Here are my remarks made before the Lane Community College Budget Committee on May 14, 2025

Chair Patterson, Members of the Budget Committee, President Bulger, Colleagues, and Friends:

Good evening. My name is Jim Arnold. Some of you know me, but for those who don’t, I’m a former university and community-college administrator. In retirement, I’ve remained involved in higher education, including part-time faculty and classified roles here at LCC. I also served on the Budget Development Subcommittee here during the 21–22 academic year.

I come before you tonight to share a few brief observations, pose some questions, and to make a recommendation.

From what I understand, this year’s Budget Development Subcommittee — made up of faculty, classified professionals, and administrators — engaged in what’s been described as an extremely collaborative shared-governance process. Their final product was a balanced budget, approved by the College Council last month, that included a surplus of around $600,000.

Then, last Wednesday, here in this room, the administration presented its version of a budget which, surprisingly, looked quite different. This proposal called for spending $3.1 million from the ending fund balance. If adopted, it would deplete the college’s reserves over the next few years and place the institution in a financially precarious position.

This shift is concerning. The BDS proposal assumed hiring 30 of 37 open positions — about 80% — leaving a reasonable number vacant. But the administration’s proposal shows significantly higher staffing levels.

According to the LCC HR office, current staffing is 189 faculty, 281 classified staff, and 70 managers. The administration now projects 207 faculty, 337 classified, and 80 managers (p. 43). That’s 84 more positions than we have now — and more than twice the number the BDS proposed to fill.

I’m left wondering: Where did these positions come from? Why are they now in the budget? And if the goal is to fill them this year, how does that make fiscal sense when it would lead to a multi-million-dollar deficit?

So, it seems, we have two competing proposed budgets, based largely on different assumptions about staffing. I am unsure about which one to trust — but drawing on my experience here, I’m inclined to support the thoughtful, deliberate work of the Budget Development Subcommittee.

I urge you to ask this: Why wasn’t a projected $3.1 million deficit shared with the Board, Budget Committee, or campus community before last week?

And finally, I strongly recommend that you request a revised proposal — one that’s balanced without relying on reserves, and that takes a more thoughtful (responsible?) approach to filling vacant positions.

Thanks so much for your time.