What an excellent article describing the root of the problems at SBCC. This is why Mr. Francisco was such an excellent city council member! And boy are you missed.
Thank you, Dale for the extremely clear and informative column about P. I was already going to vote no on P, but your column raises more questions. Given what you - and others on SB Current - have written about SBCC's budget issues, shouldn't we, as citizens, be demanding a thorough disclosure from the college about what has gone wrong and how they plan to fix it?
I was fortunate to go to SBCC in the 70s. It was a terrific two years at a low cost. Yes, we had classes in makeshift temporary buildings, but it was an outstanding place to be with some of the best teachers I ever had. All one needs from a CC education.
Coming back to Santa Barbara I've been shocked at the expansion, both on the campus and in the nearby housing when I was also reading about the decline in enrollment. It seems as though they've created spiraling costs with no basis for them. And this affects Santa Barbara on every level.
I may be unfair, but it seems to me that the management of SBCC got stars in its eyes because the college got such high ratings. The sensible thing would to have concentrated on keeping the education first rate, not opting for a glossier and glossier campus. But that wouldn't have proliferated jobs for more and more Democrat voters - power and money for those in charge, rather than quality of life and education for those who pay their salaries.
This is symptomatic of every Democratic Party problem we are facing in Santa Barbara. The nitwits that get voted in to run this city have idealistically showy goals that are going to do nothing but ruin us financially as a community and make it impossible to lead any kind of normal life here.
Yes, the SBCC employee bargaining groups do see local taxpayers as their private ATM. To quote one of these local union spokespersons a number of years ago at a public meeting, 100% of all state funding should go to the college employees. Local tax payers should then pay for all maintenance and infrastructure. That day has now arrived.
I looked you up after you said how much you dislike my humor (old reporting habits die hard) and I must say you're a very fine landscape artist. One of my favorite people in Santa Barbara, Isabelle Greene, the landscape artist. I know you guys call yourselves landscape architects but that always sounds weird to me.
Government pension demands and ever-increasing benefits demands drive much of the government’s deficit spending. You are asked to dig into your pockets now, to make good on the election promises made these government employees.
This is going on at every level of government operations today. Federal state and local.
Latest data, there are now more government employees than residents of the state of Florida. Only three states have more residents than the current numbers of government employees. To the tune of nearing $9 trillion dollars nation wide.
Thanks to Mr. Francisco for exposing this ongoing confidence game. The continuance of shaking down property owners is not only unfair and unjust but is unsustainable as well. After all, isn’t “equity “ and “sustainability “ part of the left wing mantra that runs our local government? How much longer can our leaders continue to write bad checks and expect property owners to continue to cover it?
Truly, this seems more in line with giving cover to fat cat employees with hefty salaries and pensions and less to do about students.
In essence, we as property owners are expected to cover for years of mismanagement, neglect and incompetence.
Enough is enough, SBCC should be asked instead to come up with a plan to reduce staff by 20% and proposals for demolition of non essential buildings.
The prospect of spending hundreds of millions on “PE” is a nonstarter which only benefits a few and has little to do with higher education.
The unmitigated gall of leadership to ask for millions from property owners without corresponding plans for reduction in staff and operating costs.
For anyone owning property, this Measure should be DOA!
I read this "narrow" articled by Mr. Dale Francisco titled
"Saying “NO” to Proposition P" that should be titled
"Say No to Any SB City, County or College Agencies INCREASE in FUNDS"
and I quote from same "The notion that a nearly $200 million bond measure would be sprung on the voters a month before ballots went out seems fishy."
I think we all smell a dead fish in Santa Barbara and not just with SBCC and I quote again>>
"The fundamental problem is that college enrollments have been dropping everywhere, for years."
and "Nationwide, hundreds of colleges have closed or downsized, in response to long-term demographic and cultural changes"
AND BANG the Key Problem with all of SB County and I quote concerning SBCC >>>
"The second major problem that City College faces, and that it has not begun to address in a comprehensive way, is staffing. Salaries and benefits comprise 85% of the college’s expenses. There is no way to reduce the budget in line with the enormous decline in enrollment without reducing staff."
I have just one simple question are we all receiving Services let alone "HONEST SERVICES" for all
of these local government and University people working many with very HIGH PAYING SALERIES?
The answer is NO and therefore the entire County including SBCC needs and IMMEDIATE AX to all
local Government Agencies and University Staff and it is that simple.
Lookee here FOLKS the Golden Parachute - Increase Salary Just Before Retirement for
I can not support it. Government and these institutions take a very significant amount of money from the working and in this case “land” owning people of the community. There is never a study done on behalf of these mentioned people. Between Federal, State, Property, Sanitary, bond measures of which there are already many,sales and even tax on utilities/fees, the collective total is too much. None of these “institutions” care about the wellbeing of the payers. What are their lives like? The payers need to be respected much more for how difficult it is to maintain one’s self, one’s property, kids, cars, insurance, etc.
Bottom line, no, enough already.
PS no on increasing hotel tax too. Spend time on efficiency and how about lowering a tax sometimes?
The ongoing rebuttal argument seems to be, this is not a large amount of money, so pay up.
Yet, no cuts are asked, nor offered from the other side? No policy changes embedding future fiscal discipline as a government, tax payer supported institution have been put in place.
Nor have recent voters asked for independence and fiscal discipline, when voting for the new SBCC board majority members.
“This speaks to a mind-boggling level of neglected maintenance over decades.“
Again, this is because the people in charge love to put the cart before the horse.
Carts are shiny when new and everyone loves a shiny new bauble it’s something to point at and claim accomplishment. There are ribbon cutting ceremonies and fancy dress parties to celebrate the arrival of a new “cart”
Horses (infrastructure and building maintenance, plumbing, electrical, janitorial etc.) is practically invisible, or worse it’s ugly and monotonous thankless work that must be done. Nothing to point at and claim mission accomplished to the voters)
Every major infrasructure expenditure is often greeted by vocal attacks from the employee bargaining groups. Takes a clear vision and independence to move past these predictible howls of protest. They are part of the give and take of elected public office.
It would appear the city college enrollment will continue to decline since fewer couples are having children and the cost of housing, everywhere in California, continues to increase. Certainly living in Santa Barbara will be out of touch for many families and students. Many kids of college age are looking into trade schools without the thought of going into fields where getting a job will be difficult or impossible. With this inevitability of fewer kids going to college why invest more in SBCC?
Thank you Dale for clarifying the issues at SBCC. The College, like the City, County etc don’t look for ways to cut expenses instead they hire consultants to craft the best argument to take more money from the citizens. ENOUGH!
Brilliant, a root cause analysis that is undeniable. The data you provide on the professional analyses of SBCC'S underlying issues, that were ignored after we taxpayers funded them, amounts to no less than malfeasance in office by those who have been responsible in the office of CEO and on the board of Trustees. These people are public servants who serve in the public trust. Measure P is no more than another assault on the public trust. Why do we have a Santa Barbara Grand Jury if we don't use it?
Outstanding analysis and comment, Dale. This mode of analysis could be a template for criticism of most educational bonds in California in the past few years. With the threshold for passage of these measures reduced from 2/3s to 55%, the development of a school bond industrial complex supported mostly by businesses that would benefit from the construction spending, and the emergence of aspecialized class of ed bond political consultants , the public is outmatched and outgunned- with their own tax dollars! The schools, the donors and the consultants have mastered the techniques of (1) using public funds to do advocacy promotional materials under very lax, permissive regulation by the state fair Political Practices Commission, and (2) the tactic of jamming a big bond measure onto the election calendar at the very last second, with such a limited amount of time for any organization that might oppose the measure to submit opposition arguments! It’s outrageous!
Bond counsel takes their share upfront, win or lose. Lots of extra fingers in this pie. And that is only the beginning, even after a bond issue passes.
Campus infrastructure needs are real. Which is why there needs to be a good community relationship up front; not last minute one-sided demands. The current SBCC board missed that chapter.
Just give us the money, so we can get back to business as usual is what I am hearing in this rush job bond issue.
Already have my black pen out to put an X on the no slot.. With your great article you have added even more layers of reasons to VOTE NO on P! Thank you.
And when everybody places an X on NO, then what will "they" do to gather up more funds behind our backs? Steal some funds from here and there ... oh, they've already done that for other things. I know, send the building inspector around to all the houses and writeup violations. The city will recommend a contractor that does nothing, you run out of money and have to leave and sell your house. Your house is sold to someone that doubles or triples the value of your home and now they can collect more property taxes. Problems solved; hey that's close to what happened to me! By the way, the city inspector commented to a 2nd contractor "he wouldn't have approved the work of the first contractor, anyway because the contractor's work is sloppy." You'd think a city inspector just might tell a homeowner we were dealing with a crappy contractor.
Fingers crossed that it doesn't come to that, Bill, and hopefully you will get your horrible sounding issues sorted out. No fun what you've gone through and I wish you much luck.
Thanks, Monica. The city government consists of evil actors. You had a building inspector knowing he wasn't going to approve the construction work of the 1st contractor that cost us about $120K. The 2nd contractor was clearly doing work for the city, and he stole about $100K from us. Kristen Sneddon home was nearby with a low profile, domed, camouflaged tent in her backyard (can you say "FBI"). A big supportive Dem pal of Sneddon lived up the hill from us, enemies everywhere. We actually received more money from the sale of a rental home in Goleta! We were taken advantage of to the Nth degree, no doubt about it. I'm thinking of a lawsuit of $66.7 Million (my wife doesn't like using $66.6 Million <g>). But think about it, Goleta got a big property tax boost on a home costing me $159K and selling for $1.3M. And our nice SB home costing us $400K and selling for less than $1.3M then renovated by a new buyer and selling for $3.9M. Think of all those property tax gains. The FBI is trying to keep me busy with other scammer attacks in Dalton, GA (which has an FBI branch within a mile or so). The FBI is really sloppy, and they left a trail between CA and GA. The FBI helped me to figure out who did what with all their tactics applied. Remember the City has the FBI on their side being pro-Democrat. If they don't like you, then you can be up for a lot of crapola. Take heed out there. I had an induced illness; nefarious stuff was planted all over the house to make me look like a thug. If Trump gets in ... City of Santa Barbara watch out!
Great comment letter. Dale brings years of experience as a City Councilman, and more from work in the Tech sector.
The loss of students was projected years ago. Mr. Franciso pointed out the decline in population that was projected in the 1960's. The current management of most schools and cities do not want to admit to the end game of these population projections.
It is damning to those who want density and worst destruction of infrastructure.
SBCC needs to see a reduction and change of direction that will demand a reduction in expenses. They do not need more money to prop up what is not working.
Thanks Dale, for providing the necessary start to any process: understanding the current data. The second step is to understand the business model. The third step is to decide, and take, the steps to make the data fit the model. My experience is that this process requires rankings of priorities of objectives and contributors, which will require reducing some employees since anything that does not deal with 85% of the cost is a waste of time and energy. This is a difficult ,emotional, but necessary, process since it never easy to reduce staff.
SBCC came to grips with these emerging realities after the 2008 fiscal meltdown.
Voters responded in 2010, by replacing the prior SBCC board majority and immediately fired the fiscally savvy new SBCC CEO, who had been selected by the prior board to deal with these very issues. The rest, as they say, is now history.
Full disclosure, I was a member of the prior SBCC board that was 100% changed after the 2012 election and redistricting. Two of us were re-districted out of any future seat to run for as a result. The last remaining prior trustee chose to resign, leaving this entirely new board of SBCC trustees after 2012 to manage its current affairs to date.
To my credit, one of my last requests in 2012, which was repeatedly denied, was to have a full board discussion with the new trustees about not using local tax payers as an ATM. Therefore, this important community sensibilities discussion never happened.
Great explanation. Thank you. Re declining enrollments- I would be interested in what survey/assessments the College has undertaken re subjects being offered. My observations is that we need nursing and nursing aid courses, trade courses- electrical, elec/mechanical- vehicle, airplane, diesel engines (we have a harbor full of boats and not enough mechanics), improved culinary school etc.
What an excellent article describing the root of the problems at SBCC. This is why Mr. Francisco was such an excellent city council member! And boy are you missed.
Thank you, Dale for the extremely clear and informative column about P. I was already going to vote no on P, but your column raises more questions. Given what you - and others on SB Current - have written about SBCC's budget issues, shouldn't we, as citizens, be demanding a thorough disclosure from the college about what has gone wrong and how they plan to fix it?
I was fortunate to go to SBCC in the 70s. It was a terrific two years at a low cost. Yes, we had classes in makeshift temporary buildings, but it was an outstanding place to be with some of the best teachers I ever had. All one needs from a CC education.
Coming back to Santa Barbara I've been shocked at the expansion, both on the campus and in the nearby housing when I was also reading about the decline in enrollment. It seems as though they've created spiraling costs with no basis for them. And this affects Santa Barbara on every level.
I may be unfair, but it seems to me that the management of SBCC got stars in its eyes because the college got such high ratings. The sensible thing would to have concentrated on keeping the education first rate, not opting for a glossier and glossier campus. But that wouldn't have proliferated jobs for more and more Democrat voters - power and money for those in charge, rather than quality of life and education for those who pay their salaries.
This is symptomatic of every Democratic Party problem we are facing in Santa Barbara. The nitwits that get voted in to run this city have idealistically showy goals that are going to do nothing but ruin us financially as a community and make it impossible to lead any kind of normal life here.
To add to my comment - am I the only Santa Barbara taxpayer who feels like our government (with a few exceptions) sees me as an ATM?
I'm thinking of designing a t-shirt for going to city/county meetings that says: “Not an ATM.”
Yes, the SBCC employee bargaining groups do see local taxpayers as their private ATM. To quote one of these local union spokespersons a number of years ago at a public meeting, 100% of all state funding should go to the college employees. Local tax payers should then pay for all maintenance and infrastructure. That day has now arrived.
In the words of Trump “They're fired!”
That was from a television show, I might as well say, "I know nothing!!!" (Sgt. Schultz, Hogan's Heroes.)
I looked you up after you said how much you dislike my humor (old reporting habits die hard) and I must say you're a very fine landscape artist. One of my favorite people in Santa Barbara, Isabelle Greene, the landscape artist. I know you guys call yourselves landscape architects but that always sounds weird to me.
Guess they do not have to balance a check book.
If this were a private college they’d be closed by now.
Stop supporting incompetence at best at worst case corruption seeding peiples pockets with money instead of running the business of education.
Government has grown so large it cannot support itself and they expect us to continue digging deep into our pockets.
SBCC wants to “increase” taxes, City wants to increase sales tax, the federal government will increase taxes.
Inflation & Interest rates is not back down to Pre Biden numbers.
Groceries are up and salaries have not kept up.
Government is choking out the people to support their fat cat salaries.
Over 90% of SBCC & SBUSD & City budgets go towards salaries, correct?
Time to fire people just like a private company.
Government pension demands and ever-increasing benefits demands drive much of the government’s deficit spending. You are asked to dig into your pockets now, to make good on the election promises made these government employees.
This is going on at every level of government operations today. Federal state and local.
Latest data, there are now more government employees than residents of the state of Florida. Only three states have more residents than the current numbers of government employees. To the tune of nearing $9 trillion dollars nation wide.
Thanks to Mr. Francisco for exposing this ongoing confidence game. The continuance of shaking down property owners is not only unfair and unjust but is unsustainable as well. After all, isn’t “equity “ and “sustainability “ part of the left wing mantra that runs our local government? How much longer can our leaders continue to write bad checks and expect property owners to continue to cover it?
Truly, this seems more in line with giving cover to fat cat employees with hefty salaries and pensions and less to do about students.
In essence, we as property owners are expected to cover for years of mismanagement, neglect and incompetence.
Enough is enough, SBCC should be asked instead to come up with a plan to reduce staff by 20% and proposals for demolition of non essential buildings.
The prospect of spending hundreds of millions on “PE” is a nonstarter which only benefits a few and has little to do with higher education.
The unmitigated gall of leadership to ask for millions from property owners without corresponding plans for reduction in staff and operating costs.
For anyone owning property, this Measure should be DOA!
Transparent California lists all SBCC employee compensation packages, by name as well as job description.
I read this "narrow" articled by Mr. Dale Francisco titled
"Saying “NO” to Proposition P" that should be titled
"Say No to Any SB City, County or College Agencies INCREASE in FUNDS"
and I quote from same "The notion that a nearly $200 million bond measure would be sprung on the voters a month before ballots went out seems fishy."
I think we all smell a dead fish in Santa Barbara and not just with SBCC and I quote again>>
"The fundamental problem is that college enrollments have been dropping everywhere, for years."
and "Nationwide, hundreds of colleges have closed or downsized, in response to long-term demographic and cultural changes"
AND BANG the Key Problem with all of SB County and I quote concerning SBCC >>>
"The second major problem that City College faces, and that it has not begun to address in a comprehensive way, is staffing. Salaries and benefits comprise 85% of the college’s expenses. There is no way to reduce the budget in line with the enormous decline in enrollment without reducing staff."
I have just one simple question are we all receiving Services let alone "HONEST SERVICES" for all
of these local government and University people working many with very HIGH PAYING SALERIES?
The answer is NO and therefore the entire County including SBCC needs and IMMEDIATE AX to all
local Government Agencies and University Staff and it is that simple.
Lookee here FOLKS the Golden Parachute - Increase Salary Just Before Retirement for
Chancellor Yang>>> From $540k a year to $820k a year. https://www.independent.com/2024/09/27/uc-santa-barbara-chancellor-henry-yang-getting-240k-pay-raise-before-retiring/
Santa Barbara is alive and great and will just GUT the "Everyman" as shown in
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and sees the Shady-Side and Corruption in Government.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ6uEort8_s&ab_channel=SonyPicturesEntertainment
Nothing and I mean NOTHING every changes in good ole SB. It is all about the MONEY.
Howard Walther, member of a Military Family
I can not support it. Government and these institutions take a very significant amount of money from the working and in this case “land” owning people of the community. There is never a study done on behalf of these mentioned people. Between Federal, State, Property, Sanitary, bond measures of which there are already many,sales and even tax on utilities/fees, the collective total is too much. None of these “institutions” care about the wellbeing of the payers. What are their lives like? The payers need to be respected much more for how difficult it is to maintain one’s self, one’s property, kids, cars, insurance, etc.
Bottom line, no, enough already.
PS no on increasing hotel tax too. Spend time on efficiency and how about lowering a tax sometimes?
The ongoing rebuttal argument seems to be, this is not a large amount of money, so pay up.
Yet, no cuts are asked, nor offered from the other side? No policy changes embedding future fiscal discipline as a government, tax payer supported institution have been put in place.
Nor have recent voters asked for independence and fiscal discipline, when voting for the new SBCC board majority members.
“This speaks to a mind-boggling level of neglected maintenance over decades.“
Again, this is because the people in charge love to put the cart before the horse.
Carts are shiny when new and everyone loves a shiny new bauble it’s something to point at and claim accomplishment. There are ribbon cutting ceremonies and fancy dress parties to celebrate the arrival of a new “cart”
Horses (infrastructure and building maintenance, plumbing, electrical, janitorial etc.) is practically invisible, or worse it’s ugly and monotonous thankless work that must be done. Nothing to point at and claim mission accomplished to the voters)
One often hears during collective bargaining negotiations: You care more about buildings, than you do people.
Every major infrasructure expenditure is often greeted by vocal attacks from the employee bargaining groups. Takes a clear vision and independence to move past these predictible howls of protest. They are part of the give and take of elected public office.
“Employee bargaining groups” …do you mean labor unions?
Why would a labor union object to a maintenance and upkeep project that ensures labor for decades to come?
It would appear the city college enrollment will continue to decline since fewer couples are having children and the cost of housing, everywhere in California, continues to increase. Certainly living in Santa Barbara will be out of touch for many families and students. Many kids of college age are looking into trade schools without the thought of going into fields where getting a job will be difficult or impossible. With this inevitability of fewer kids going to college why invest more in SBCC?
Thank you Dale for clarifying the issues at SBCC. The College, like the City, County etc don’t look for ways to cut expenses instead they hire consultants to craft the best argument to take more money from the citizens. ENOUGH!
Michael, maybe SBCC should have courses in how to become a government consultant.
This new program would fill a vast local employment need.
Brilliant, a root cause analysis that is undeniable. The data you provide on the professional analyses of SBCC'S underlying issues, that were ignored after we taxpayers funded them, amounts to no less than malfeasance in office by those who have been responsible in the office of CEO and on the board of Trustees. These people are public servants who serve in the public trust. Measure P is no more than another assault on the public trust. Why do we have a Santa Barbara Grand Jury if we don't use it?
Outstanding analysis and comment, Dale. This mode of analysis could be a template for criticism of most educational bonds in California in the past few years. With the threshold for passage of these measures reduced from 2/3s to 55%, the development of a school bond industrial complex supported mostly by businesses that would benefit from the construction spending, and the emergence of aspecialized class of ed bond political consultants , the public is outmatched and outgunned- with their own tax dollars! The schools, the donors and the consultants have mastered the techniques of (1) using public funds to do advocacy promotional materials under very lax, permissive regulation by the state fair Political Practices Commission, and (2) the tactic of jamming a big bond measure onto the election calendar at the very last second, with such a limited amount of time for any organization that might oppose the measure to submit opposition arguments! It’s outrageous!
Bond counsel takes their share upfront, win or lose. Lots of extra fingers in this pie. And that is only the beginning, even after a bond issue passes.
Campus infrastructure needs are real. Which is why there needs to be a good community relationship up front; not last minute one-sided demands. The current SBCC board missed that chapter.
Just give us the money, so we can get back to business as usual is what I am hearing in this rush job bond issue.
Already have my black pen out to put an X on the no slot.. With your great article you have added even more layers of reasons to VOTE NO on P! Thank you.
And when everybody places an X on NO, then what will "they" do to gather up more funds behind our backs? Steal some funds from here and there ... oh, they've already done that for other things. I know, send the building inspector around to all the houses and writeup violations. The city will recommend a contractor that does nothing, you run out of money and have to leave and sell your house. Your house is sold to someone that doubles or triples the value of your home and now they can collect more property taxes. Problems solved; hey that's close to what happened to me! By the way, the city inspector commented to a 2nd contractor "he wouldn't have approved the work of the first contractor, anyway because the contractor's work is sloppy." You'd think a city inspector just might tell a homeowner we were dealing with a crappy contractor.
Fingers crossed that it doesn't come to that, Bill, and hopefully you will get your horrible sounding issues sorted out. No fun what you've gone through and I wish you much luck.
Thanks, Monica. The city government consists of evil actors. You had a building inspector knowing he wasn't going to approve the construction work of the 1st contractor that cost us about $120K. The 2nd contractor was clearly doing work for the city, and he stole about $100K from us. Kristen Sneddon home was nearby with a low profile, domed, camouflaged tent in her backyard (can you say "FBI"). A big supportive Dem pal of Sneddon lived up the hill from us, enemies everywhere. We actually received more money from the sale of a rental home in Goleta! We were taken advantage of to the Nth degree, no doubt about it. I'm thinking of a lawsuit of $66.7 Million (my wife doesn't like using $66.6 Million <g>). But think about it, Goleta got a big property tax boost on a home costing me $159K and selling for $1.3M. And our nice SB home costing us $400K and selling for less than $1.3M then renovated by a new buyer and selling for $3.9M. Think of all those property tax gains. The FBI is trying to keep me busy with other scammer attacks in Dalton, GA (which has an FBI branch within a mile or so). The FBI is really sloppy, and they left a trail between CA and GA. The FBI helped me to figure out who did what with all their tactics applied. Remember the City has the FBI on their side being pro-Democrat. If they don't like you, then you can be up for a lot of crapola. Take heed out there. I had an induced illness; nefarious stuff was planted all over the house to make me look like a thug. If Trump gets in ... City of Santa Barbara watch out!
Great comment letter. Dale brings years of experience as a City Councilman, and more from work in the Tech sector.
The loss of students was projected years ago. Mr. Franciso pointed out the decline in population that was projected in the 1960's. The current management of most schools and cities do not want to admit to the end game of these population projections.
It is damning to those who want density and worst destruction of infrastructure.
SBCC needs to see a reduction and change of direction that will demand a reduction in expenses. They do not need more money to prop up what is not working.
Thanks Dale, for providing the necessary start to any process: understanding the current data. The second step is to understand the business model. The third step is to decide, and take, the steps to make the data fit the model. My experience is that this process requires rankings of priorities of objectives and contributors, which will require reducing some employees since anything that does not deal with 85% of the cost is a waste of time and energy. This is a difficult ,emotional, but necessary, process since it never easy to reduce staff.
SBCC came to grips with these emerging realities after the 2008 fiscal meltdown.
Voters responded in 2010, by replacing the prior SBCC board majority and immediately fired the fiscally savvy new SBCC CEO, who had been selected by the prior board to deal with these very issues. The rest, as they say, is now history.
Full disclosure, I was a member of the prior SBCC board that was 100% changed after the 2012 election and redistricting. Two of us were re-districted out of any future seat to run for as a result. The last remaining prior trustee chose to resign, leaving this entirely new board of SBCC trustees after 2012 to manage its current affairs to date.
To my credit, one of my last requests in 2012, which was repeatedly denied, was to have a full board discussion with the new trustees about not using local tax payers as an ATM. Therefore, this important community sensibilities discussion never happened.
Thank you Mr. Francisco for such a detailed review and explanation the background of SBCC and how Prop P factors in.
Great explanation. Thank you. Re declining enrollments- I would be interested in what survey/assessments the College has undertaken re subjects being offered. My observations is that we need nursing and nursing aid courses, trade courses- electrical, elec/mechanical- vehicle, airplane, diesel engines (we have a harbor full of boats and not enough mechanics), improved culinary school etc.