Now, the task is for the senior executive team to review all of it, sifting for suggestions that can help the college deal with what may be a growing state budget problem.

“I want to thank everyone for their comments,” Shoreline President Lee Lambert said Monday, March 14, 2011. “This is a very difficult process and recent comments from key legislators indicate it could get tougher. However, hearing from as many people as we did over the past several weeks is helpful.”

This portion of the budgeting process began Feb. 22 when the preliminary recommendations were sent to all employees by e-mail. Between then and March 14, numerous face-to-face meetings were conducted with senior executive team members and comments were collected through an anonymous e-mail form and drop boxes placed around campus.

The preliminary recommendations are just that, an early look at a range of potential budget-reduction targets and how the college might make cuts that would fall in that range. In numbers presented in February by Vice President for Administrative Services Daryl Campbell, the approximate range was from $2.25 million-$3.1 million. The preliminary recommendations included reductions that added up to something in the middle: $2.77 million.

While there were many comments submitted both in meetings and anonymously, in his review of the feedback, Campbell said he saw some themes emerge, including:

• Review the affiliate faculty status
• Why cut programs across the board, including those with healthy enrollments vs. targeting specific programs?
• Why cut ESL if the college is moving toward a virtual college and more international students, where more ESL would be needed?
• Why not cut expensive-to-run professional-technical programs?
• Isn’t it preferable to teach-out program rather than cut substantial numbers of faculty?
• Show the relationship and impacts on costs and student FTEs of cutting all part-time faculty before cutting full-time faculty.
• Why the difference between the preliminary recommendations and the cuts announced, but not acted on, in December?
• Rationale/criterion that cuts should come from departments with more than four full-time faculty disregards the work load of faculty in these departments.

In a meeting Monday, senior executive team members discussed Campbell’s theme areas.

Affiliate faculty status is the result of labor negotiations and any change would also have to come through the negotiation process, Stephen Smith, Vice President for Human Resources and Legal Affairs, said. Smith noted that faculty contract negotiations are ongoing, but cannot be included in budget considerations.

On questions regarding which programs might be reduced, John Backes, Vice President for Academic Affairs, said that regardless of cuts, the college must still meet the four main missions of a community college, including transfer, professional-technical, adult basic education and contract training. On full-time vs. part-time, Backes added that to part-time faculty are necessary for the college to serve the current number of students. He said recommendations in areas with more than four full-time faculty were an attempt to keep as many disciplines at the college as possible, while preserving a core of full-time faculty members.

Campbell has said that the difference between the December and February potential reductions are primarily due to time. In December, the state asked for a plan to meet significant cuts this current school year. Items in that plan needed to result in immediate savings, but the Legislature pulled back on the request. The reductions in February’s preliminary recommendations could be spread over a year.

From the anonymous comments sources came some from students such as this one: “As a student, it is sad to see certain professors that are young and really awesome at their job get riffed …”

Other comments questioned a variety of college expenditures including the foundation, the number of administrators including vice presidents, deans and directors and continuing the athletics programs.

Some comments looked at other expenses and suggested unplugging electric water coolers, lowering thermostats in buildings and shutting off lights. Still others looked for additional revenue, suggesting efforts such as night and weekend classes offered to the community.

President Lambert cautioned Monday that while the preliminary recommendations started from Gov. Chris Gregoire’s proposed budget, and then modified based on comments from the State Board of Community and Technical Colleges, they may not be enough.

Over the weekend, Rep. Ross Hunter, D-Medina, and House Ways and Means Chair, told the Seattle Times that another $500 million to $1.5 billion could be added to the current budget shortfall, already at $5 billion. The next real information is due Thursday, March 17, when the state is expected to release the next quarterly revenue estimate.

“We’ll know more after Thursday,” Lambert said.

SCC/Jim Hills