Conrad Scott-Curtis, CCFT President
It’s well known that Cabrillo is going out for a bond totaling approximately $310 million, which will be on the June 7th ballot as Measure Q. CCFT supports the measure and encourages all faculty to do so. Passage of Measure Q would mean availability of funds to ensure that Cabrillo will be able to meet the needs of future generations of students.
Let’s start by looking at what the bond will fund:
The majority of the bond funds, $158.6 million, will be used for physical infrastructure and surrounding site work. This includes:
- $77 million for heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) repair and upgrades;
- $18 million dollars for energy conservation projects, including solar installation and water conservation measures; and
- $25 million for smart classrooms in Aptos and Watsonville.
A more complete breakdown of funds for this category—along with funding for informational technology, and renovation of classrooms that are between 30 and 50 years old, and buildings, including complete renovation of Building 200—can be found here, on a document titled “20-Year Bond Project Cost Estimates.”
The bond will fund $100 million in IT upgrades for the college, sorely needed to ensure a next-generational system capable of serving the needs of both our students and the college’s functioning in the next 20 years, including the following:
- $25 million for networking;
- $30 million for data storage (server blades and chassis), fiber copper
- infrastructure at Aptos and Watsonville, and upgrading the wireless network; and
- $10 million for computer equipment, to be phased in over 15 years.
Again, more categories of spending for IT can be found at the link above.
The bond also includes over $50 million dollars for building renovation and expansion, including:
- $15 million for complete renovation of the 200 Building;
- $20 million or renovation and expansion of the library and of the tutorial hubs at Aptos and Watsonville;
- $4 million for renovation and creation of a new, large lecture hall in Building 1500; and
- $2.1 million to add 2 science wet labs.
Cabrillo’s infrastructure, IT network, and older classrooms are in sore need of repair, and Measure Q will help fill these urgent needs. I say “help fill” because the college has actually identified over $450 million in facilities needs, and the projects to be funded under the $310 million bond represent prioritization of the college’s needs.
We know these needs are real. Since 2013, the college has carried out a Total Cost of Ownership Study, and faculty and administrators on the facilities committee are well aware of this process. In fact, faculty members on the facilities committee support the bond. CCFT’s own review of the extensive documents supports this conclusion. For those who would like to dig deeper, a more extensive packet of 5 documents, with a front page called “Roadmap to Bond Documents,” is available here.
For those interested in the details—or those of the insomniac or obsessive persuasions—please seek out the 65-page spreadsheet document, in small font, titled “Facilities Needs by Type – Estimates.”
The Controversy Surrounding Measure Q
There has been a lot of misinformation around campus and in the community about what the bond is intended to fund and how the dollar amount of the bond was decided on. A group called “Responsible Educators against Measure Q,” (REAMQ) headed by Ray Kaupp of the Business Department, has been campaigning against the bond in print and at local political meetings.
Their principle argument is based on an interpretation of the Cabrillo’s Facilities Master Plan, published June 2015, which identified about $50 million in ongoing maintenance needs over a 10-year period and $25 million or so in facilities needs; these needs are significantly under the $310 million currently being asked of voters. It seems to be the understanding of Kaupp and REAMQ, that this master plan identified all known priorities for Cabrillo facilities, and is the principle document relied on by the college for estimating such needs.
However, Facilities Master Plans across the state include a wide variety of elements: some include ongoing maintenance needs primarily (the case with Cabrillo), and others include a more complete picture of needs for infrastructure upgrade and repair, as well as planned new-construction projects. There are no set guidelines concerning which among these items should go into an FMP.
During 2013, Cabrillo’s consultant on the facilities master plan strongly recommended that the college undertake a Total Cost of Ownership Study. This study is the origin of the planning for the bond. The idea that Cabrillo knew about only $75 million in needs as reflected in the Facilities Master Plan of June 2015 and only trumped up huge projects after polling during the summer of 2015 is simply erroneous.
While I do think that Kaupp’s argument demands strong rebuttal because of its implications for the future of the college, I do not blame Kaupp or others for not understanding the genesis and rationale for Measure Q. In fact, the college did an abysmal job of rolling out the bond, internally. And given levels of distrust between faculty and administration over the recent period, skepticism has been warranted and cynicism is understandable. However, Cabrillo College is larger than any particular administration and, frankly, any particular cohort of faculty. Investigation of the merits of Measure Q reveals that it reflects real and pressing needs for the college.
$310 million is certainly a lot of money. Consider this, however: Cabrillo’s last two bonds asked for $85 million in 1998 and $114 million 2004. That period of 6 years between bonds fits the approximate average with which a California Community College goes out for a bond. Now, it’s been 12 years since our last bond. So let’s convert these previous bonds to 2016 dollars and add them together. Result: about $290 million. (Source for conversion: the calculators at (<www.in2013dollars.com>.) That amount is remarkable close to the $310 million level of Measure Q.
Measure Q is based in real, analyzed need and that it is in line with previous bond levels.
Another of Kaupp’s arguments to voters is that the Cabrillo faculty does not support Measure Q. His main support here is a Faculty Senate vote in early April over whether to recommend that the Board of Governors place the bond on the June 7 ballot. That vote was 6 in favor, 2 against, with 9 abstentions Kaupp’s argument (including one that will appear on the ballot) is that two-thirds of the faculty do not support Measure Q.
The 9 abstentions at that Senate vote reflected not a considered position opposing the bond, but, in large part, expressed a need for more information, a desire to send a message to the college that faculty had been insufficiently consulted and informed, and general level of discontent among faculty about our recent role in a variety of college conversations. Since the senate vote, recent individual polling of faculty senators undertaken by Michael Mangin has shown at least 19 of 22 senators in favor of Measure Q. (There were some absences the day the original vote was taken.)
For our part, CCFT Council voted March 21 by a wide margin to support the bond, while at the same time expressing “significant concerns about the deeply-flawed process [of the bond rollout] and urging the college to invoke meaningful participatory governance in the future.”
The choice we face is whether to oppose the bond as an expression of general dissatisfaction with faculty-administration relationships at the college—or to support the bond as foundational to the future of Cabrillo’s ability to continue to fulfill its mission as an excellent educational institution for this county and surrounding areas. After much investigation and discussion, CCFT has decided to support Measure Q and urges you to do the same on June 7 ballot.