Image provided by: Clackamas Community College; Oregon City, OR
About The print. (Oregon City, Oregon) 1977-1989 | View Entire Issue (May 16, 1984)
Theater Depart ment presents “Best Man” Page 4 Cougar boss accepts post at Auburn Page 8 «PRINT Clackamas Community College Wednesday, May 16, 1984 Vol'. XVII,-No^ Voters reject tax base proposal By Doug Vaughan Of The Print voters rejected the new ap proach, also. After trying two identical three-year serial tax levies and failing, the Clackamas Com munity College Board of Education put a tax base on the May 15 primary elections ballot. To no avail, county As of presstime, the tax base was being defeated at a five to three ratio. With partial totals from 99 of 169 precincts it had been outvoted 5080 to 3403. Hakanson relayed distress over the failure and said that College President Dr. John Hakanson File Photo the board will have to re evaluate the levy. He was con fident that the College would propose the revised levy to the voters on the June 26 election date. Election Results Yes.... ........... 5080 The College is currently functioning on the last year of a three-year tax levy that was passed in 1981. The levy ex pires June 30, 1984. Twice this year the board had proposed three-year tax (With partial totals from 99 of 169 precincts) levies asking for a 12 percent tax increase over the three years. The levy that the Col seventh time county voters summer school. But it does lege is functioning under now have denied a College tax base have an effect upon fall term. The College has enough taxes county citizens $1.24 per proposal. money to function in summer $1000 of assessed property Hakanson had said that term due to the budget cuts value. The two proposals that there was not a difference in failed would have set a limit of the amounts of the three pro that were enacted in November and December of $1.39 per $1000. posals, just that this last one 1983, but fall term hinges on The reason the College took another disguise. The re the passage of a future levy. decided to try something new jected tax base would have “We will have to make was because tax bases can only contributed $8.2 million to the some more cuts in our levy appear on general or primary College’s revenue. It allowed depending on what the board election ballots on even- for a six-percent increase per and budget committee’s at numbered years, therefore the year to accommodate for in titude is at tonight’s meeting,” flation, but any increase more Hakanson said. “We have opportunity was at hand. than that would have had to enough revenue for our sum College President John mer program, but we need to Hakanson said the advantage go before the voters again. Hakanson had confirmed pass a levy in order to function of a tax base is that it sets a limit on tax increases. This that the tax base approval had fall term. If we pass one, then election’s rejection was the no bearing on the closure of it’s no problem.” .... ......3403 Faculty contract now in Boards' hands By Shelley Ball Of The Print Clackamas Community College’s ongoing struggle to ratify a faculty contract may soon be over, as the College’s faculty yesterday voted to ac cept a newly negotiated con tract. The proposed two-year contract will go into effect if the College’s Board of Educa tion ratifies it at tonight’s board meeting. The College’s previous faculty contract expired in Ju ly of 1983, and since that time ^the faculty has been operating Campbell said of the negotia tion meeting. Campbell is a part of the four-member facul ty group representing the en tire faculty in negotiation meetings. Campbell explained the newly negotiated contract con sists of putting a two-year That hearing has since freeze on faculty wages, with been called off, as Counselor an increment during the se David Campbell said another cond year. This faculty salary meeting was held just before freeze is categorized under the the hearing, in which both economic issue of the faculty sides hammered out an agree contract, and it is one of the ment over the course of several newest changes made during the recent negotiation. days. Campbell also said the “Basically, compromises were made on both sides,” faculty feels they have without a contract. Although the College’s faculty and ad ministration have held nu merous negotiation meetings, no agreement had been reach ed, so a fact-finder’s hearing was originally scheduled for April 26. negotiated an increment only and not an actual salary raise. “They (board) would view it as a raise in salary. The faculty sees it as money for demonstration of competence on the job,” he said. “We (faculty) have given up a pay raise in effect of recognizing the dire straits of the College,” Campbell said. Another issue negotiated on the faculty contract includ ed an early retirement clause, which will go into effect dur ing the first year of the con tract, or in 1983-84. The language issues of the faculty contract, which involved a Reduction in Force procedure and faculty evaluations, were negotiated for each year of the contract. In regards to the upcom ing board meeting, Dean of Instruction Lyle Reese said he and other members who repre sent the administration side in the negotiation meetings are still not at liberty to talk about the contract negotiations until after both sides have ratified the contract, if that is the case. The next time the Col lege’s faculty will be meeting to negotiate the next two-year contract will be in February of * 1985. J