XPost: alt.los-angeles, alt.politics.liberalism, alt.politics.republicans   
   XPost: sac.politics   
   From: incompetence@democrats.org   
      
   Santa Monica College's Board of Trustees voted Tuesday to approve layoffs   
   of approximately 70 staff members facing a projected $16.7 million   
   deficit. Critics spent hours condemning the board for what they called   
   years of incompetent leadership that led to the crisis.   
      
   Prompted by a projected $16.7 million deficit that will empty reserves by   
   next year, Santa Monica College’s Board of Trustees voted Tuesday night to   
   approve layoffs of approximately 70 staff after critics spent hours   
   lambasting the board for what they said were years of incompetence and   
   failed leadership.   
      
   The board passed a pair of amended votes that authorized the layoffs of   
   classified (non-teaching) staff and management positions. Impacted   
   employees will receive notices by a March 15 deadline though but some   
   positions may eventually be retained.   
      
   The layoffs come as the college confronts a financial crisis that has seen   
   its fund balance plummet from $43.9 million in 2021-22 to a projected   
   $13.1 million this year, well below recommended reserve levels. Without   
   intervention, projections show a negative fund balance by 2026-27. The   
   Board has been losing millions of dollars per year due to a steady decline   
   in enrollment and state funding changes that froze SMC’s allocation while   
   expenses continued rising.   
      
   Critics testified that the crisis was not sudden but the predictable   
   result of decisions made after years of documented warnings dating back   
   about a decade.   
      
   “What Santa Monica College is facing today is not a sudden crisis. It is a   
   predictable result of choices made after years of documented warnings,”   
   said Cindy Ordaz, representing the California School Employees   
   Association. “The deficit that we are facing and discussing today did not   
   appear overnight. It is the delayed consequence of decisions made after   
   those warnings were issued.”   
      
   She said the administration and board made no meaningful attempt to   
   restructure after two rounds of retirement and criticized the board for   
   decisions to expand management costs, both through hiring and raises,   
   while the college hemorrhaged cash.   
      
   “Accountability that was consistently deferred to some version of future   
   growth,” she said. “That’s not fiscal strategy. That is risk deferral, or,   
   as some might say, just kicking the can down the road.”   
      
   Multiple speakers criticized the timing and scope of a 7% management   
   salary increase approved by the board in March 2023 while the college   
   faced structural deficits.   
      
   Using public salary data, Ordaz calculated that the increase translated to   
   approximately $27,000 annually for the superintendent president, earning   
   over $380,000 per year, and about $21,000 annually for vice presidents   
   earning over $280,000.   
      
   “These were not theoretical increases. They were paid in 2023 while we   
   were having the structural deficit that we’re just blaming and hanging   
   everything on today, and they became pensionable compensation,” Ordaz   
   said.   
      
   By contrast, she noted that the lowest-paid classified employees earning   
   around $50,000 to $55,000 annually would have received roughly $290 to   
   $320 per month from a 7% increase.   
      
   “One month of a 7% raise for a single executive management position equals   
   six to eight months of a 7% raise for a front line classified worker,”   
   Ordaz said. “Classified staff did not ask for a 7% raise. We were simply   
   asking for our contractual me too, which is less than 1%.”   
      
   Faculty Association President Peter Morse called the situation “the   
   continuation of a failed approach” that has already resulted in hundreds   
   of faculty being laid off and thousands of students turned away.   
      
   “The college leadership appears to continually take the wrong turn and not   
   learn from past mistakes,” Morse said. “SMC deserves better.”   
      
   Associated Students President Ailsa Ortiz expressed deep concern about   
   proposed reductions to student-facing services, particularly tutoring and   
   counseling.   
      
   “Approximately one-third of Instructional Support Services, specifically   
   tutoring, are proposed for reductions,” Ortiz said. “Many of the positions   
   listed for elimination represent what could be considered as low hanging   
   fruit—rolls that generate immediate savings on paper, but at a   
   disproportionate cost to students when compared to potential reductions at   
   the executive or higher administrative level.”   
      
   Ortiz noted that Santa Monica College has been the number one transfer   
   institution in California for Black and Latino students, a success metric   
   that directly aligns with equity components of the student-centered   
   funding formula.   
      
   “When instructional support and counseling are reduced, it becomes   
   increasingly clear that culturally responsive and identity affirming   
   programs are likely to be disproportionately impacted,” she said.   
      
   The board itself was divided on both taking responsibility for the years-   
   long crisis and how to address it now.   
      
   Trustee Rob Rader, who voted against both resolutions, argued for shared   
   sacrifice across all employee groups rather than targeting specific   
   positions for elimination.   
      
   “I don’t feel right about making only certain members bear so much of that   
   burden,” Rader said. “I think now we are looking at an institution-wide   
   issue that we need to ask all employee groups to take cuts.”   
      
   Rader proposed a graduated approach where employees making over $150,000   
   would take higher percentage cuts than those making less, citing the   
   pandemic when classified staff agreed to cuts to prevent layoffs.   
      
   Trustee Nancy Greenstein, who voted against the bulk of the cuts, said she   
   wanted to “see how we can rework it and take some of the burden,   
   particularly off the classified, because it does seem very unfair.”   
      
   Trustee Tom Peters, who worked at the college for 15 years before joining   
   the board, supported the resolutions with amendments to spread the impact.   
      
   “Management has to look at the possibility of losing their jobs too, and   
   some reshuffling even at the highest levels in this college should take a   
   sacrifice,” Peters said.   
      
   Trustee Luis Barrera Castanon, who was student body president during   
   previous cuts 20 years ago, said the decision begins a necessary process.   
      
   “We need to start this process in order to open those decisions, start   
   that conversation and figure out how do we move forward as a college and   
   how are we going to survive for the next 100 years,” Barrera Castanon   
   said.   
      
   Trustee Margaret Quinones-Perez opposed the cuts. As the longest-sitting   
   board member she strongly defended the past decision to approve salary   
   increases.   
      
   “I don’t apologize and I don’t regret the pay raises that our employees   
   deserve, and I am not going to ask them to cut their health benefits, and   
   I’m not going to ask them to change their retirement,” Quinones-Perez   
   said. “We need to right size this, and we’ll do it from the top.”   
      
   Quinones-Perez rejected criticism that the board had kicked the can down   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)