Click here to view attachments sent with this email.

Dear Colleagues:

We normally do not become involved in or respond to e-mail exchanges among college employee groups. Because we were not contacted and provided an opportunity for a discussion before this e-mail was distributed, we are responding to correct inaccuracies.

1. IA Executive Board Statement: When the four Parent Child Workshops had their funded course offering dramatically reduced, Trustees were told that Sacramento would support only limited activities related to parent education. When the IA and the PCW called the Chancellor's Office, we found that this was not the case. Programs similar to ours but far more generous were funded in other Districts. The PCW provided the Trustees with this information but it was ignored.

Facts: The Parent Child Workshops (PCWs) are 501(c)3 non-profit corporations. There are four PCWs: Oaks, Lou Grant, Starr King, and San Marcos. They function independently from SBCC. SBCC does not own or run these PCWs. The College is not responsible and cannot use public money to subsidize the costs, personnel or other costs, related to running the parent cooperative preschools of a 501(c)3 non-profit and to the administrative duties required to run the child care centers.

The four PCWs did not have “their funded course offering dramatically reduced.” Until fall 2010, the Continuing Education parent education course was taught at the PCWs during the fall, winter and spring Continuing Education terms and included for each student one lecture per week of 2.5 hours and one lab per week of 3 hours. Beginning in fall 2010, the course includes for each student one lecture per week of 2.5 hours and one lab per week of 4 hours. A lab hour per week was added to the course. The parent education course continues to be taught during the fall, winter and spring Continuing Education terms. The Continuing Education students are the parents not the children.

The non-credit instructors teaching at the four PCWs are hired and paid by SBCC. These instructors, although teaching non-credit, have been paid on the same salary schedule 10 as credit faculty and have been tenured. In June 2002, their contract was changed from 80% to 100% (see attachment 1 for additional information). Because they teach non-credit courses, these positions cannot be counted towards the college’s full-time faculty obligation. This was confirmed with the State Chancellor’s Office.

The PCWs did not provide at any time information about similar programs funded by other community colleges in California. When asked if they know of any other such programs funded by other California community colleges, the Continuing Education faculty teaching at the PCWs answered negatively. If such information exists now about the same type of programs and partnerships with 501(c)3 non-profit corporations being funded by other California Community Colleges, please provide it.

Over a period of more than a year, we have had many meetings, discussions and consultation with the SBCC Continuing Education faculty teaching at the four PCWs, members of the parent boards running the four PCWs and their legal counsel to develop, for the first time, an agreement with each PCW that delineates the roles and responsibilities of SBCC and of each of the four PCWs.

We value the Parent Child Workshops and acknowledge the positive contributions that these programs have made to the local community. We want to continue to be a partner with each of the four PCWs in terms of providing the Continuing Education parenting education classes. However, we need do so in a fiscally responsible manner that complies with current State regulations and laws and consistent with the College mission.

We attached very important information - Attachment 1 - which is critical to understanding the relationship between the college and the four PCWs. We urge you to review it.

2. IA Executive Board Statement: When the Adult Education program was cut dramatically, the Trustees were given a list of classes that were to be eliminated because of "new regulations." However when Linda Fairly, former Vice President of Continuing Education, followed up with inquiries on the status of these class offerings, they were found to be completely eligible for state funding. An outraged Ms. Fairly brought this to the attention of the Trustees but no action was taken.

Facts: The Adult Education program was not “cut dramatically.” Of the funding for SBCC reduced by the State in 2009-10, $2.6 million was a permanent reduction in the College’s base funding, which resulted in what is known as the workload reduction requirement, which meant that the College should have reduced its full-time equivalent students (FTES) by a number equivalent to the $2.6 million cut in our base apportionment funding. Our FTES should have been in 2009-10 what it was in 2008-09 minus the $2.6 million reduction.  In September 2009, we were informed about this $2.6 million permanent, ongoing reduction. The effort was made to distribute targets for section reductions equitably between credit and non-credit. As a result, the Continuing Education Division cancelled approximately 90 sections during fall 2009 of the over 700 sections scheduled; a total of 613 sections were conducted in fall 2009 of which 536 (87%) were state-supported and tuition-free to students.

Overall, as a college, we have not actually reduced our total course sections to meet the $2.6 million reduction in our base funding for enrollments. On the contrary, in the end, we enrolled 1,158 more full-time equivalents students in 2009-10 than the State is funding us. This was partly achieved as a result of the great collaboration from faculty who agreed to enroll more students in some of the existing sections.  However, this large additional enrollment over our base funding could not have been achieved without many more additional sections beyond the level we should have had to be at the State funded cap. We have served more students and offered more sections than funded because we wanted to meet as much as possible the unprecedented demand for what we offer as a college and help as many students as possible.

The total number of Continuing Education classes offered in 2009-10 remained high at 2,205 total class sections. In 2010-11, we will offer a total of at least 2,000 class sections, of which 85% are state-supported and tuition-free to students.

The 20 classes (see below) that were previously offered tuition-free which became fee-based in spring 2010 were not eligible for state funding. The State Chancellor’s Office denied the approval of many courses submitted by Continuing Education to the State in 2004. The attached 2004 and 2005 communications from the State Chancellor’s Office to former Vice President Lynda Fairly (attachments 2.2 and 2.3) clearly indicate the courses which were denied approval and the reasons for their denial.

In terms of the statement that recently, within the past year, Ms. Fairly, who has been retired for about four years, found evidence that these classes were “completely eligible for state funding” and that she provided evidence to the Board in support of this statement, Ms. Fairly presented no such evidence. The State Chancellor’s Office confirmed again that recipe cooking classes, for example, as well as others are not eligible for State funding.

The 20 courses are: literature and poetry (3), glass and jewelry making (3) and recipe cooking (14). The complete list of courses follows:
● The Best American Essays
● The Austen Mystique: Why Jane Rules
● Poetry, Prose and Plays
● Intermediate and Advanced Glass Fusing
● Jewelry, Micronics and Beyond
● Multi-Level Glass Fusing
● BBQ’s and more
● Soup, Salad & Dessert
● Cake Decorating (Beginning and Advanced)
● Celebrate spring, Chinese Cooking
● Fresh Dishes from Vietnam
● Indian Vegetarian
● Salute to Sushi
● Third Generation Italian Cooking
● Simple, Sensational, Seasonal Cooking for spring
● Spring, Light & Elegant
● Global Vegetarian Cuisine
● Healthy Foods for Children
● Survival Cooking for Singles
● Whole Grains, the Good Carbs

The tuition charged for these classes recovers the direct cost only. To minimize the costs to students, the college subsidizes the indirect costs. The tuition for these classes ranges from $13/student to $97/student depending on the number of hours the class meets and other associated direct costs.

In addition, even for courses that are approved by the Chancellor's Office, the critical issue is whether the courses "meet minimum conditions for claiming State funding or apportionment." The attached legal advisory issued in 2005 (attachment 2.4) explains these criteria.

Again, we attached important background information - attachments 2.1 - about the current status of our Continuing Education program, which we urge you to review.

3. IA Executive Board Statement: In similar manner, the greatly celebrated and highly successful dual-enrollment music ensembles that join accomplished credit students with experienced and talented non-credit students were deemed inappropriate by the administration based on state regulations. Again, independent review of state guidelines and contact with the Chancellor’s office found no evidence of such inappropriateness, but there have been no questions raised by the Trustees, even though the new enrollment procedures adopted by the District have actually increased the cost of these programs.

Facts: The State Chancellor’s Office confirmed - see attached e-mail, attachment 3 - that the four courses were not appropriate to be offered as non-credit music courses for older adults. The four courses are: Concert Choir, Orchestra (Symphony), Concert Band and Monday Night Madness. These courses are continuing on the credit side as one-unit courses. Those individuals, who do not choose to enroll in the one credit, are given the option to participate as volunteers, without paying for the one credit. An attachment to this e-mail contains the e-mail from the State Chancellor’s Office and background about these four courses.

4. IA Executive Board Statement: When the District tried to divert Foundation funding for the Center for Sustainability, saying that it was no longer a priority, they were forced by public outcry to restore monies to this highly successful and popular program. Where were the Trustees? Were they unaware of this? Why didn't they follow up on the public outcry and confront the District about this ill-conceived attempt? They should represent the community, not act as apologists for the District.

Facts: The Center for Sustainability needs a defined business plan to become financially sustainable in the long-run. This was discussed with the director of the Center, the Academic Senate, college administrators and the Foundation for SBCC in late spring 2010. This discussion was prompted by the need for specific information - goals, objectives, associated activities and costs - without which the Foundation for SBCC cannot successfully solicit money from donors or apply for grants on behalf of the Center. College administrators, faculty and Foundation staff are working with the Center for Sustainability to develop viable and specific proposals to solicit funds from donors to help cover ongoing operational expenses. While the Center has received a large grant from the Orfalea Foundation to help local k-12 schools start and maintain organic gardens, this money does not help with the ongoing operational expenses of the Center. These ongoing operational expenses include release time every semester for the director of the Center, a half-time assistant to the director, and other operational expenses (i.e., supplies). The total operational expenses amount to about $50,000/year. The college has supported and continues to support from general fund the release time for the director of the Center. In spite of its popularity, to date, donors have not given money to support the ongoing operational expenses of the Center. Opportunities for funding through potential donors or grants are being investigated to cover the ongoing operational expenses of the Center, and to fund new initiatives.

5. IA Executive Board Statement: The board has repeatedly accepted misleading budget figures from the District. Deferred payments were misrepresented: accrual accounting and cash accounting were inappropriately mixed to give a misleading picture of our ending balances. Those knowledgeable in reading financial reports should have picked up on this gross abuse of accounting techniques. However the Trustees - even those with decades of board experience - did not question the numbers they were given.

Facts: All fiscal and budget information and analyses are brought to the College Planning Council, to the Board Fiscal Committee and to the Board Study Sessions. This is regularly discussed in great detail.  We conduct budget forums every semester. There is maximum transparency on all budget matters and information. Board members discuss and ask many questions during committee and study session meetings. All Board meetings are public. Some of the members of the IA Executive Board attend these meetings regularly and are engaged in discussions. Their questions have been answered. The information presented reflects the reality of the state budget and its various iterations, as well as college expenditures. There is no “gross abuse of accounting techniques” and there is no “misleading picture of our ending balances.” We have qualified professionals in our Accounting office who do a great job for the college. The positive audits we have had year after year and the commendation we received in the accreditation evaluation report on our successful fiscal management speak on their own.

6. IA Executive Board Statement: At the Board meeting of September 23, the Board was asked to vote on the adopted budget. The budget increased the transfer to the equipment fund by $3,700,000. Trustee Alexander asked for an itemization. She said that if money was to be taken away from our student programs, she wanted to know what it was for. There was no itemization! She proposed an amendment to the budget, leaving this money in the General Fund until we had a budget from Sacramento and we could see what choices needed to be made. There was no second to her motion for amendment.

Facts:  There was consultation and discussion of the proposed adjustments for the 2010-11 adopted budget.  Following our normal consultation processes, these adjustments were discussed at College Planning Council and at the Board Study Session prior to the Board meeting where the adopted budget was brought forward for approval. Money is not taken away from students. The college needs to have resources to replace equipment and to ensure that our students have the state-of-the-art technology which makes the education they receive at our college competitive and valuable. Please see agendas and minutes of the College Planning Council meetings and the Board committee meetings and study sessions, all available on the college web site.

It should be noted that the college budgeting process for the last 30 years has included transferring funds from the ending cash balances to the construction and equipments funds.  It is essential to allocate and save money to deal with the ongoing maintenance needs for our facilities, replace our equipment, and ensure that our students and employees have the physical and technical resources needed for their education and our college functions and operations. In 2008-09 and 2009-10 we have transferred only minimal amounts to the construction fund and equipment fund because of the extreme fiscal times we have been through. We have drawn down the balances available in these funds.  For 2010-11, we discussed the need to replenish these funds to ensure that our infrastructure can be maintained and that our equipment needs (general equipment and technology) are met and provided for.

Starting in 2008-09, we have implemented a revised program review process that ensures that resources are allocated through a collaborative and transparent process. In spite of challenging fiscal times, we have planned well and as a result of the program review process, we were able to fund a significant number of the requests for equipment and facilities that the departments submitted in 2009-10. We have also funded the routine and non-routine equipment requests exactly as they were submitted by departments. The decisions of what requests to make were entirely done by the faculty and staff in the departments. The resource requests were ranked by the departments themselves and then by the consultation groups. All constituencies have been consulted and involved in the resource allocation process and will continue to be.

In 2009-10, SBCC was funded by the state for 15,420 CA resident full-time equivalent students. In 2009-10, SBCC enrolled 16,578 CA resident full-time equivalent students (FTES) - 1,158 of which were unfunded enrollments for which the college would have received $5.2 million from the State if the funds were available. As mentioned in prior presentations and meetings, the expenditures to accommodate more students are not equal to the unfunded enrollments.  This is the amount of money the State should have paid us given the number of FTES we served. The sections that were reduced were decided by each department and faculty in the departments.

We have worked hard to have reserves that ensure that we can pay our employees and fixed costs, continue to innovate and have excellent programs, and offset state budget cuts to the programs that support the neediest students in spite of:

- no payment from the State for the current fiscal year because the State has not passed a budget until October 8. The only payment we received from the state in July 2010 was the delayed payment owed to the college for the last fiscal year 2009-10. The budget that was finally approved on October 8, 2010 for 2010-11 brings additional delays in State payments from one fiscal year to the next; effective fiscal management and good reserves are more important and more needed than ever;
- almost 10% reduction in the State funding - one-time and ongoing - in the last two years;
- delayed State payments that started in fiscal year 2008-09 even when the State passes a budget. $10 million per year are now paid late, in the next fiscal year, by the State; as noted above, in 2010-11 an additional amount is added to the delayed payments;
- in 2009-10, for six out of the 12 months, the total monthly expenditures exceeded the total monthly revenue received - we functioned seamlessly because we have used our cash reserves that we have built on purpose to ensure our fiscal stability and everyone’s paycheck on time;
- programs such as Extended Opportunities Programs and Services (EOPS), Disabled Student Programs and Services (DSPS), and Matriculation have been cut by almost 50% on a permanent basis - we want to preserve them for the future.

SBCC has not furloughed or laid off any of its permanent employees or needed to borrow. Twenty community college districts have borrowed over 140 million to deal with cash shortfall for 2010-11 alone. We want to keep innovating for the benefit of our students. We want to serve more students than the State is funding. Our budget must provide the financial margin for innovation and progress.

Attachment 6 provides a list of some of the media coverage between July 2009 and July 2010 documenting the much more severe reductions to programs and personnel made by community colleges up and down the State. Many colleges have made deeper and more drastic cuts than SBCC, cutting complete sessions and programs. Butte College, for example, cut its entire program for older students. Many colleges have laid off or furloughed regular employees

7. IA Executive Board Statement: This fall, facing a serious electoral challenge to the incumbent Trustees, the college hired a PR consultant, to be paid $24,000 out of the General Fund. This money could have been used to fund the tutoring hours that had been eliminated in the last budget. In fact, this money would have paid for over two thousand hours of tutoring for our students. The Trustees approved this expenditure without questioning it.

Facts: Mary Rose was not hired because of an electoral challenge and has nothing to do with the election campaign. Her engagement was in place before it was known that there will be a challenged election.

Our ability to effectively communicate with and inform the community about what we have to offer them is important. In spite of what we believe have been effective efforts to do so over the past academic year through open forums, articles in the media, e-mail communications, many face-to-face individual and group meetings, the feedback we received from some individuals was that the communication in some areas was not as effective as it could have been. As such, we sought to improve the college's effectiveness in this area.

We are an educational institution, we want to learn and do better.  The Board discussed this topic in study sessions prior to the July 15, 2010 Board meeting when Mary’s contract was approved.

We engaged Mary Rose to assist college staff in the following areas:
- overall communication planning
- training of staff in communication techniques and strategies
- coordination of communication between various college units and the Foundation for SBCC
- messaging approaches and content development

Mary was hired because she has proven skills and expertise in these areas, she already knows the college well because of her prior consulting engagements with the college (prior SBCC presidents hired her for a similar consulting before she was hired for the Measure V work) and she knows this community very well.  The consulting agreement is not to exceed $24,000. This does not mean that $24,000 will be spent necessarily, rather this is a maximum amount set for this engagement.

Regarding tutoring support, throughout the last two years we have continued to provide student tutoring in spite of the State budget cuts. We have made some reductions as a result of the budget cuts and great fiscal uncertainty but continued to support students. For 2010-11 we have restored the reductions to the tutoring budget because we have been able to achieve a stable and solid fiscal status for our college through the efforts and collaboration of all of our colleagues.

To conclude, the demand for what we offer - an exceptional, affordable education and support services - has never been greater. We are serving more students with fewer resources and are proud to be able to do so. Please be assured that during these times of unprecedented fiscal stress, we are making every effort to make decisions in the best interest of our students, our college and the community we serve. These decisions have been and will continue to be reached through the normal college’s consultation processes.

As always, we continue to be available to discuss and answer any questions that may arise. Our preference, and we would expect yours, is to have such discussions prior to conclusions being drawn. We invite you to contact us directly if you have questions or would like additional information or clarification.

Dr. Andreea Serban, Superintendent/President
Ignacio Alarcon, President Academic Senate
Liz Auchincloss, President CSEA
Dr. Ofelia Arellano, Vice President, Continuing Education
Joe Sullivan, Vice President, Business Services
Dr. Jack Friedlander, Executive Vice President, Educational Programs


>>> SBCC Instructors Association <sbccia@gmail.com> 10/4/2010 11:13 PM >>>
*Concerning the Endorsement of the IA Executive Board*

As a follow-up to last week's Forum for the Candidates in the upcoming Board
of Trustees election, your Instructors' Association Executive Board would
like to share with you the concerns that led us to the Endorsement, provided
earlier this month and re-printed here.

ENDORSEMENT: The Executive Board of the Instructors' Association endorses
Peter Haslund, Marty Blum and Marsha Croninger for election to the SBCC
Board of Trustees and recommends to those faculty eligible to vote their
careful consideration of these candidates. Further the Executive Board,
believing that both Kay Alexander and Lisa Macker are well qualified to lead
SBCC in a positive direction, support the candidacy of both and urge the
faculty's thoughtful consideration.

Your Instructors’ Association Executive Board has a regular opportunity to
observe, investigate, and intervene on behalf of faculty across a broad
spectrum of college activity.  Members of the Association elect the Board to
do just that, relying upon the Executive Board’s best judgment to act in the
faculty’s interests.  Over the past two years, the Executive Board has
become increasingly concerned by a series of actions on the part of the
College administration and the apparent lack of critical oversight on the
part of the Board of Trustees.  For example:

* *

When the four Parent Child Workshops had their funded course offering
dramatically reduced, Trustees were told that Sacramento would support only
limited activities related to parent education. When the IA and the PCW
called the Chancellor's Office, we found that this was not the case.
Programs similar to ours but far more generous were funded in other
Districts. The PCW provided the Trustees with this information but it was
ignored.

When the Adult Education program was cut dramatically, the Trustees were
given a list of  classes that were to be eliminated because of "new
regulations." However when Linda Fairly, former Vice President of Continuing
Education, followed up with inquiries on the status of these class
offerings, they were found to be completely eligible for state funding. An
outraged Ms. Fairly brought this to the attention of the Trustees but no
action was taken.

In similar manner, the greatly celebrated and highly successful
dual-enrollment music ensembles that join accomplished credit students with
experienced and talented non-credit students were deemed inappropriate by
the administration based on state regulations.  Again, independent review of
state guidelines and contact with the Chancellor’s office found no evidence
of such inappropriateness, but there have been no questions raised by the
Trustees, even though the new enrollment procedures adopted by the District
have actually increased the cost of these programs.

When the District tried to divert Foundation funding for the Center for
Sustainability, saying that it was no longer a priority, they were forced by
public outcry to restore monies to this highly successful and popular
program. Where were the Trustees? Were they unaware of this? Why didn't they
follow up on the public outcry and confront the District about this
ill-conceived attempt? They should represent the community, not act as
apologists for the District.

The board has repeatedly accepted misleading budget figures from the
District. Deferred payments were misrepresented: accrual accounting and cash
accounting were inappropriately mixed to give a misleading picture of our
ending balances. Those knowledgeable in reading financial reports should
have picked up on this gross abuse of accounting techniques. However the
Trustees - even those with decades of board experience - did not question
the numbers they were given.

At the Board meeting of September 23, the Board was asked to vote on the
adopted budget. The budget increased the transfer to the equipment fund by
$3,700,000. Trustee Alexander asked for an itemization. She said that if
money was to be taken away from our student programs, she wanted to know
what it was for. There was no itemization! She proposed an amendment to the
budget, leaving this money in the General Fund until we had a budget from
Sacramento and we could see what choices needed to be made. There was no
second to her motion for amendment.

This fall, facing a serious electoral challenge to the incumbent Trustees,
the college hired a PR consultant, to be paid $24,000 out of the General
Fund. This money could have been used to fund the tutoring hours that had
been eliminated in the last budget. In fact, this money would have paid for
over two thousand hours of tutoring for our students. The Trustees approved
this expenditure without questioning it.

Believing that the Board of Trustees and the President of the College should
provide a balance to one another in college decision-making and concerned
that our incumbent Trustees have failed to exercise their real authority in
this regard, members of the IA Executive Board have concluded that change is
necessary.

For this reason, your IA Executive Board has unanimously decided to endorse
the election of long time SBCC colleague Peter Haslund, former Mayor Marty
Blum, and Marsha Croninger to the Board of Trustees.  In contrast, given
Trustee Kay Alexander’s attempts to hold the administration accountable, the
Executive Board has chosen not to endorse either her or challenger Lisa
Macker, believing that either candidate, if elected, will serve in the best
interests of the SBCC community.  Your IA Board therefore supports the
candidacy of both.

We make this recommendation with confidence that all faculty will exercise
their voting rights based upon their individual judgment and consideration
of the merits of the candidates.

*The SBCC Instructors' Association Executive Board*: *Cornelia Alsheimer,
Christopher Bates,*

*Gary Carroll, Mark Ferrer, Tom Garey, Erin O'Connor, Gail Reynolds, Sally
Saenger*

*Lynne Elisabeth Stark*