June 5, 2026
Dear Members of the Peralta Community College District Board of Trustees,
I am writing as Vice President and President-Elect of the Merritt College Academic Senate
to urge the Board to reject the proposed merger of Merritt College and Laney College.
Based on the information provided by district administration, there is no financial
justification for reducing from four colleges to three. In fact, the evidence shows that the
merger would worsen the district's financial position by adding millions of dollars per year
to the budget deficit. For this reason, the Merritt College Academic Senate passed a
resolution in opposition to this merger.
Implications for Fund 1
According to figures provided by district administration, the merger would increase the
annual Fund 1 budget deficit by approximately $2 million per year.
Deputy Chancellor Greg Nelson, in a presentation in December 2025, estimated that
merging Merritt College and Laney College would result in an annual loss of apportionment
revenue of $3,329,169. While some administrative positions would become redundant
because of the merger, the savings generated by cutting those positions would not offset
the revenue loss.
In the same December 2025 presentation, DC Nelson estimated the savings from postmerger
administrator positions reductions to be $3,123,891. This number was based on
the budget for total administrator salaries and benefits at Merritt College at that time.
However, the organizational structures of each of the four Peralta colleges now include a
reduction to only one Executive Vice President position, reducing expenditures by
$995,223 at Merritt College and $867,891 at Laney, according to a presentation made to
the Merritt Budget Committee on May 13, 2026. As a result, the maximum annual savings
attributable to cutting half of the administrators at Laney and Merritt would be:
$3,123,891 - $995,223 - $867,891 = $1,260,777 (merger savings due to administrator cuts)
When these savings are compared to the projected loss of apportionment revenue, the
result is a net increase in the annual Fund 1 deficit:
-$3,329,169 + $1,260,777 =$-2,068,392
In other words, the merger would increase the district's annual Fund 1 deficit by
approximately $2 million per year.
VC Nelson has pointed out that that for the first two years after a Laney/Merritt merger,
Peralta would not lose any apportionment funding. The first-year apportionment would still
look back and be based on 4 college district numbers, and the 2nd year apportionment
would have a floor of that same prior year’s amount (from stability provisions). That is, for
the first two years of the merger, we would only see the savings due to administrator cuts
(of about $1.3 million per year) without having the cuts to apportionment funding (of about
$3.3 million per year). This should be seen as an intensification of earlier district financial
maneuvers like borrowing from summer to pay for spring, except this version is paying for
2027 by borrowing from 2030, 2031, 2032, and so on, in perpetuity.
Implications for Fund 11
There are likely to be even greater losses to categorical funding (Fund 11) than to Fund 1
after a merger. Currently, Merritt College and Laney College receive more than $20 million
annually in categorical funding for a variety of programs. These are programs that students
need to have access to at the campus where they take classes, like Street Scholars, Basic
Needs, the Wellness Center, Veterans Services, Puente, Sankofa/Umoja, Disability
Services (SAS), and EOPS. These programs are generally funded through formulas that
provide both a base allocation to each institution and additional funding based on student
headcount.
If Laney and Merritt are merged, both the base allocation funding and the headcount
funding will be cut. The base allocation currently provided separately to Merritt College
and Laney College would reduced to a single allocation for the merged institution. Funding
tied to student headcount would also decline because students who are currently enrolled
at both colleges and counted separately for funding purposes would only be counted once
after the merger.
The district has acknowledged these risks and is currently engaged in negotiations with the
California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office in an effort to minimize the loss of
categorical funding. However, the ultimate financial impact remains unknown and could
amount to a cut in categorical funding of several million dollars annually.
Given this uncertainty, it would be premature and unwise for the Board to approve the
merger before those negotiations have concluded. If the Board votes to proceed before a
final agreement is reached, the district will surrender much of its leverage in those
discussions.
Academic Senate Resolution
Under PCCD Board Policy 2510, the Board has committed to “relying primarily upon the
advice and recommendations of the senate, as duly constituted with respect to academic
and professional matters, as defined by law.” It is with this understanding that the Merritt
College Academic Senate (MCAS) provides you with the following advice and
recommendation.
On December 4, 2025, the Merritt College Academic Senate (MCAS) passed a resolution
“formally oppos[ing] the proposed merger of Merritt College and Laney College until and
unless district leadership provides a comprehensive, independently verifiable fiscal
analysis demonstrating that the merger ojers a clear financial benefit to the Peralta
Community College District as a whole.”
After passing this resolution, DC Nelson was invited to attend a future MCAS meeting to
make a presentation demonstrating the financial benefits of the merger. He refused this
invitation. DC Nelson refused even to answer email questions about this matter from
Merritt faculty and academic senators.
Conclusion
The financial case for the merger does not make sense. Based on the district's own figures,
the merger would increase the annual Fund 1 deficit by approximately $2 million. In
addition, it will result in a cut of a not yet determined number of millions of dollars per year
in categorical funding.
Before making an irreversible decision, the Board should require a complete and
transparent accounting of all financial impacts, including the final outcome of negotiations
regarding categorical funding. Until such information is available, there is no sound
financial basis for approving the merger.
I respectfully urge the Board of Trustees to reject the proposed merger and instead pursue
solutions that preserve the funding necessary to serve students effectively.
Sincerely,
Dan Lawson
Vice President and President-Elect, Merritt College Academic Senate
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Friends: Like many of you, I'm struggling to understand how a Merritt-Laney merger saves money. Case in point: when it comes to Fund 11, there's nothing to gain and millions to lose when we forfeit our status as two distinct colleges.
Fund 11 is typically where Peralta parks its Categorical Funds. Categorical Funds are issued annually from the State Chancellor's Office and are restricted to specific programs, purposes, and/or populations. Examples of Merritt's categorical programs include EOPS, SAS, CalWORKS, Umoja, Puente, Mental Health and Basic Needs.
Each of the 54 programs outlined in the Compendium below receives a base allocation per college and a supplemental allocation tied to enrollment and other factors.
For example: to support student mental health services, the State Chancellor's Office gives each CCC a base allocation of $100,000 per year and a supplemental allocation based on headcount and number of Pell Grant recipients. If Merritt and Laney merge, Peralta will lose $100,000 in base allocation (3 colleges instead of 4) as well as a significant portion of the supplemental allocation, since "swirl" means that some of Merritt's headcount is also Laney's headcount. Multiply this reduction across ALL Categorical programs and our voluntary forfeiture lands in the millions - not once, but annually.
Have these millions been factored into the district's budget projections for a three-college district? I haven't heard it mentioned, so please: MENTION IT IN EVERY MEETING.
The 2025-26 Compendium shows exactly how much money the State Chancellor's Office has issued to each program in every California Community College this year. The Compendium is public record and available here: CCCCO Budget News
Don't have time to wade through a 323-page document? Attached is a spreadsheet listing Merritt and Laney's 2025-26 allocations, program by program. In a Merritt-Laney merger, one of those columns zeroes out while the number of students needing help continues to rise.
Last point: if you're an instructor thinking "these special funds have nothing to do with me or my classes," please look through the Compendium. There are many ways to braid funds and purposes. Fund 11 may in fact be Peralta's salvation. So, before we decimate this fund as an unintended consequence of the proposed merger, let's first get creative about leveraging these millions to better support our colleges as a whole.
Warm regards,
Stefani de Vito, LCSW
Health Services Coordinator
Merritt College Wellness Center, R-106
(510) 436-2534
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attached is a list of the 2025-26 Categorical Funds that Merritt and Laney each received. The source for this data is cited at the bottom of the page and in the email forwarded below.
After the proposed merger, there will only be ONE column of numbers. The dollars to OCC will be reduced according to each program's unique funding formula. In mental health, we expect a merged OCC to receive slightly more than half the funds that Laney and Merritt currently receive separately, with no commensurate reduction in the number of students seeking mental health services.
In practical terms, how will this affect students? Likely scenarios include layoffs of program personnel, reduced hours of operation, cuts in direct student aid, and "consolidation" of services to one location. If Merritt is demoted to the status of a "center," Merritt students will suffer most, having to go down the hill for the services they need. The 40+ Merritt students at BOT's Public Comment on 5/12/26 spoke powerfully about how they need their categorically-funded services at the campus where they attend classes.
While we appreciate Tammeil and Greg for pledging to ask CCCCO to "grandfather in" the district's Categorical funds, there is no scenario in which these funds are grandfathered in perpetuity. At best, we may get 1-3 years of "hold harmless" funding before cuts take effect. Peralta's upper administration has acknowledged that Categorical funding will shrink if we collapse from four colleges to three.
I have additional concerns about the lack of student and shared governance input in this process, as well as the operational impossibility of a Fall 2027 completion date.
Warm regards,
Stefani de Vito, LCSW
Health Services Coordinator
Merritt College Wellness Center, R-106
(510) 436-2534
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First and foremost, I would like to thank the Peralta leadership and Board of Trustees for allowing Merritt College students speak at Tuesday's Board Meeting. When our students saw the notification this month about the Laney/Merritt merger, they had a lot of questions and concerns. After reviewing the extensive information that was available on the Peralta site, the students were left with one very critical question: what will happen to the special programs on campus that are funded by grants? This was a question that I unfortunately could not answer because it was an answer that has not been fully developed.
Thankfully, we were able to show the students that they could ask questions, make statements and be heard at the BOT meeting. I am immensely proud of our students for being courageous enough to share their concerns. Not only did they share their concerns on a public level, they did so with an added level of anxiety because we only had 1 minute each to speak. They pressed on and made Merritt proud!
However, we were recently made aware that the messaging of our students may not have been properly understood. At the end of the day, it was a long, passionate 45 minutes of public comment and 1 minute is still rather short to be able to adequately voice concerns. In addition, many of our Street Scholar students are also COSER students and since Street Scholars is under the COSER department, the names are often used interchangeably. This also may have added some confusion. When I spoke at BOT, I tried to use my minute to make clear that we were discussing categorical programs, but my comment was among a sea of student remarks so I am not sure it provided the clarity.
Due to this, the Street Scholars students chose to write statements (attached) to ensure that their public comments were accurately deciphered. They want the leadership and the community to know that their comments are not due to a fear of COSER being shut down but rather a concern about Street Scholars (and other programs) and what will happen to them in the merge.
The most important take-away is that there are students who would like to be heard.
I hope that we can continue to have opportunity for more student led discussion and student led planning as we move towards a future together as a district and as a community.
Thank you.
With gratitude,
Biancca Parazo, SUDCC- II
She/Her
Community Social Services (COSER) Department Chair / Faculty Instructor
The Love-Moss Center for Re-Entry & Empowerment / Street Scholars: Program Coordinator
Rising Scholars Juvenile Justice: Program Director