- To stop administration from eliminating vital programs on campus that impact our community:
- To share in the governance of Green River College in order to deliver the highest quality education.
- To participate in the process of reviewing the viability of our programs.
- To make informed and reasonable decisions about who and how we serve.
The administration is wasting taxpayer money and tuition dollars: Millions of taxpayer and tuition dollars have contributed to the new Trades building because the projections for the programs it would contain were positive. This is a failure in management. If the Auto body and Carpentry programs are eliminated, that will leave over a third of the building unaccounted for. Additionally, some equipment has already been purchased and is being stored at a cost.
The closing of these programs is a disservice to students and the community. Regardless of the College’s name change which did away with the word “Community,” the programs serve the greater Auburn community, not just a few faculty and staff. We are not against expansion, but by cutting these programs, students in our service area who are looking for opportunity to improve their circumstances will have fewer options than before.
Administration is not bargaining with faculty in good faith. Administration has failed to work with faculty to make things better. In a negotiation process that has taken over a year with no end in sight, the administration’s decision to RIF programs like Autobody, Carpentry, GIS, and Parent Education—programs that are connected to the faculty’s negotiation teams’ two chief negotiators and the Treasurer of the Union—is retaliatory and disrespectful.
There is a lack of fairness and transparency on campus that undermine the principles of shared governance. It's unfair that four programs have been slated for elimination yet the college has neither shared all of the data that was used to select these programs nor consulted with faculty, staff, and students about reviewing these programs. This administration has blatantly disregarded the past practice of program review. With less than three weeks remaining until the college moves to the next step of the reduction-in-force (RIF) process, stakeholders still have not received sufficient and accurate evidence that these programs are should be eliminated. It is difficult to refute information that you don't have (or that has been withheld?).