March 19, 2019 at 8:18 am #3263
I am extremely disappointed in the administrations lack of communication to the four classified staff who are going to be “re-assigned new positions.” It is a lack of respect for the work they do, when the administration doesn’t even send a short email acknowledging the boards decision on March 14th. and its impact.
Because the board decided to keep the titan store going for another year, how is that going to impact the budget and will that force the college to actually lay off staff?
March 19, 2019 at 8:52 am #3264
I am also frustrated with administration’s lack of communication with the department. I expect administration to identify the position of the TitanStore and work with the department to aid its recovery by creating goals and staying accountable.
What this means for the budget is that the expenses and revenue allocated to the TitanStore will continue to be included in the FY20 budget. This decision by the board, to keep the TitanStore operations in-house, does not force the college to lay off staff.
April 11, 2019 at 3:33 pm #3327
I have a question about the ORS statue ORS 279B.030 (and.033) that discusses outsourcing. It refers multiple times to “procurement” (buying services instead of having them in house). If the college cuts Food Services and rents out the spaces to food vendors, they would not be “buying” a replacement for Food Services. The vendors would not be obligated to the college to provide food. They would only be obligated to pay rent. Are there any legal cases involving ORS 279B.030 and a similar situation where replacement services were not directly bought?
April 12, 2019 at 2:42 pm #3331
I’m not are of any case law addressing this situation. While the college could try to spin it as simply renting out space to a business that just happens to sell food (with the timing being purely coincidental, of course), I think a competent judge would see through such a smokescreen and call it what it is – an attempted end-run around the law.
I hope the administration has more integrity and respect for its employees than to try such a stunt, but if they do, LCCEF will be there to call them out on it and take what steps are necessary to hold them accountable.
April 17, 2019 at 9:30 am #3363
How can an intermittent loss at the Titan store mean it must be shut down, when a constant large loss at the Titan residence is tolerated? Is there something else going on to make it worth keeping that is not visible? To me, it makes it look more like the decision is based on reducing classified staff than cost savings