![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
66.3% ( 16,233 of 24,491 ) precincts partially reporting as of November 7, 2012, 12:42 a.m.
Yes 30 Temporary Taxes to Fund Education 3,600,257 52.3% 3,283,989 47.7%
--Guys, this proposition directly affects how many people get laid off at my district and college and more specifically, how many may get laid off right in my department. The last "worst case scenario" cuts plan submitted to and approved by the Board of Trustees called for potential elimination (of course, it depends on more factors than this tax measure) of 6 out of 10 classified (vs. faculty or management) positions in the Library. Part of the reason the lists were done the way they were was to try to get it through the Faculty Association's heads that we cannot continue to function with a cuts-only scenario that involves no concessions from the bargaining units (pay cuts, furloughs, whatever), but still, the passage of this proposition is extremely important to turn a potential horrible clusterfuck into a still-very-bad-but-not-quite-so-impossibly-crippling situation.
Library gets hit disproportionately hard because we are considered "non-instructional", despite the fact that librarians are faculty and do do some instruction, under a law that requires 50% or more of the budget of the college to be spent on classroom instruction. So there comes a point where you cannot by law cut any more faculty and have to start disproportionately cutting into other things. I don't disagree with the purpose of the law - it's to prevent things like recently happened at SF City College where they had been spending extremely out of line amounts on administration. But in this particular case it means things, ah, suck to our particular ass-mar.
Yes 30 Temporary Taxes to Fund Education 3,600,257 52.3% 3,283,989 47.7%
--Guys, this proposition directly affects how many people get laid off at my district and college and more specifically, how many may get laid off right in my department. The last "worst case scenario" cuts plan submitted to and approved by the Board of Trustees called for potential elimination (of course, it depends on more factors than this tax measure) of 6 out of 10 classified (vs. faculty or management) positions in the Library. Part of the reason the lists were done the way they were was to try to get it through the Faculty Association's heads that we cannot continue to function with a cuts-only scenario that involves no concessions from the bargaining units (pay cuts, furloughs, whatever), but still, the passage of this proposition is extremely important to turn a potential horrible clusterfuck into a still-very-bad-but-not-quite-so-impossibly-crippling situation.
Library gets hit disproportionately hard because we are considered "non-instructional", despite the fact that librarians are faculty and do do some instruction, under a law that requires 50% or more of the budget of the college to be spent on classroom instruction. So there comes a point where you cannot by law cut any more faculty and have to start disproportionately cutting into other things. I don't disagree with the purpose of the law - it's to prevent things like recently happened at SF City College where they had been spending extremely out of line amounts on administration. But in this particular case it means things, ah, suck to our particular ass-mar.
no subject
Date: Nov. 7th, 2012 04:11 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: Nov. 7th, 2012 08:32 pm (UTC)From: