Ä¢¹½´«Ã½

Institutional work for 2026-2027

See where we are and how it all fits together

Ä¢¹½´«Ã½ created a financial bridge through FY27. The President’s Leadership Team is bringing Ä¢¹½´«Ã½ together to understand our performance, identify the greatest opportunities to improve student outcomes, and make long-term choices that Ä¢¹½´«Ã½ can fund and sustain.

The short version

What to know right now.

Follow the work

One year, six connected phases.

Select a phase to see its focus, the required work, and what employees can expect.

Bodies of work that need to move together

• Institutional direction: Move from shared financial reality to clear, funded priorities.
• Budget: Work with the Integrated Budget and Planning Council to build scenarios, recommend tradeoffs, and propose a balanced biennium budget.
• Labor Relations: Work with our two unions towards fair and sustainable successor contracts in the spring.
• State budgeting: Advocate for the state to adequately fund community colleges as essential public infrastructure.

Current work: Phase 1

Stability gives Ä¢¹½´«Ã½ time. Agency is what we do with it.

Phase 1 is a shared effort to understand the facts, name real effects, take responsible action, and prepare for the choices ahead.

Why budget and student outcomes belong in the same conversation

• Resources are limited: Ä¢¹½´«Ã½ cannot sustain every current commitment at its present scope.
• Outcomes are the mission: Our mission – and increasingly state funding – depends on whom Ä¢¹½´«Ã½ serves and whether students progress and complete.
• Evidence should inform our choices: Ä¢¹½´«Ã½ will need to decide what parts of our college we will protect, strengthen, redesign, or reduce. Student performance and need should drive those choices.
• Choices shape the budget: The next biennium budget should fund the outcomes and capabilities that Ä¢¹½´«Ã½ is best positioned to pursue.

Phase 1 foundational resources

Your role in Phase 1

Help turn insight into action.

PLT will be training managers to hold team conversations, where you should identify concrete impacts of our budget constraints, practical changes your team can make to keep workload sustainable, and issues that require broader cross-functional attention.

• Understand: Ask questions about what the FY27 stabilization plan did (and did not) accomplish.
• Name: Describe specific effects on workload, student service, instruction, equity, deadlines, or institutional reliability.
• Act or elevate: Identify meaningful ways to help from where you are.
• Close the Loop: PLT commits to reporting back at the end of the phase, answering the questions we can, and being honest if we don’t have an answer yet.

Employee feedback summary

Phase 1 stability and agency pulse survey

Thank you for sharing your questions, concerns, and local impacts through the Phase 1 Stability and Agency Pulse Survey. In the open-ended feedback about issues needing follow-through, we heard commitment to Ä¢¹½´«Ã½â€™s students and mission alongside anxiety about jobs and services, frustration with communication, and distrust about how decisions are made. The following themes summarize that feedback.

• Accurate budgets and clear decisions
  Respondents asked for reliable department budgets, accessible information about revenue and spending, and an explanation of why the shortfall persists. They want to understand who will make decisions, the criteria for reductions, how responsibility will be shared across the college, and the timeline for the FY27–29 budget.
• Communication that reaches everyone
  Employees described uneven access to Phase 1 conversations and uncertainty about where to find information or ask questions. They requested clearer expectations, regular updates, and coordination with managers before college-wide messages. One respondent found the online materials helpful; others said email alone is not ensuring understanding or participation.
• Meaningful input and visible follow-through
  Some respondents questioned whether consultation can influence decisions or whether outcomes are already determined. They asked for meaningful involvement of affected employees and shared governance, clarity about the Integrated Budget and Planning Committee’s role, and visible follow-through on concerns raised previously.
• Job security and sustainable workloads
  Questions about layoffs, reductions in teaching assignments, and advance notice were especially direct. Respondents described understaffing and asked how further reductions, outsourcing, or fewer full-time faculty would affect workloads and the ability to sustain programs and services across locations.
• Student access and meaningful measures of success
  Comments raised concerns about access to needed courses, tutoring, financial aid, and other support, and whether reductions could weaken enrollment, retention, or completion. Respondents want clear definitions of student success and evaluation methods that recognize contributions that are difficult to quantify.
• A broader range of financial options
  Suggestions included reviewing administrative, consultant, technology, and facilities spending; expanding revenue and state funding advocacy; and considering retirement incentives or attrition. Views differed on staffing and timing: some urged protecting or rebuilding capacity, while others called for faster, coordinated reductions. Respondents also questioned whether small operating savings can address the scale of the problem.

The comments call for specific answers to local questions, clear explanations of decisions, and evidence that employee feedback has been considered. Employees want to see how the process will address Ä¢¹½´«Ã½â€™s financial needs while sustaining its educational mission.