Our Mission: LCCEA engages in collective action to ensure an equitable learning and working environment and advocates for social justice and systemic change for the public good.
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.
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:
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.
The Budget Development Subcommittee had to cancel several meetings because administrators could not provide the data necessary for the BDS to do its work.
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.
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.
A dearth of information about the budget has been presented to the Board of Education.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
LIkewise, changes to projections for FY23 and FY24 changed frequently and substantially throughout the budget development process.
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)
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.
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.”
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. Meetings are on Thursdays at 4:15pm in CEN 402 and on Zoom and open to faculty to attend. Thank you to the faculty members who attended this week to show support!
We discussed ground rules again but have not yet agreed on all points.
The College provided a modestly updated CCN proposal (below) that:
Does provide that the MOA is retroactive to Summer 2022 as we had proposed; but
Continues to include language that would restrict faculty speech, which is an unlawful and therefore prohibited proposal;
Provides stipends for faculty serving on or chairing statewide committees as they had previously proposed; and
Continues to provide no compensation for curriculum revisions or new course development required by common course numbering.
In addition, the College had no response to our Working Conditions MOA proposal that we presented last week.
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.
Contract Facts, brought to you by your Association
Workplace and Office Privacy & Personal Life
Privacy
In the workplace, faculty members have a right to privacy regarding their mailbox, office, email, phones, computer, and personal items. Except in the event of an emergency, faculty members’ privacy must be respected.
What is an “emergency”
An emergency is defined as a situation that presents physical threats to people or property or situations that present a substantial legal or financial risk to the College. In such emergencies, a third party must participate when privacy is breached.
Personal Life
Faculty members have a right to privacy independent from the workplace. A faculty member’s personal life “is not an appropriate concern of the College unless it affects the member’s job performance.”
Contract Facts is a periodic announcement about faculty rights and benefits. If you have contract questions or suggestions for topics, please email lccea@lanecc.edu
The LCCEA Membership Committee held a Faculty Appreciation event at the Mary Spilde Downtown Center on Thursday April 6. Faculty grabbed a cup of coffee and delicious pastry and some conversation, and students joined in the fun, modeling LCCEA swag.
Thanks to LCCEA Membership Chair Wendy Simmons committee members Aryn Bartley, Gerry Meenaghan, Adrienne Mitchell and Kevin Steeves
