LCC union’s ‘independent’ report on college finances is anything but

Lane Community College is navigating real financial challenges that deserve an honest, transparent public discussion. Unfortunately, that discussion has been muddied by a document recently promoted as an “independent report” by the Lane Community College Education Association, the union representing college faculty.

The report claims the college is in far better financial shape than its own public documents show and suggests that administrators are using misleading assumptions to justify cuts. Readers should understand two critical facts before giving this report weight.

First, the report is not independent.

Second, it is not a financial analysis in any professional sense.

The report was authored by a researcher with no formal financial credentials, who is not a CPA, has not worked in public finance and has no professional background in governmental budgeting, fund accounting or institutional financial management.

That alone should prompt caution. Public college finance is technical, governed by reserve policies, cash-flow timing, bond covenants and state funding formulas. These are not areas where intuition or advocacy framing is sufficient.

More importantly, the author’s professional work is almost exclusively in labor advocacy.

He has authored numerous reports, articles and opinion pieces on behalf of unions and labor-aligned causes, including work for Service Employees International Union Local 503, critiques of university “misplaced priorities,” and strike-related commentary published through labor-friendly outlets. As recently as 2022, he publicly identified himself as Research Manager for SEIU Local 503 in official Oregon legislative testimony.

None of this is secret. It is part of the public record. But it directly contradicts the claim that this report is “independent.”

The report argues that LCC essentially has “plenty of money” and that financial concerns are overstated. To reach that conclusion, it relies heavily on headline “net position” figures and one-time pension accounting effects.

That framing is misleading.

LCC’s own board-adopted financial documents focus on the general fund ending fund balance — the operating reserve that protects against cash flow gaps, revenue volatility and credit risk. Under the college’s published baseline forecast, that reserve sits at roughly 5%, well below the board’s 10% policy target, and has been below that target for more than a decade.

The same documents show structural operating deficits continuing through the end of the decade and negative in-year cash balances without mitigation. Far from abstract accounting concerns, these deficits affect the college’s ability to meet payroll, avoid short-term borrowing and maintain favorable bond ratings.

The author’s report also treats a one-year pension accounting improvement as if it created permanent operating capacity. LCC’s own forecasts show pension costs rising again in future years as bond effects unwind. A one-time accounting swing is not a funding source for ongoing salaries.

Equally problematic is the claim that LCC’s administration is using “misleading assumptions.” The college’s published assumptions include enrollment growth, routine tuition increases and standard inflation factors. They are transparent and, if anything, optimistic. The report does not identify any assumption that is demonstrably false.

There is an additional context that deserves disclosure. Austin Fölnagy, the current chair of the Lane Community College Board of Education, is a member and office holder in SEIU Local 503 — the same union local that has relied on the author’s research in other contexts.

This does not imply wrongdoing, but it does underscore why transparency matters. When a faculty union promotes an “independent” report written by a long-time labor advocate closely associated with the same union ecosystem, the community deserves full context to evaluate credibility.

This shouldn’t be interpreted as an argument against faculty, unions or collective bargaining. But it is an argument for intellectual honesty in a public process.

If a document is advocacy, it should be labeled as advocacy.

If a report is written by a partisan researcher, that should be disclosed.

And if claims contradict the college’s own governing financial documents, those contradictions should be addressed — not waved away.

LCC’s financial challenges are real, documented and structural. They will not be solved by pretending that capital accounting equals operating cash, or by outsourcing financial analysis to researchers whose careers are built on advancing one side of the negotiating table.

The community deserves analysis grounded in finance, not ideology, especially when long-term decisions about jobs, programs and fiscal stability are at stake.

Real solutions require real numbers, real expertise and real independence.