Board Passes Classified Staff Layoffs on Second Try at Rushed Special Meeting

The Contra Costa Community College District Board of Trustees approved a modified resolution to eliminate 8.5 full-time equivalent classified positions at a tense Friday special meeting — called with roughly 24 hours' notice after the same measure failed two days earlier. Approximately 14 speakers, including union representatives, students, faculty, and long-tenured employees, lined up to oppose the cuts, but Trustee John Marquez flipped his vote from abstention to yes, giving the board the three votes it needed before a March 15 statutory deadline.

• Board approves layoffs of 8.5 FTE classified positions across Contra Costa College and Diablo Valley College, triggering notices to approximately 118 employees

• Trustee Marquez flips vote from abstention to yes after the district removed one undocumented students program coordinator from the layoff list

• Workers, union leaders, and students deliver emotional testimony contrasting classified cuts with recently approved 8% management raises

• Student Trustee Sophie Curry blasts process, revealing the person who would absorb the cut coordinator role is leaving on a one-year leave of absence

• Procedural challenge under Robert's Rules rejected by board president, who rules the modified resolution is a different motion

Layoffs Advance After 24-Hour Turnaround

The basics: On Wednesday, March 11, the board failed to pass a resolution authorizing layoffs of approximately 9.5 FTE classified staff — the measure didn't get the required three votes. By Thursday, the district called a special meeting for 5 p.m. Friday with a single change: the removal of one undocumented students program coordinator position from the layoff list, bringing the total to 8.5 FTE across nine positions at Contra Costa College and Diablo Valley College.

Why it matters: Approximately 118 classified professionals — the workers who staff basic needs centers, financial aid offices, counseling departments, and student support programs — will receive precautionary layoff notices before the March 15 statutory deadline. Under California law, the district must issue those notices by mid-March or lose the ability to make reductions for the fiscal year. Staff says many notices could be rescinded by June.

Where things stand: Associate Vice Chancellor and Chief Human Resources Officer Dr. Jeffrey Michaels told the board the modified resolution was distinct from Wednesday's failed measure. "Tonight we are recommending a modified resolution. You have not brought back the same resolution that you considered two days ago. It is a different resolution," he said. He added that the district expects to work with Public Employees Union Local 1 on transitions and vacancies in the coming months: "We expect to be able to rescind many of the layoff notices we'll be issuing if the board passes tonight's resolution. Final decisions will be made by June of this year." (Lightly edited for clarity.)

But for workers in the room, the distinction between a notice and a final layoff offered little comfort. Sonya Nelson, a senior program coordinator at Diablo Valley College with 27 years at the district, described previous rounds of budget cuts that included 10–15% across-the-board supply reductions, hiring freezes, and management pay cuts of 5–10% before any classified positions were touched. "In 2025, upper management received an 8% raise," she said, questioning why the same collaborative approach was not attempted this time. Four of her team members are at risk.

Joe Summers, representing the Contra Costa Labor Council, was blunter: "Doing these cuts, after recently approving 8% raises for the district's top leadership, shows the community where the priorities of this district lie."

Grace Wolfman, a student worker at the Contra Costa College basic needs center, described the center's daily operations — a food pantry, hygiene supplies, infant items — and challenged the board directly: "What should we tell the mother who relies on our daily supply of pantry staples to keep her family fed?" The center serves between 800 and 1,200 students monthly.

Teddy, another student worker at the basic needs office who described himself as formerly homeless, told trustees that classified staff helped him find stable housing and continue his education. He warned that if he loses his student worker position due to cuts, he could return to homelessness. The office helps 40 to 80 people daily.

The other side: Board President Diana Honig framed the vote as an act of fiscal stewardship to prevent deeper harm down the road, citing the loss of TRIO program funding as evidence that the district cannot sustain all current positions. "We are fiscal stewards and we have a responsibility, and we're doing this to minimize harm later," she said.

Trustee Marquez delivered a lengthy personal statement, sharing his background as a veteran, immigrant, and former student of the district. He said he had spent the intervening days looking more deeply into the issue and concluded he could not justify another abstention. "Pains me, but I'll take the heat for it. And I just have to do what I think in my heart is the right thing for the betterment of the whole, all of us," he said.

Decisions: The resolution passed 3-0-1-1. Trustee Honig, Trustee Marquez, and Trustee Andy Li voted yes. Trustee Rebecca Barrett abstained. Vice President Sandoval was absent at both meetings. Layoff notices are expected to be mailed the following day, March 14.

What's next: The district plans to work with Local 1 through June to minimize the impact of the layoffs through vacancies and transitions. Final determinations on which positions are actually eliminated will come by June. Affected employees face months of uncertainty, and the "bumping" process — where senior employees can displace junior ones — will ripple across all three colleges.

"More Like Political Maneuvering": Process Draws Sharp Criticism

The substance of the layoffs was only half the story. The other half was how the board got here.

Why it matters: The district's decision to call a 5 p.m. Friday special meeting with approximately 24 hours' notice — after the same resolution failed on Wednesday — raised pointed questions about public participation, governance norms, and whether the single modification was a genuine policy change or a targeted maneuver to flip one vote.

Where things stand: Catherine Tudor, a 31-year district employee, set the tone early in public comment: "This special meeting, called just 48 hours after the prior vote, with only a single minor change, looks less like governance and more like political maneuvering." She argued that removing the undocumented students coordinator to secure a changed vote sends a troubling message that student services are bargaining chips.

Michael Simpson called out individual trustees by name, criticizing Trustee Li for not following through on dialogue with unions and Trustee Marquez for the appearance of a backdoor deal. "Eliminating the very workforce that makes our colleges functional is not courageous leadership. It is avoidance. It is choosing the easiest path at the expense of the people with the least power to defend themselves."

Lindsey Litowitz noted that colleagues couldn't attend due to work schedules, lack of vacation time, and childcare obligations — a 5 p.m. Friday meeting with one day's notice is not designed for maximum participation.

Maria Alegria raised a formal procedural objection under Robert's Rules of Order, arguing that a failed motion cannot be brought back without a majority vote to reconsider. "As I understand, the vote when I left Wednesday, there was not a majority vote. So none of you can really bring this item back," she said. She urged the board to direct staff to present multiple budget options for community input instead of a single take-it-or-leave-it resolution.

President Honig rejected the procedural challenge: "This is not the same motion that we are bringing forward. This is a modified motion. So that provision that you cited in the Robert's Rules does not apply."

Student Trustee Sophie Curry — a non-voting member — submitted a written statement read into the record by the clerk. She criticized the short-notice meeting, the inability to submit public comments via Zoom, and the district's failure to communicate with affected staff about their roles before issuing notices.