Present:  Sue Lorimer, Nancy Silva, Faculty members

An Open Forum was held at ARC for faculty to discuss the impact of the Governor’s recent budget cuts to higher education, specifically a 100% cut for Faculty and Staff Development funds. The meeting was lead by Sue Lorimer and faculty member Nancy Silva, who is Chair of the Faculty & Staff Development Committee in the Academic Senate.  The purpose of the meeting was to inform faculty members and to organize a “grass roots” effort to mobilized the faculty to take action in the following two areas:
· Write letters to legislators, delineating the positive benefits individual faculty members have experienced through staff development programs.  Faculty was encouraged to make these letters personal and specific. Faculty members suggested that letters also include “group” training sessions attended (i.e., “Crisis Intervention ,” “Health & Safety Seminar,”  “New Faculty Orientation,” etc.)
· Organize a faculty team that would speak to legislators about their concerns. (Nancy Silva informed the group that the Academic Senate is not allowed to do any lobbying itself).

Silva explained that the perception by the legislature and Governor is that these conferences and seminars amount to nothing but “fluff and frivolity, with instructors vacationing in the Bahamas.”

The President of ARC addressed the group at the beginning of the meeting.  He stated that Faculty and staff development is “really at the heart of why this institution stands head and shoulders” above other community colleges.  He said it would be a significant blow to the college’s ability to stay abreast of current trends; ARC has consistently sought to be innovative and responsive to the community and to their students. A cut of this magnitude would severely impair the college’s ability to continue with that vision.

Sue Lorimer said that the cut would “put us in a world of hurt.”  Temporarily, the college could fill in with some monies in a limited way, but ultimately, jobs would have to be eliminated, and classes and conferences would not be available for instructors.  The ripple effect would be staggering:  State educational conferences would be under-attended (and, probably cancelled) because most teachers cannot afford the  $500 - $1000 per person cost per conference. Training for faculty would be cut out entirely. In the long run, Lorimer stated, the entire college would suffer because faculty and staff would not be keeping abreast of updates and changes in their fields, which would ultimately short change students.

Nancy Silva explained that the funding has been provided by the State, mandated by the Education Code.  “Gray Davis is the man who called himself the ‘Education Governor.’ Staff development will now become a ‘non-funded’ mandate, like so many others, thanks to him.” In the present system, Staff Development is funded as a “line item,” which means it is money that is guaranteed by the State and the colleges can count on it from year to year.  The Governor is trying to eliminate—and is eliminating—categorical funding in general.  He counters arguments against this strategy by claiming that PFE (Partnership for Excellence) funds can replace the State’s funding.  According to Silva, PFE was set up originally as a supplemental funding source.  Furthermore, there is no guarantee with PFE than any funds will be set aside for Staff Development, so it’s an “iffy” situation at best from year to year. She stated that in other districts, monies are not typically allotted for Staff Development by PFE, so that source does not look promising for the colleges and, thus, could not rely on these funds, despite Governor Davis’ comments to the contrary.

The faculty voiced concern  that the cuts might indeed be approved and the college needed to come up with a contingency plan, since the effects would be felt as early as this fall. Sue Lorimer said that the top priority was “saving people’s jobs;”  people employed in Staff Development positions would have to be transferred to other jobs.  The students were also a priority:  matriculation funds would be protected. Lorimer said that there are minimal funds available from the District, but they would never begin to cover the costs of SD.

Silva added that the Academic Senate has never championed Staff Development funding in the past and, in fact, would squelch yearly attempts by her committee to increase funding for SD. According to Silva, she was told by the Senate that those funds would not be increased because their faculty “was not united.”  (? Not sure what that means!) She stated that they have a couple of “allies” in the Academic Senate and on the Board of Directors, so she feels there is hope.  She felt, however, that a grass roots effort on the part of faculty was the best option.  She reminded the group that several years ago when the Governor attempted to cut $98 million from the higher education budget, faculty members wrote letters and lobbied legislators with great success.

The meeting ended with Silva encouraging those in attendance to “get the word out” to their peers.  Hand outs were provided with the names and addresses of legislators and information on the topic.