CHAPARRAL

Search for an article from Chaparral

 

You First

by Mike Allen, Associate Professor of Mathematics

 

You don't have to be a campus politics junkie to know about the dire budget situation we face.  Proposals are flying left and right about how to deal with the significant shortfall we anticipate for the 2003-04 fiscal year.  However, when we are talking about the need to cut multiple millions of dollars from our budget, debates over the merits of our funding a literary magazine, or flying administrators to Study Abroad sites to "observe" are small potatoes.

  Vice President Larry Serot should be praised for laying out a detailed plan of what he sees as a possible solution.  Larry's "Solution" claims to work the small-potato angle for all it is worth:  proposed cuts in supplies, travel budgets, advertising, institutional memberships, and the like are included.  Also included are more large cuts in classes offered (read: adjunct lay-offs), as well as cuts in student workers and relief employees.  Also included are tapping of surplus revenues from the Professional Development Center and rents from the about-to-be-acquired medical center next to the ACTC.

  However, he claims, this is still millions short of what is needed.

  So, in addition, his solution calls for any and all increases in the cost of medical benefits to be passed on to the covered employees!

  Wait, it gets better.  No employees would get any increase in pay due to them for advancing in step/column, nor would there be any reclassification/reorganization for classified employees.  In other words, people who merit raises wouldn't get them.  To top it off, he also wants to reduce salaries across the board for all full-time employees.

  Speaking for myself, I can't stomach his proposal to trash the college's long-held commitment to allow employees to choose the best medical insurance option for themselves and their families, without having to ask if they can afford it.  I especially fear for my fellow employees who earn far less than I do and can't shrug off being asked to pay part of their premiums, along with higher co-pays and prescription costs.  This issue is the "third rail" of GCC politics and contributed in part to the recent removal from office of two of our trustees.  Surely Larry isn't suicidal, right?

  So, what about freezing step and column increases?  I don't know who gave him the impression that this was something acceptable to the faculty.  A general reduction in salaries for full-time employees at least maintains each one's relative position.  But withholding increases earned through extra study and gained experience not only unfairly withdraws the incentive for doing so, but it distorts the relative positions of full-time faculty.  Likewise, not allowing classified employees to be paid for the work they are actually doing, through the reclassification process, is exploitation pure and simple.

  That leaves us with his proposal for a general salary cut for full-time employees.  Sparing cuts to part-time faculty is in keeping with the spirit of the Part-Time Equity funding the college has enjoyed the last couple of years, and this progressivism should be encouraged.  However, it should be extended in the other direction as well.  In order for a full-timer salary cut to be accepted, management should cut to a greater degree their bloated salaries.  As Larry's proposal would narrow the gap between full-time and part-time faculty, this would narrow the gap between full-time faculty and management, which in recent years has exceeded traditional amounts.

  Such a move would also establish Larry's credibility.  Many people on campus suspect that there are hidden reserves, underbudgeted income, overbudgeted expenses and the like lurking in the college budget.  If there aren't, cutting his own (and his colleagues') salaries would help signal that.  It is also important for credibility that this cut be done before cuts are demanded of non-management employees, rather than issued as promises for the future.

  Thus, I call on the administration to cut its own high salaries five percent—effective July 1, 2003.    Since no one knows how many years Sacramento's budget woes will drag on, this may not be the last salary cut made around here.  It should be the first, however. &

 

 

[back to top]