February 2005 Hail to the New, Hail to the Old! - SCFT Local 1533
February 2005 Hail to the New, Hail to the Old! - SCFT Local 1533
February 2005 Hail to the New, Hail to the Old! - SCFT Local 1533
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
California Community College<br />
Budget Proposals<br />
IiHE<br />
CALIFORNIA DIRECTOR OF FINANCE (DOF)<br />
report on state budget reveals <strong>the</strong> usual mix of<br />
good and bad news for <strong>the</strong> community<br />
colleges. Though <strong>the</strong>re is many a slip between<br />
<strong>the</strong> revenues cup and <strong>the</strong> college budget lip,<br />
some light shines in our direction through <strong>the</strong><br />
overall budget proposals.<br />
The DOF warns that <strong>the</strong> budget "gap" for<br />
<strong>2005</strong>-2006 could be about $9 billion, a<br />
contingency <strong>the</strong> Governor proposes <strong>to</strong> meet by<br />
reducing spending broadly across <strong>the</strong> board.<br />
The voter-authorized bond measure<br />
"borrowing" (Proposition 57) continues <strong>to</strong> be a<br />
last best hope for state officials. The<br />
Governor's budget proposes no new taxes.<br />
The Governor's budget does include an<br />
increase for community colleges from<br />
Proposition 98 funds. The proposed 7.4<br />
increase represents a $373 million boost, which<br />
includes a $195.5 million cost-of-living<br />
adjustment (i.e. +3.93% COLA), a $136<br />
million for enrollment growth (+3%), a<br />
statu<strong>to</strong>ry enrollment growth funding of 1.89%<br />
plus <strong>the</strong> 3.93% COLA increase for basic skills,<br />
EOPS, DSPS, and matriculation, a "set-aside"<br />
of $31.4 million for possible reinstatement of<br />
Partnership in Excellence Funds ve<strong>to</strong>ed last<br />
year. (This particular proposal will be reviewed<br />
by <strong>the</strong> Board of Governors, which is expected<br />
<strong>to</strong> issue a recommendation on "<strong>the</strong> issue of<br />
accountability. ")<br />
The budget does not cover additional<br />
funding in response <strong>to</strong> certain requests from<br />
<strong>the</strong> System's Budget Request, excluding fund<br />
increase for equalization and increase in<br />
noncredit rate.<br />
There is a $20 million one-time increase for<br />
articulating vocational course-work between<br />
community colleges and K-12, expanding <strong>the</strong><br />
"2+2" program. This proposal is under<br />
consideration by <strong>the</strong> state Department of<br />
Education.<br />
There is no proposal for an increase in<br />
community college students' fees.<br />
In terms of capital outlay, <strong>the</strong> budget<br />
proposes $263 million from state bond funds<br />
for <strong>the</strong> fifty community colleges.<br />
All of <strong>the</strong> above represent initial proposals,<br />
a start of deliberations on budget issues in<br />
Sacramen<strong>to</strong>. The California Federation of<br />
Teachers will be representing <strong>the</strong> interests of<br />
faculty and <strong>the</strong> colleges in general throughout<br />
that process.<br />
Budget documents are available at <strong>the</strong><br />
Department of Finance website<br />
(http://www.dof.ca.gov).<br />
Will We Be Negotiating STRS<br />
Contribution Rates<br />
A potential problem for all of us could be<br />
<strong>the</strong> Governor's proposal <strong>to</strong> offset <strong>the</strong> above<br />
funding increases with a termination of <strong>the</strong><br />
state's contributions <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> State Teachers'<br />
Retirement System. The community colleges<br />
<strong>the</strong>mselves will be asked <strong>to</strong> make up <strong>the</strong><br />
difference, costs estimated by CFT' s<br />
Community College Council <strong>to</strong> be statewide<br />
almost $40 million. The CCC understands<br />
this <strong>to</strong> mean that <strong>the</strong> additional costs could be<br />
split between employers and employees<br />
requiring collective bargaining decisions.<br />
[2] Federalist