ACE Remarks to Board at 3/3/ meeting.

ACE is looking for answers to the alleged budget problems of the district.

but we get little help information so we are here to ask some direct questions.

1) What does “structural deficit” mean?

The deficit appears in the budget only because each year it’s created from

the previous year’s budget. It does not exist in actual performance. Budgets

are only projections, fairy tales, if you will. The actual budget performance

has balanced and has, in recent years, provided a surplus.

2) In a time when the District cuts instructional supply budgets, how can

the

same District afford brand new flat screen computers for the District’s

offices? If it is the allocation model that allows so much money to the district

that they can afford such luxury, then how close are we, after paying Dr.

Robert Jensen $22,000 to consult on a new allocation model , how close are we to

implementation?

3) In a time when the District cautions faculty in the number of syllabuses

they can print, why would the District choose to spend its money on remodeling

the HR Department? Shouldn’t the central services budget be driven by the

colleges, a bottom up approach, where the colleges decide what services they

want to purchase from central services and how much they’re willing to pay.

4) Are we trying to discover where the overspending is occurring? If we

accept the district’s “fairy tale” that we are overspending, it clearly isn’t

faculty salaries. We’ve sunk to the bottom as the most recent CFT study

reflects. It isn’t on health benefits – we are right in the middle compared to the

state. So where is it?

5) Are board members, the chancellor, vice chancellor and two presidents

taking the co-payments and higher deductibles in their blue shield coverage as

faculty, and are Board members? In fact, could the $100,000 budget for Board

medical coverage be reduced by some of the Board voluntarily giving up coverage

if they are already covered by other employment?

6) Why, in a time of cutting pennies from instructional supply budgets and

predicting even worse next year, are we adopting a policy to pay for air and

hotel travel for new hire candidate second level interviews? Isn’t this another

luxury that could wait and reallocate that money to chemistry supplies or lab

assistants?