Conrad Scott-Curtis
As we move into the heart of negotiations this spring, I want to highlight a key difference in budget perspective and philosophy between CCFT and the District, a difference which illustrates the import of unity among CCFT members and points to a potential need for visible, public action by faculty: we see competitive, reasonable salaries as a high priority for the functioning of the college, while the District has not shown that they do; in addition, we think that repeated budget surpluses at the end of almost every academic year indicate the practicality of bringing Cabrillo faculty salaries to the statewide community-college average, and above, while the District does not. (At this point, I’m sure no one needs to be reminded that over the past twelve years, Cabrillo has fallen from the top 25% in community-college salary to the bottom 25%, despite the relative cost of living in Santa Cruz County.)
For the past decade, the trend of the District has been to underestimate revenues and overestimate expenditures in ways that predict year-end deficits that have almost never materialized. Here is a chart showing projections vs. year-end actuals over the past six years. For each academic year, the bar on the left shows projected deficits from the beginning of each, the bar in the middle shows actual funds left at the end of the year, and the bar on the right shows the difference between what was projected and what actually happened. (See below chart for more interpretation and explanation.)
At the far left, the bars show data for the academic year 2009/10. At the far right, they show data for the year 2014/15. For each year, we can see what the District projected as their ending balance, what the ending balance actually was, and the difference between these two. Here are the figures in table form:
| 09/10 | 10/11 | 11/12 | 12/13 | 13/14 | 14/15 | |
| Projected | -1.35M | -1.87M | -3.48M | -3.14M | -1.14M | -1.14M |
| Actual | 3.07M | 3.28M | -3.21M | 2.14M | 1.37M | 1.9M |
| Difference | 4.43M | 5.17M | .27M | 5.28M | 2.51M | 3.05M |
With the exception of the year 11/12, the District projected a deficit but ended up with a surplus. The size of the difference in projection and actuals is remarkable. For years 09/10 through 14/15, the District missed their projections by the following approximate amounts: $4.5M, $5M, $.25M, $5.25M, $2.5M, and $3M.
For CCFT, the practical effect of this record of projections is that each year we are told there is no or little money for raises, almost each year the District has ended up with a substantial surplus.
If we compare the cumulative total of deficits projected by the District each year, and compare that the cumulative total of surpluses, we get a picture like this:
[chart insert]
So what happens to the money that shows up, seemingly as a surprise to the District almost every year? Well, the district’s net-ending balance has grown from about 10% of base budget to over 21% in the past twelve years. In the meantime, faculty salaries have fallen from about 45% of base budget to a about 40%. Admittedly these are rough measures, but we think the picture is clear enough: For the past decade, the District has prioritized other needs or wants over faculty salary. This is part of the difference I referred to at the opening between CCFT and District perspectives and philosophy of the budget: we think a strong, adequately paid faculty is a high priority for the health of the college—including for our ability to attract and retain top faculty, and for the ability of faculty to do their best work with students without having to work overloads and/or moonlight in order to meet the cost of living in the area. Clearly, the District has seen a different set of priorities over the last decade.
This also brings back the importance of unity among CCFT members and a potential need for visible, public action by faculty. In the absence of will on the part of the District, we may be arriving at the point that we have to demonstrate our own, collective will.