Prompted by a projected $16.7 million deficit that will empty reserves by next year, Santa Monica College’s Board of Trustees voted Tuesday night to approve layoffs of approximately 70 staff after critics spent hours lambasting the board for what they said were years of incompetence and failed leadership.
The board passed a pair of amended votes that authorized the layoffs of classified (non-teaching) staff and management positions. Impacted employees will receive notices by a March 15 deadline though but some positions may eventually be retained.
The layoffs come as the college confronts a financial crisis that has seen its fund balance plummet from $43.9 million in 2021-22 to a projected $13.1 million this year, well below recommended reserve levels. Without intervention, projections show a negative fund balance by 2026-27. The Board has been losing millions of dollars per year due to a steady decline in enrollment and state funding changes that froze SMC’s allocation while expenses continued rising.
Critics testified that the crisis was not sudden but the predictable result of decisions made after years of documented warnings dating back about a decade.
“What Santa Monica College is facing today is not a sudden crisis. It is a predictable result of choices made after years of documented warnings,” said Cindy Ordaz, representing the California School Employees Association. “The deficit that we are facing and discussing today did not appear overnight. It is the delayed consequence of decisions made after those warnings were issued.”
She said the administration and board made no meaningful attempt to restructure after two rounds of retirement and criticized the board for decisions to expand management costs, both through hiring and raises, while the college hemorrhaged cash.
“Accountability that was consistently deferred to some version of future growth,” she said. “That’s not fiscal strategy. That is risk deferral, or, as some might say, just kicking the can down the road.”
Multiple speakers criticized the timing and scope of a 7% management salary increase approved by the board in March 2023 while the college faced structural deficits.
Using public salary data, Ordaz calculated that the increase translated to approximately $27,000 annually for the superintendent president, earning over $380,000 per year, and about $21,000 annually for vice presidents earning over $280,000.
“These were not theoretical increases. They were paid in 2023 while we were having the structural deficit that we’re just blaming and hanging everything on today, and they became pensionable compensation,” Ordaz said.
By contrast, she noted that the lowest-paid classified employees earning around $50,000 to $55,000 annually would have received roughly $290 to $320 per month from a 7% increase.
“One month of a 7% raise for a single executive management position equals six to eight months of a 7% raise for a front line classified worker,” Ordaz said. “Classified staff did not ask for a 7% raise. We were simply asking for our contractual me too, which is less than 1%.”
Faculty Association President Peter Morse called the situation “the continuation of a failed approach” that has already resulted in hundreds of faculty being laid off and thousands of students turned away.
“The college leadership appears to continually take the wrong turn and not learn from past mistakes,” Morse said. “SMC deserves better.”
Associated Students President Ailsa Ortiz expressed deep concern about proposed reductions to student-facing services, particularly tutoring and counseling.
“Approximately one-third of Instructional Support Services, specifically tutoring, are proposed for reductions,” Ortiz said. “Many of the positions listed for elimination represent what could be considered as low hanging fruit—rolls that generate immediate savings on paper, but at a disproportionate cost to students when compared to potential reductions at the executive or higher administrative level.”
Ortiz noted that Santa Monica College has been the number one transfer institution in California for Black and Latino students, a success metric that directly aligns with equity components of the student-centered funding formula.
“When instructional support and counseling are reduced, it becomes increasingly clear that culturally responsive and identity affirming programs are likely to be disproportionately impacted,” she said.
The board itself was divided on both taking responsibility for the years-long crisis and how to address it now.
Trustee Rob Rader, who voted against both resolutions, argued for shared sacrifice across all employee groups rather than targeting specific positions for elimination.
“I don’t feel right about making only certain members bear so much of that burden,” Rader said. “I think now we are looking at an institution-wide issue that we need to ask all employee groups to take cuts.”
Rader proposed a graduated approach where employees making over $150,000 would take higher percentage cuts than those making less, citing the pandemic when classified staff agreed to cuts to prevent layoffs.
Trustee Nancy Greenstein, who voted against the bulk of the cuts, said she wanted to “see how we can rework it and take some of the burden, particularly off the classified, because it does seem very unfair.”
Trustee Tom Peters, who worked at the college for 15 years before joining the board, supported the resolutions with amendments to spread the impact.
“Management has to look at the possibility of losing their jobs too, and some reshuffling even at the highest levels in this college should take a sacrifice,” Peters said.
Trustee Luis Barrera Castanon, who was student body president during previous cuts 20 years ago, said the decision begins a necessary process.
“We need to start this process in order to open those decisions, start that conversation and figure out how do we move forward as a college and how are we going to survive for the next 100 years,” Barrera Castanon said.
Trustee Margaret Quinones-Perez opposed the cuts. As the longest-sitting board member she strongly defended the past decision to approve salary increases.
“I don’t apologize and I don’t regret the pay raises that our employees deserve, and I am not going to ask them to cut their health benefits, and I’m not going to ask them to change their retirement,” Quinones-Perez said. “We need to right size this, and we’ll do it from the top.”
Quinones-Perez rejected criticism that the board had kicked the can down the road, saying she did “the right thing that needed to happen for our employees.”
“This is not our money. This is the college’s money. This is the employee’s money,” she said.
Rader pushed back on Quinones-Perez’s position, arguing that asking employees to adjust health benefits was preferable to complete job losses.
“Asking people to go from PERS platinum to PERS gold is something that, rather than asking 50 families to lose all of their health benefits, is something that I’m comfortable with,” Rader said.
He said the current situation was a textbook example of kicking the can down the road and the board had plenty of blame to accept for not preempting the slow-moving disaster earlier but that some of the recently elected members had inherited a problem they did not cause.
“It was disclosed to us multiple times that our salary structure was such that we were going to spend all the one time money in the reserves. And sure enough, it happened,” he said.
Board Chair Sion Roy, who voted for the cuts, said he approached the decision with awareness of the human impact.
“These are numbers on a piece of paper. These are people. These are our people who live in our community, people our neighbors, people who have their own families that rely on them,” Roy said. “There’s nothing positive to be said. And I’m sorry that it’s come to this.”
According to a statement from Superintendent/President Kathryn E. Jeffery, she will work with senior leadership over the next couple of weeks to review all classified management and academic administrator positions for potential restructuring.
Additional management and administrator positions will be identified for possible reduction and presented to the Board of Trustees. Affected employees will receive official notice outlining the process and providing resources.
“Like other higher education institutions facing similar budgetary pressures, SMC has to take the necessary steps to safeguard our fiscal viability,” Jeffery stated. “Difficult conversations lie ahead, and our students will continue to remain at the center of every conversation related to our fiscal challenges.”
editor@smdp.com