services, etc.). Appropriations lapse at year-end. During 2021-22, the College overexpended the Community Services appropriation in the Special Revenue Fund by $1,365,170, the Student Services appropriation in the Special Revenue Fund by $204,064 and the Plant Additions appropriation in the Special Revenue Fund by $249,278.”