Monthly Archives: January 2010

Sabbatical Program Overview

The AFT Negotiating Team won a major victory for full-time faculty in the 2002 contract settlement: the permanent reinstatement of a Sabbatical Leave program (officially called Extended Professional Development Leave), one option under the Professional Development Program. Application forms must be submitted to the office of the Vice President of Instruction on each campus by February 1 for full-year leaves beginning in the Fall of the following academic year, or one-semester leaves for either the Fall or Spring semester of the following academic year. Application forms are available on the colleges’ professional development pages:

Although the Sabbatical option is not fully funded, there will be opportunities for a number of faculty members to receive these valuable leaves aimed at providing productive time away from normal academic duties. If you intend to apply for a Sabbatical, please plan carefully, working out the details of your plan with your Division/Department Dean. The following language, taken from Article 13 of the new contract, will help clarify the guidelines for the Sabbatical Leave program.

Extended professional development leave is intended to provide full release from regular duties and enable unit members to respond to changing educational conditions and to engage in substantive professional growth projects. Extended leaves allow time for advanced formal coursework, independent study, work experience, programs of study and/or research and other beneficial activities which do not fall under regular faculty responsibilities.

Compensation: All participants will receive their regular pay and fringe benefits for leaves up to a
full semester. For projects with full release from regular duties for an academic year, participants will receive all fringe benefits and eighty percent (80%) of their regular pay.

1. Participants on extended leaves may use previously banked time to bring their compensation up to 100% during a leave.

2. Overload pay or reassigned time activities shall not be used to bring compensation up to 100% while participants are on an extended leave.

Types of Activities for extended leave projects: For extended leaves of a full semester or academic year, activities will be considered according to one or more of the following categories; all categories will be considered equally.

1. Retraining of applicant to allow for future new assignment in a needed area;

2. Study, project or activity that provides an applicant with opportunities to upgrade skills and knowledge for current or future assignments;

3. Study, project or activity for the improvement of curriculum, educational delivery, student personnel services or other support services;

4. Study, project or activity for development or revision of certificate or degree program;

5. Study, project or activity related to feasibility or revision of new or existing programs.

Eligibility: All full-time academic employees who have completed six years of continuous paid service with the District directly preceding the term of the requested leave are eligible for extended leaves of a full semester or academic year. District authorized paid leaves will not constitute a break in service.

Selection Process: The Professional Development Committee on each campus shall consist of three AFT appointed faculty members, one Academic Senate appointed representative and two administrators.

Selection for extended leaves will be governed by:

a) relative merits of the application

b) potential of future service to the District

c) seniority

Applicants whose requests have been denied by the Committee shall be informed, in writing, of the reasons for denial.

Application Procedures for Extended Leaves: Eligible faculty must submit a proposal to the Chair of the Professional Development Committee by February 1 of the preceding academic year. Each application must be accompanied by: a) an outline of the planned project, program, activity or work experience including a statement of purpose and objectives; b) a description of the activities involved; and c) a plan for sharing or applying the result of the activity.

Return from Leaves: Within thirty (30) days after returning to regular duties, each leave recipient will submit one or more of the following, providing evidence of having met the objectives stated in the initial application. Documentation will be submitted to the President and the Chair of the Professional Development Committee.

a. A transcript of courses taken and grades earned

b. A report on the educational benefits of project or activity undertaken

c. A description of plans for application of new skills and knowledge to teaching assignment and/or campus program

d. Letter from an employer verifying work experience

e. Samples of creative work, summary of research, and other evidence of original work produced as a result of leave.

The Professional Development Committee may request further evidence beyond that which is submitted by the recipient; such evidence must be submitted within two weeks of the committee’s request.

Return Obligation: Recipients of extended leaves for an academic year must work for the District for two years after returning from such leave. Recipients of an extended leave for a full-semester must work for the District for one year after returning from such leave. If a faculty member fails to fulfill this return obligation, the District has the right to ratably recover salary and benefits costs, unless otherwise mutually agreed to between the District and the faculty member.

Documents on SLOs and Accreditation


The documents below involve challenges to Accreditation Standard III.A.1.c of the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC.) Standard III.A.1.c mandates that student learning outcomes (SLOs) be a component of faculty evaluation.

At the Fall 2008 Plenary of the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges (Nov. 8, 2008), the Senate leaders adopted a resolution titled, “Opposition to Using SLOs in Faculty Evaluation.” The resolution affirmed the Senate’s “opposition to including the attainment of student learning outcomes as an aspect of individual faculty evaluations” and called on the Senate to “work with the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges and with and other concerned statewide faculty organizations to ensure that accreditation recommendations do not use student learning outcomes in any manner that would undermine either local bargaining authority or the academic freedom of individual faculty members.” The full resolution is copied below.

In an October 13, 2008 letter to the ACCJC, California Federation Of Teachers (CFT) President Marty Hittelman called on the accrediting agency to amend Standard III.A.1.c because it intrudes on negotiable evaluation criteria and violates principles of academic freedom. The full letter is copied below.

Lurelean Gaines (Chair) and Barbara Beno (President) of the ACCJC replied to Hittelman’s initial letter on December 2, 2008. In their letter, they stated that “The Commission appreciates your comments with respect to the issues you raise, and we will attempt to address each of them.” They took issue with numerous points in Hittelman’s letter, but a key argument they make is that the law gives the bargaining agent the right to negotiate “‘procedures to be used for the evaluation of employees,’ not the ‘criteria and standards’ to be used for evaluation.” The full letter is copied below.

Hittelman, however, then responded to Gaines and Beno on December 12, 2008, stating that, “Your ‘attempt’ to address our issues was not very well researched and contains a number of errors. I will try to address them as clearly as possible.” In particular, he responded regarding the right to negotiate evaluation criteria. “You are completely wrong in your analysis of collective bargaining law in California… The PERB has ruled repeatedly that the evaluation criteria are negotiable.” The full letter is copied below.

2.0       ACCREDITATION
2.01     F08      Opposition to Using SLOs in Faculty Evaluation
David Morse, Long Beach City College, Area D

Whereas, Campus visiting teams for the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) have offered conflicting interpretations of Accreditation Standard III.A.1.c (faculty and others directly responsible for student programs toward achieving stated student learning outcomes have, as a component of their evaluation, effectiveness in producing those student learning outcomes) leading to some team recommendations that the attainment of student learning outcomes should be included in individual faculty evaluations;

Whereas, The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, in its 2004 paper The 2002 Accreditation Standards: Implementation, has stated its opposition to the use of SLOs as a basis for faculty evaluation, noting the potentially negative impact on evaluation as a collegial peer process, on academic freedom, and on local bargaining authority;

Whereas, The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges noted in the same paper that “in the event that SLOs data is collected and aggregated, it must be without reference to specific classes, students and its instructors”; and

Whereas, The differing interpretations of Standard III.A.1.c by visiting teams have caused confusion, uncertainty, and anxiety on the part of faculty at colleges that have received team recommendations that appear to conflict with stated positions of the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, with previous understanding of the standard, and with the ACCJC’s stated respect for academic freedom;

Resolved, That the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges work with the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges to clarify the intent of standard III.A.1.c in order to resolve the conflicting messages being delivered by various visiting teams;

Resolved, That the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges affirm its opposition to including the attainment of student learning outcomes as an aspect of individual faculty evaluations; and

Resolved, That the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges work with the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges and with other concerned statewide faculty organizations to ensure that accreditation recommendations do not use student learning outcomes in any manner that would undermine either local bargaining authority or the academic freedom of individual faculty members.

Back to top

October 13, 2008

President Barbara Beno, ACCJC
10 Commercial Boulevard, Suite 204
Novato, CA 94949

Ms. Lurlean Gaines, Chair, and Commissioners of the ACCJC
10 Commercial Boulevard, Suite 204
Novato, CA 94949

Re: Amendment of ACCJC Standards III.A.1.c. and II.A.6.

Dear President Beno, Chair Gaines, and Commissioners of the ACCJC:

I write this letter as President of the California Federation of Teachers, AFT/AFL-CIO.   As you are well aware, the Accrediting Commission for the California Junior Colleges (ACCJC) serves an important function by virtue of California law.  In particular, the State has dictated that,

“Each community college within a district shall be an accredited institution.  The Accrediting Commission for California Junior Colleges shall determine accreditation.”
(5 Cal. Code Regs. § 51016)

In conferring this important responsibility on the ACCJC, the State of California and the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges expect that the ACCJC will fulfill an important state objective, providing education through accredited public community colleges.  ACCJC may or may not be a quasi-governmental entity, but either way it must respect State laws when fulfilling its functions.

Of particular importance to the California Federation of Teachers, and its constituent locals, is the Educational Employment Relations Act, California Government Code section 3540 et seq.  The Act, as you know, provides a framework for collective bargaining for employees in the California Community Colleges.

One of the most important rights faculty have is to negotiate with their employer over evaluation procedures, criteria and standards.  In fact, this right is so important that the Legislature deemed it worthy of explicit enumeration within the Act.  In addition, pursuant to the EERA, academic freedom policies are negotiated at community colleges.

In recent years, considerable controversy has existed within the community colleges over the issue of Student Learning Outcomes or SLOs.  It is an understatement to say that many within the college community, faculty and administrators alike, feel the ACCJC has gone too far in its demands regarding SLOs, especially when they intrude on negotiable evaluation criteria and violate principles of academic freedom.

Not long ago, the CFT invited comment from its faculty unions about SLOs, and their impact on their local colleges.  Of particular concern to CFT is the propensity with which accreditation teams from the ACCJC have indicated to the colleges that they should “develop and implement policies and procedures to incorporate student learning outcomes into evaluation of those with direct responsibility for student learning.”  This directive is based on ACCJC Accreditation Standard III.A.1.c., which states,

“Faculty and others directly responsible for student programs toward achieving stated student learning outcomes have, as a component of their evaluation, effectiveness in producing those student learning outcomes.”  (ACCJC Accreditation Standard III.A.1.c.)

Another standard has been used by accreditation teams to justify changes in faculty work such as syllabi.  This standard, which has interfered in faculty’s academic freedom rights, states:

“The institution assures that students and prospective students receive clear and accurate information …  In every class section students receive a course syllabus that specifies learning objectives consistent with those in the institution’s officially approved course outline.” (ACCJC Accreditation Standard II.A.6.)

We believe both of these standards, as written and as applied, intrude on matters left to collective bargaining by the Legislature.  For a time, we recognized that the ACCJC’s inclusion of these standards might have been considered to be mandated by the regulations and approach of the U.S. Department of Education.

Now, however, with the recently re-enacted Higher Education Act, the Federal mandate for the SLO component has been eliminated for community colleges and other institutions of higher education.  I’m sure you are aware that Congress passed, and the President signed, legislation amending 20 U.S.C. 1099 (b), to provide that the Secretary of Education may not “establish any criteria that specifies, defines, or prescribes the standards that accrediting agencies or associations shall use to assess any institution’s success with respect to student achievement.” [See Higher Education Act, S. 1642 (110th Congress, 1st Session, at p. 380)]   

Given this amendment, it is CFT’s position that the ACCJC has no statutory mandate which prescribes inclusion of the above-referenced standards dealing with faculty evaluations, and syllabi.

Under the EERA, absent mandatory proscriptions in the law, each and every aspect of evaluation is negotiable.   See, e.g., Walnut Valley Unified School District (1983) PERB Dec. No. 289, 7 PERC ¶ 14084, pp. 321-322; Holtville Unified School District (1982) PERB Dec. No. 250, 6 PERC ¶ 13235, p. 906.  The Legislature reaffirmed the negotiability of evaluation procedures and criteria when it adopted A.B. 1725 in 1989.  (See Cal. Ed. Code § 87610.1, 877663(f)).  The Legislature did specify that community college evaluations procedures must include a peer review process and, to the extent practicable, student evaluations. (See Cal. Ed. Code § 87663(g)).  However, it did not mandate SLOs.

Accordingly, the CFT wishes to inquire as to what actions ACCJC intends to take to conform its regulations to the requirements of State law, and to recognize that the adoption of any local provisions which include faculty effectiveness in producing student learning outcomes, should be entirely a matter of collective bargaining negotiations.  And, similarly, that the ACCJC cannot mandate inclusion of information in syllabi which faculty, by reason of academic freedom and tradition, are entitled to determine using their own best academic judgment, or through the negotiations process.  Of course, in negotiations over evaluation, the law also provides that faculty organizations shall consult with local academic senates before negotiating over these matters.

While ACCJC is free to encourage colleges and their faculty organizations to negotiate over this topic, it is not free to mandate or coerce the adoption of such standards by sanctioning colleges which do not adopt standards that ACCJC would prefer in these areas.  Given its state function, ACCJC must respect the negotiations process mandated by state law, and academic freedom rights adopted by contract or policy.

California’s public community colleges are an extraordinary public resource, and the Legislature has seen fit to decree that when it comes to faculty evaluation, that process shall be subject to collective bargaining.  With the adoption of the landmark bill A.B. 1725 almost 20 years ago, the Legislature came down squarely on the side of faculty determining, with their employers, the method and content of their evaluations.  This system has worked exceptionally well for almost 35 years.

Given the change in Federal law, the CFT calls upon ACCJC to take prompt and appropriate action to amend its standards to respect the boundaries established by the Legislature and not purport to regulate the methods by which faculty are evaluated or determine their course work such as syllabi.

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Marty Hittelman, President
California Federation of Teachers

December 2, 2008

Mr. Marty Hittelman, President
California Federation of Teachers
2550 N. Hollywood Way, Suite 400
Burbank, California 91505

Dear Mr. Hittelman:

This letter responds to your letter of October 13, 2008.  The Commission appreciates your comments with respect to the issues you raise, and we will attempt to address each of them in this letter. For the convenience of the reader, we’ve restated portions of your letter in italics and then commented on each of your points.

1. After quoting from a section of the California Code of Regulations which requires that each community college be accredited by ACCJC, you state in your letter,

“In conferring this important responsibility on the ACCJC, the State of California and the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges expect that the ACCJC will fulfill an important state objective, providing education.”

The ACCJC does not provide education. Its purpose is to assure that its accredited institutions adhere to its standards which are designed to assure that certain levels of quality are maintained.  The ACCJC was not developed to help achieve any State objective.  The ACCJC was not developed by the State, and it is not an agent of the State, and it has not been delegated any State function.  The ACCJC is a private organization, and its standards are developed without any involvement or directions from the State of California. Its accreditation activities are not limited to the State of California. It also accredits institutions in Hawaii and in the Pacific regions accredited by WASC.

2. “ACCJC may or may not be a quasi- governmental entity, but either way it must respect State laws when fulfilling its functions.”

The ACCJC is not a governmental or quasi-governmental entity. It is a private organization. It functions are of course carried out in a manner that are consistent with all applicable laws, state and federal.  

3. After referring to the right of teachers at community colleges to collectively bargain, you state,

”One of the most important rights faculty have is to negotiate with their employer over evaluation procedures, criteria and standards. In fact, this right is so important that the Legislature deemed it worthy of explicit enumeration within the Act. In addition, pursuant to the EERA, academic freedom policies are negotiated at community colleges.

This paragraph contains a number of inaccurate and misleading statements. You are correct when you state that the faculties of community colleges have a legally protected right to bargain collectively; however, the scope of that right is set forth explicitly in the California Labor Code, Section 3543.2. It is limited to “matters relating to wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment.” “Terms and conditions” includes “. . . procedures to be used for the evaluation of employees,” not the “criteria and standards” to be used for evaluation, as you assert. The bargaining unit is given the right to “consult” (not collectively bargain) over issues related to “the definition of educational objectives, the determination of the content of courses and curriculum, and the selection of textbooks to the extent such matters are within the discretion of the public school employer under the law.” Further, California law protects the prerogative of the Academic Senate, not a collective-bargaining unit, “. . .  to represent the faculty in making recommendations to the administration governing board of the school district with respect to district policies on academic and professional matters.” (California Labor Code, §3540). Your assertion that the collective bargaining unit has a legal right to negotiate ”over the evaluation of . . . criteria and standards” is not accurate.

ACCJC’s standards recognize and respect the critical importance of the faculty and the Academic Senate in protecting academic freedom within the institution. ACCJC’s standards provide in part, “The institution relies on faculty, its academic senate or other appropriate faculty structures, the curriculum committee, and academic administrators for recommendations about student learning programs and services.” (Accreditation Reference Handbook, Standard IV, A.2.b.).

4. After introducing the subject of student learning outcomes, you state,

“. . . many within the college community, faculty and administrators alike, feel that ACCJC has gone too far in its demands regarding SLOs (student learning outcomes, especially when they intrude on negotiable evaluation criteria and violate principles of academic freedom.”

Your comments reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of ACCJC’s purposes and activities as they relate to student learning outcomes. ACCJC does not dictate to an institution or to its faculty what the intended student learning outcomes should be. Under ACCJC’s standards, each institution defines the student learning outcomes for that particular institution at the course, program, and degree level. When these student learning outcomes are defined by the institution, the institution is then expected to measure whether the intended learning outcomes are occurring and to what degree, and, finally, to apply the results of assessment to improve educational and institutional practices. (Accreditation Reference Handbook, Standard II.A.). Assessing the extent to which our institutions are fulfilling this Standard is a basic function of the accreditation process and has become an essential measure of quality in education. ACCJC’s Standards on student learning outcomes are in line with mainstream thinking on educational quality.  The requirement that institutions assess whether the intended student learning is occurring has become an integral part of the accreditation process of all regional accrediting associations.  

The protection of academic freedom has always been an integral part of ACCJC’s assessment of an institution. Standard II, A, 7, provides in part, “In order to assure the academic integrity of the teaching-learning process, the institution uses and makes public governing board adopted policies on academic freedom and responsibility, student academic honesty, and specific institutional beliefs or world views. These policies make clear the institution’s commitment to the free pursuit and dissemination of knowledge.”

Academic freedom has never meant freedom from the responsibility of adhering to institutionally based standards of quality and institutional mission.

4. Your letter next takes issue with ACCJC’s standard (Standard II.A.1.c). This Standard requires that the “faculty and others directly responsible for student learning. . .“ have, as a component (emphasis added) of their evaluation, effectiveness in producing those student learning outcomes.” As we have explained above, a critical part of assessing student learning outcomes is measuring the extent to which assessments of those learning outcomes are applied to improve educational quality and future student learning. Without that final component, there would be no way to assess whether the process was effective. We stress that this assessment is only one possible component of evaluations of academic staff. It is not intended to be the only component or one that is given any particular priority in relation to other components. The ACCJC’s goal is to insure that the institution, and its academic employees, have the mechanisms necessary to help the make improvements to the educational learning environment.

5. You quote from Standard II.A.6 which states in part, “The institution assures that students and prospective students receive clear and accurate information . . . In every class section students receive a course syllabus that identifies learning objectives consistent with those in the institutions officially approved course outline.” You contend that this standard infringes on academic freedom.

Your assertion is without merit. Again, academic freedom does not mean freedom from the responsibility of adhering to institutionally adopted curricula or course outlines.
There is nothing in the Standards that mandates that course outlines include any particular content, nor do the Standards prohibit instructors from adding educational objectives other than those appearing in the institution’s officially approved course outline. As pointed out above, California law leaves the final decisions on all such matters squarely with the governing body of the institution. It does not leave the content of these matters to collective bargaining although it does permit consultation from the collective bargaining unit.

6. You assert that amendments to the federal Higher Education Act in 2008 removed the federal mandate that all Department of Education approved accrediting associations assure that their accredited institutions adopt and enforce student learning outcomes. Again, your assertion is misplaced. The 2008 amendments to the Higher Education Act reaffirmed that all Department of Education approved accrediting associations, of which ACCJC is one, are required to, “. . . assess the institution’s, (A) success with respect to student achievement in relation to the institution’s mission, which may include different standards for different institutions or programs, including as appropriate, consideration of course completion, State licensing examinations, and job placement rates” (The portion in italics reflects the change in the 2008 amendment.). In other words, the 2008 amendment only emphasizes that each institution is to develop its own student learning outcomes, a feature which has been an integral part of ACCJC’s accreditation practices since the adoption of these Standards.

7. At the conclusion of your letter you return to your opening assertion and contend, again incorrectly, that California law provides that the adoption of instructor evaluation criteria is an integral part of the collective bargaining process and therefore the criteria bargained for should be insulated from any interference from ACCJC or its Standards, including student outcome requirements. Again, you are misreading and misstating the scope of what is legally the proper subject to collective bargaining under the Labor Code. As pointed out above, the Labor Code provides only that “faculty evaluation procedures,” not the substantive content of that evaluation, are properly the subject of collective bargaining (Education Code §§ 3543.2, 87663).

In conclusion, the ACCJC does not believe it has violated the law by developing and promulgating the Standards of Accreditation to which you have voiced objection.  

Sincerely,

Lurelean Gaines, Chair                                    Barbara Beno, President

December 12, 2008

Lurelean Gaines, Chair
Accreditation Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
10 Commercial Blvd, Suite 204
Novato, CA 94949

Dear Ms. Gaines

This letter responds to your letter of December 2, 2008.  Your  “attempt” to address our issues was not very well researched and contains a number of errors. I will try to address them as clearly as possible.

1. You state that “The ACCJC does not provide education. Its purpose is to assure that its accredited institutions adhere to its standards which are designed to assure that certain levels of quality are maintained.  The ACCJC was not developed to help achieve any State objective.  The ACCJC was not developed by the State, and it is not an agent of the State, and it has not been delegated any State function.   The ACCJC is a private organization, and its standards are developed without any involvement or directions from the State of California. Its accreditation activities are not limited to the State of California. It also accredits institutions in Hawaii and in the Pacific regions accredited by WASC. “

This reply completely ignores  “Each community college within a district shall be an accredited institution. The Accrediting Commission for California Junior Colleges shall determine accreditation.” (5 Cal.Code Regs. § 51016). The fact that the ACCJC has activities outside of California does not contradict the fact that its accreditation activities in California are empowered under Section 51016 above. It is also clear that the majority of ACCJC’s funding comes from California community colleges. In other words, it is funded heavily by the State of California and is, to a great extent, answerable to the laws of California.

2. You argue that the “the ACCJC is not a governmental or quasi-governmental entity. It is a private organization.  It functions are of course carried out in a manner that are consistent with all applicable laws, state and federal. “ In part, you are making our point. As I will address later, evaluation is a collective bargaining issue and when ACCJC attempts to dictate in this area, it is conflicting with California law.   By the way, the statute involved is the Government Code, not the Labor Code as your letter indicated.

3. You are completely wrong in your analysis of collective bargaining law in California, particularly when you state that “terms and conditions” does not include “criteria and standards” to be used for evaluation.  I believe that if you checked this assertion with any lawyer familiar with collective bargaining law as it has been adjudicated, you will find that you are in error.

The PERB has ruled repeatedly that the evaluation criteria are negotiable. I am not sure why your lawyer is unaware of this. For instance, PERB has ruled that evaluation criteria are negotiable in both Holtville Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 250 (Holtville) and Walnut Valley Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision No. 289 (Walnut Valley).  Both cases hold that criteria and standards to evaluate faculty are negotiable. See also State of California (Department of Motor Vehicles) (1998) PERB Decision No. 1291[performance standards within scope of negotiations under Dills Act governing State employees] .
In addition, when AB1725 was enacted, the Legislature confirmed that faculty evaluation procedures include negotiable criteria. The following is from AB 1725:

“(v) …
(2) The evaluation process should be effective in yielding a genuinely useful and substantive assessment of performance. Among other things, this requires an articulation of clear, relevant criteria on which evaluations will be based.
(3) The evaluation process should be timely. This requires that evaluations be performed regularly at reasonable intervals.
(4) The specific purposes for which evaluations are conducted should be clear to everyone involved. This requires recognition that the principal purposes of the evaluation process are to recognize and acknowledge good performance, to enhance satisfactory performance and help employees who are performing satisfactorily further their own growth, to identify weak performance and assist employees in achieving needed improvement, and to document unsatisfactory performance.
(5) A faculty member’s students, administrators, and peers should all contribute to his or her evaluation, but the faculty should, in the usual case, play a central role in the evaluation process and, together with appropriate administrators, assume principal responsibility for the effectiveness of the process.
(6) The procedures defined by negotiations should foster a joint and cooperative exercise of responsibility by the faculty, administration, and governing board of the community college and should reflect faculty and administrator expertise and authority in evaluating professional work as well as the governing board’s legal and public responsibility for the process.”

The Legislature then enacted these standards with Education Code section 87663. I am not sure why you cite section 87663, but it appears that you are ignorant of the meaning of the section, and the interpretation of PERB in the above, and other, cases.

As is apparent, the Legislature anticipated that evaluation process and procedures includes the criteria for evaluating faculty work. PERB held in the above cases, and in others, that only when the Legislature expressly excluded evaluation criteria, are they not negotiable. And the only place that this took place is with respect to academic employees of UC and CSU (owing to a lot of historical factors, including the then very weak academic unions).

So, your claim that evaluation criteria are not negotiable based on the law is simply wrong. Moreover, in every community college district, the criteria ARE negotiated. That is the contemporaneous understanding of those charged with complying with the EERA.
When ACCJC attempts to force SLOs into evaluation, it is intruding on the collective bargaining process.

By the way, the Federal NLRB law is consistent with this.

You claim that “California law leaves the final decisions on all such matters squarely with the governing body of the institution. It does not leave the content of these matters to collective bargaining although it does permit consultation from the collective bargaining unit.” Again you are just wrong.  You need to consult someone who understands the collective bargaining law in California in order to perfect your understanding of the law.

In short, the ACCJC is legally obligated to respect the Rodda Act when it acts to accredit community colleges and districts in California. Among these obligations is to not involve itself in the collective bargaining process and the procedures and policies with respect to  evaluation of faculty.

Finally, could you send me the minutes of the meeting at which you took up my letter and your response to it?

Yours Truly,

Martin Hittelman
President, California Federation of Teachers

Back to top

 

January 21, 2009


Minutes of
General Membership/Executive Committee Meeting

January 21, 2009, Cañada College

Present: Eric Brenner, Ron Brown, Chip Chandler, Victoria Clinton, Alma Cervantes, Katharine Harer, Teeka James, Dan Kaplan, Yaping Li, Monica Malamud, Karen Olesen, Sandi Raeber, Anne Stafford, Elizabeth Terzakis, Lezlee Ware

Guests: David Clay, Patty Dilko, Anu Pattanayak, Leslie Sachs

Meeting began at 2:25

Facilitator: Sandi Raeber

Welcome and Introductions

Minutes of the December 10, 2008 EC meeting: approved unanimously with corrections.

* Minutes of the November 12, 2008: approved unanimously


Statements from AFT members on Non-Agenda Items:

A)        Dan reminded everyone about the AFT National Higher Education Issues Conference in Miami, March 6 – 8, 2009.

B)        Anyone who would like hard copy of  Reversing Course: The Troubled State of Academic Staffing and a Path Forward can get one from Dan.

C)        Yaping announced that on the last day of final exams (December 2009), she received a rather frantic phone call from an art instructor at CSM whose course was cancelled due to low enrollment, which the instructor suspected was due to an error in the class schedule. The instructor explained that he had found it difficult to schedule a meeting with his Dean to discuss the situation.

Dan did talk with the instructor later and advised him about steps he could take; he did not hear from the instructor again.

Yaping will try to follow up with the instructor.

D)        Some classrooms at CSM are now larger as a result of building renovations. Five faculty have contacted Dan about their class sizes having been increased by their Deans. Such unilateral increases constitute unfair labor practice; class size increases must instead be negotiated. Let Dan know if you hear of any other such cases.


Grievances

On January 26 – 28 AFT will go to arbitration on an existing grievance regarding denial of tenure to a probationary faculty member.

District Shared Governance Council Report

A)        Barbara Christensen and others are reviewing the District’s current Rules & Regulations and are considering adding language restricting the circumstances under which faculty and staff can and cannot identify their association with the District. Exact language about the new rules – including any consequences for those who violate them – has not been released yet. It is difficult to know how to respond without seeing the actual language, but the sentiment among the EC is that this is a free speech issue and that faculty and staff have the right to make clear their association with the District in their social and political lives. Teeka will send us the language when it is available.

Dan told of a past incident in which a faculty member wrote letters to the editor of a local newspaper, in which he identified his affiliation with the District, and was threatened with reprimand.

Patty Dilko reported that this review is in response to the accreditation process; the District needs to show good faith in considering revisions and updates to all of its Rules & Regulations. She also said that the Community College League is advising the District.

* On a related issue, Barbara Christensen reported that according to County Counsel, it is a violation of California Ed. Code to post political signs in, or around, faculty and staff offices. AFT’s attorney continues to disagree with this interpretation of the Ed. Code. We are currently waiting for some discussion and/or action between our attorney and the District’s

B)        The three campus Senates are currently working on District Rules and Regulations, Article 6, looking at AAUP materials. Patty would like to form a task force with AFT representation.


Trust Committee release time issue

After the District rejected the EC’s request for reassigned time for faculty to work on the Trust Committee, Teeka and Anne met with CSM’s VPI, Susan Estes, at the end of November to discuss alternative strategies for ensuring that the faculty evaluation processes across the District are evaluated and revised. Some of Susan’s ideas included paying faculty a stipend to do some, or most, of the work during summer, or having an administrator/administrators do the bulk of the initial work. After some follow-up discussion, Teeka and Anne proposed at today’s meeting that rather than sending a small group of EC members to meet with Chancellor to reiterate our initial request, we propose a smaller Trust Committee, perhaps consisting of 4 AFT representatives and 1 Senate representative, all of whom would get reassigned time. The EC maintains its position that faculty need time, rather than stipends, to do this work properly. We also recognized that with a smaller committee, it will be especially important to consult with faculty in specialized areas such as Distance Education, the Library, counseling, etc.


Program Improvement Viability discussion

Four programs at CSM (German, Library Studies, Welding & Machine Tool Technology, & Media Group [Film Production, Graphics, Journalism, Multimedia]) are currently undergoing the PIV process, which has the potential for benefits as well as the potential for the termination of programs and faculty lay offs. At CSM, the Senate took the leadership role in the process. (For details of the issues involved and the status of the four programs, refer to the December 16, 2008 CSM Academic Senate minutes.) Dan feels that the process worked well.

There was some discussion of putting CSM’s student newspaper, the San Matean, on hiatus, but this action was not approved; all of the PIV committees’ recommendations were approved by the Senate.

At this point no programs have been terminated, but they could be in the future.


SLO’s: What should the Local (and CFT) do?

Elizabeth gave an update on what she sees as the primary concerns about SLO’s and about Cañada’s stance toward them. The general approach at Cañada seems to have been to do the minimum necessary to meet accreditation requirements. The responses to the demand for SLO development and assessment have ranged from enthusiasm to outright rebellion. The primary concerns have to do with the amount of time faculty – especially P/T faculty – are spending on SLO’s, issues of academic freedom, standardization of curriculum and assessment, and their potential use in the faculty evaluation process. Elizabeth is interested in starting an educational campaign and finding out what other colleges (and K-12) are doing to resist the pressure to develop and assess SLO’s.

Anne and Teeka stated that they, and many members of CSM’s English Department, see value in articulating SLO’s, and working to help students achieve them, but find that their assessment is burdensome and, without devoting far more time to the process, generally fruitless.

Yaping reminded us that SLO assessment results will be used in Program Review to justify position and equipment requests.

Dan pointed out that the State Academic Senate’s position on SLO’s has fluctuated some. Initially it expressed strong opposition, then took the position that colleges should try to meet at least the minimum requirements for accreditation, and now has returned to a position of greater opposition. He believes that after numerous communications back and forth between CFT and ACCJC about the legality of the SLO requirements placed on colleges (by ACCJC), CFT may soon decide it has no choice other than to file a lawsuit. WASC has essentially ignored new language in the reauthorized Higher Education Act stating that SLO’s cannot be used as a component in the evaluation of faculty.


EC approval of Harriet Tucker’s and Mark Mantelle’s 2009-2010 contracts

The EC voted unanimously to approve their contracts. Harriet works approximately 15 – 20 hours per week (mostly bookkeeping); Mark works approximately 15 – 20 hours per week (maintaining AFT 1493’s data base).


Date for February EC catch-up meeting?

We agreed that we do not need an additional meeting in February, but we did schedule a special closed session meeting for 1:45 on April 17, at CSM to discuss the faculty evaluation process, particularly in terms of how it relates to the grievance process.


GASB 43/45?

New Federal legislation was passed several years ago, initially implemented in K-12, but now also in colleges, regulating how the money for faculty health benefits is invested. The District must decide on an investment strategy for the $30 million we have to invest, and choose from among five potential brokers competing for our business. The choice of both the strategy and the broker will be made by a group of individuals including Dan Kaplan, Harry Joel, David Fuene, Kathy Blackwood, and a paid consultant. The consultant believes that the economy has reached bottom and that the District should choose a fairly aggressive investment strategy. Dan feels he may be the only member of the group advocating a more conservative strategy. Though he wanted to know the EC’s feelings, there was not consensus, and there are unanswered questions about whether we simply need to maintain the current $30 million or whether that amount needs to grow.

Open discussion/meeting critique


Meeting adjourned:   4:50

Next facilitator: to be determined.

 

December 10, 2008


Minutes of
General Membership/Executive Committee Meeting

December 10, 2008, at CSM

Present: Eric Brenner, Ron Brown, Chip Chandler, Victoria Clinton, Katharine Harer, Teeka James, Dan Kaplan, Yaping Li, Monica Malamud, Karen Olesen, Sandi Raeber, Joaquin Rivera, Anne Stafford, Elizabeth Terzakis

Meeting began at 2:25

Facilitator: Teeka James


Welcome and Introductions


Minutes of the November, 2008 EC meeting

Some revisions are necessary; minutes of the November 12 meeting will be approved at the January 21, 2009 meeting.


Statements from AFT members on Non-Agenda Items:

A)        Elizabeth will send EC members information about the worker occupation of the Republic Windows and Doors plant on December 5, 2009, and the related rally at Bank of America’s Chicago headquarters planned for today, December 10, 2008, along with a website where people can make donations. She is also interested in writing a letter of solidarity.

B)        Monica raised the issue of the change – at the state level – in the Math and English requirements for obtaining an Associates Degree, and the potential impact of that change on the way Composition Load is calculated for full-time English faculty. Currently, full-time faculty members who teach 4 Composition courses that apply toward the Associates Degree receive a “bump” of 1.25 FLC’s for each course unit. Because of the current wording of our contract, some Composition courses that currently count toward “Comp Load” will no longer count, despite the fact that the work load has not changed.

Monica suggested that there is an issue of equity since part-time faculty are never allowed to teach a 4-course load and therefore never get the increased load for their classes. However, only those full-time faculty teaching 4 Composition courses get the increase; many English faculty, due to time spent in Writing Centers/Labs, Literature courses, and reassigned time for various projects, do not teach a 4-course Composition load either.

Monica did check with some other colleges to see what they do to compensate English faculty for the heavy paper grading load. Few actually grant increased FLC’s, and some suggested reducing class size as an alternative.

Though the Language Arts Deans at CSM and Skyline recently promised that they would not change how English faculty Composition load is calculated, they may simply not have the power to follow through. The EC agreed that English faculty should probably work on creating appropriate contract language and then meet with Harry Joel to create an MOU that, in effect, maintains the current Composition load.

C)        Teeka announced that at its January 2009 meeting, DSGC will be discussing restrictions on how faculty will be allowed to use the college’s name; Teeka will send us the actual language when it is available. At that same meeting, DSGC will also discuss the issue of District restrictions on political expression by faculty and staff.

D)        The District continues to hold to the position that it will not give reassigned time to faculty who agree to work on the (yet to be) reconstituted Trust Committee. Teeka and Anne reported on a meeting they had recently with Susan Estes to discuss possible alternatives to reassigned time. Teeka and Anne made it clear that faculty feel strongly that they want the time to do the work more than they want a stipend. Susan suggested paying faculty stipends to do the bulk of the work during the summer, and relying on the District office to do a good deal of the initial work. Teeka and Anne told Susan they would report back to the EC, who would continue to discuss the options.

Grievances

There was nothing to report at this time.

Class size MOU discussion

History:

Joaquin reported that in the past, class sizes started creeping up; in an attempt to ensure fair treatment for faculty, we negotiated the MOU. The MOU directs Deans to consult faculty in each discipline regarding the appropriateness of large classes, but we do not know whether this currently happens, and if so, how often or how consistently. A small number of faculty teach large classes and make extra money for doing so.

Current Discussion:

The EC discussed the two separate, but related, issues of workload and pedagogy. An increase in the use, or number, of large classes has the potential to eliminate faculty positions as fewer faculty teach more students. Dan pointed out that some unions have negotiated contracts that either limit the overloads faculty can teach, or in some cases, don’t allow faculty to teach overloads at all.

Some EC members feel that extra pay should be based on workload, rather than on the number of students in a given class since it is entirely possibly to teach a large class without increasing one’s workload.

There was also discussion about whether SMCCD should offer large classes at all since students’ access to smaller classes and to faculty is part of what distinguishes Community Colleges from 4-year institutions. The EC agreed that while workload is an AFT issue, issues of pedagogy should be decided by discipline.

The EC voted (12 “yes” 1 “no”) to direct a small sub-group of the EC to meet with the three campus Senates and request that they get disciplines and departments to discuss what they feel is an appropriate use of large classes.

 

Budget issues: COLA, retirement incentives

In an effort to mitigate the effects of looming budget cuts (CSM may cut as many as 70 class sections in the spring), the District is looking for ways to encourage faculty to take early retirement. Monica polled the top 20-25 most senior faculty to learn what sort of incentives might encourage them to take early retirement – only 4 or 5 responded. Joaquin and Eric then surveyed all faculty eligible for retirement – 87 out of 122 responded. In essence, the District is considering some combination of cash incentives between $20,000 and $25,000, and perhaps guaranteed post-retirement contracts for interested faculty. Most EC members agreed that even $30,000 is a relatively insignificant amount and did not want to be seen as promoting the District’s proposed incentives.

The EC voted unanimously to agree to $30,000 for faculty whose age and years of service total at least 75, $25,000 for those whose total is at least 70, and to attempt to negotiate guaranteed 3-year post-retirement contracts. Though CSEA and AFSCME will have their decisions about retirement incentives ready to present to the Board tonight, Joaquin reminded us that AFT must still negotiate the language we have just agreed to with the District. He will try to negotiate an agreement with Harry Joel before tonight’s Board meeting.

Alternative Calendar Task Force discussion

All Deans have been asked to work out mock schedules to determine whether changing to a compressed calendar is actually possible, and the state must approve any changes we decide to make. The question for AFT 1493 is whether we want to have an official representative on the Task Force, who will communicate the Task Force’s actions and discussions to AFT. The EC voted (11 “yes” and 1 “no”) to have Monica represent AFT on the Task Force.


Union and Senate roles discussion

The central issue, one that some EC members have been discussing for a number of months, both in meetings and informally, revolves around the delineation between the roles of AFT and the Senate. Many members feel that the Senate has developed a closer relationship with the Administration in recent years; simultaneously, AFT has become increasingly involved in issues and responsibilities that might traditionally have been in the purview of the Senate (such as the Accreditation Oversight Committee). Without going into details about particular committees, issues, responsibilities, etc. (due to our limited time at today’s meeting), we talked about whether AFT should consider pulling back more into our traditional role as the faculty bargaining agent if we feel our inclusion on various committees and projects isn’t genuine and complete. While most agreed that AFT should have a place on DSGC, there was some disagreement about whether we should insist on having an AFT representative seated at meetings of the Board of Trustees, as the District Academic President is. We will continue this discussion in the spring.


AFT/Senate areas of collaboration

Diana Bennett, President of CSM’s Academic Senate, spoke to Dan about holding an AFT/Senate summit in Spring 2009. The Senate is interested in discussing the faculty evaluation process; in particular, the Senate would like to talk about the possibility of doing student evaluations of faculty every semester. The EC voted (9 “yes” and 1 “no”) to agree to a summit.

* In connection to the issue of faculty evaluations, two EC members suggested that at a closed session in the spring we have a lengthy discussion about the faculty evaluation process and how it relates to grievances. Chip repeated an earlier suggestion that, to help strengthen the grievance process and make it more efficient, we create training videos for both the evaluation and grievance processes.


SLO’s: What should the Local (and CFT) do?

Tabled until January, 2009 EC meeting.


Political Activity disagreement

There is some concern that the District is making an effort to revise its Rules & Regulations without going through DSGC.


February EC catch-up meeting?

The EC voted unanimously to hold a February catch-up meeting.


Open discussion/meeting critique

We agreed that we need a time-keeper at our meetings.

Next facilitator:    Victoria

Next time-keeper:    Yaping

Meeting adjourned: 4:45.

 

November 12, 2008


Minutes of

General Membership/Executive Committee Meeting

November 12, 2008, at Skyline College

Present: Eric Brenner, Ron Brown, Chip Chandler, Victoria Clinton, Alma Cervantes, Nina Floro, Teeka James, Dan Kaplan, Yaping Li, Monica Malamud, Karen Olesen, Anne Stafford, Elizabeth Terzakis

Guests: A. J. Bates, Rick Hough, Jamie Marron, Masao Suzuki, Lezlee Ware, Sita Motipara

Meeting began at 2:25

Facilitator: Monica Malamud


Welcome and Introductions

Minutes of the October 8, 2008 EC meeting

Approved


Statements from AFT members on Non-Agenda Items:

A.        Dan passed around a Board of Trustee meeting schedule for the remainder of the 2008/2009 academic year so that members could sign up to attend specific meetings.

B.         Dan announced the next AFT National Higher Education Issues Conference in Miami Beach, Florida, March 6-8.

C.        Dan pointed out that the Part-Timer newsletter features two part-timers from our District.

D.        Dan asked the Executive Committee to place a statement in the minutes of this EC meeting defining our SEP-IRA Plan Year as extending from June 1st through May 31st.

With respect to our SEP-IRA, our Auditor, John Pooley, and our Plan Administrator, Ed Elkin, both recommend that we obtain written confirmation, via Executive Committee Minutes, that our SEP-IRA Plan Year extends from June 1st through May 31st. Our SEP-IRA Plan was initially established in 1998 to coincide with Dan’s Contract year, which extends from June 1st to May 31st. Contributions to the Plan began as of June 1, 1998, with annual rate increases on June 1st of each succeeding year until we had reached the then current maximum of 15%. Our new rate of 20%, recently approved by the EC, will be retroactive to June 1, 2008.

E.         Masao requested that we move up agenda item #13 because he could not stay for the entire meeting but wanted to participate in the discussion of the Political Activity disagreement.

F.         Monica announced that Harry Joel had contacted her, Katharine, and Joaquin to schedule a meeting to discuss early retirement incentives for faculty. EC members suggested that we talk to the most senior faculty at the three colleges to find out what might actually motivate them to take early retirement.

G.        Monica pointed out that some of the P/T seniority lists are not accurate (some have serious errors). Dan asked Chapter Chairs to check as many as possible on their campuses.

H.        Teeka reported on an email exchange with the Chancellor regarding the impact of the current budget on faculty salaries; she distributed copies at the meeting.

I.          Monica reminded us about the new limits to faculty members’ 403b investment options. Some members wondered whether the District could actually be offering more choices. Apparently, some of the financial institutions charge large annual fees. Monica will raise the issue at the District Budget Committee meeting on November 18.


Grievances

A.        Chip announced that two days of arbitration remain for the faculty member denied Contract 3 status in the tenure process.

B.         The EC voted unanimously to move forward with a grievance filed by a 4th –year probationary faculty member who was denied tenure, but only if the grievance officers are confident that the faculty member has been forthcoming with all information relevant to the case. Voting to move forward doesn’t mean the case will necessarily go to arbitration; we will try to settle before it goes that far.


Communication with Board/District

At our October 8 meeting, we talked about having a small group of EC members meet with the Chancellor, as suggested by some of the Board members, but later decided not to request such a meeting without a specific purpose. We voted (4 no’s, 3 yes’s, 2 abstain’s) not to respond to Richard Holober’s email regarding the Board’s decision not to participate in future summit meetings.

District Shared Governance Council

A.        Revision of Rules and Regulations: 2.09:

District Shared Governance Council will no longer be using a consensus model; instead, it will use democratic voting. Rather than the old voting options (A – E), DSGC will move to a model using A = yes, without reservations, B = yes, I can support with reservations, C = I can’t support, and requiring a 60% majority.

B.         Budget information:

Teeka reported that Kathy Blackwood gave a presentation about the    current state of the District’s budget at DSGC. As a result of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the District has lost $21 million of invested bond money and $4 million from the general operating budget. Unless the District is able to sue the County Treasurer (and win), that money is simply   gone. Through various means, she has a set aside $3.7 million, which leaves us with a $300,000 shortfall, in addition to any other mid-year cuts that may be generated at the state level. She believes we are looking at having to cut 3-10% from our general operating budget. She said that just about all strategies for cutting spending are “on the table.” She did specify that we will consider managed hiring, and that we won’t cancel summer session, cancel mass numbers of classes as we have in the past, or lay off large numbers of P/T faculty as we have in the past.

At DSGC Teeka brought up the issue of holding off on the Administrative salary increases. Dan reminded us that he and Ernie had been told by one Board member, at the time the Board approved the salary increases, that we could “revisit” these if the budget tanks.


Large Class size MOU discussion

We think this will become even more of an issue with the current state budget. Kathy Blackwood has said that the District won’t ask faculty to add students beyond the stated class size limits, but encouraged us to work to keep the ones we have.

Dan pointed out that at CSM, some class sizes in the Social Science Division have been increased unilaterally.

We agreed to defer further discussion of the Large Class Size MOU to our December meeting so that Joaquin and Katharine can be present. One member suggested that we not extend the MOU if Joaquin cannot be at the December meeting.


Class size resolution revisited

Dan suggested taking the current language of the resolution to the Senates for their approval, so that we can send it jointly to the Board.

There was some discussion of the 4th “Whereas”: “Whereas under the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA), class size is a mandatory subject for collective bargaining (Section 3543.2), which means that the administration cannot unilaterally change class size, and that class size cannot be negotiated by individual faculty members (Section 3543.3).

There was also some discussion of the 6th Resolved clause, and agreement to leave the language as is.


Trust Committee release time update

Teeka learned in her most recent conversation with Harry Joel that the Chancellor does not support providing reassigned time for faculty to work on the Trust Committee. Harry, in fact, suggested to Teeka that he could do the majority of the work and the Trust Committee could then give input and revise; this proposal is not acceptable to AFT. The EC agreed that a small group (Dan, Anne, Teeka, Nina, and Monica) will try to schedule a meeting with Ron to discuss this issue – AFT’s position is that we will not participate in reconstituting the Trust Committee without reassigned time for faculty involved.

The Academic Senate shares our view about the necessity of reassigned time and support whatever decisions AFT makes about how to proceed.


Alternative Calendar Task Force

The Task Force has met and started its work, without official AFT representation. Monica is serving on the Task Force as a faculty member, and not in her role as AFT President or as Secretary of Cañada’s Academic Senate.


Union and Senate roles discussion

Tabled until our December meeting.


SLO’s: What should the local (and CFT) do?

Tabled until our December meeting.


Political Activity disagreement

Background: The week before the November election, Barbara Christensen sent an email to District employees, stating that the posting of signs, stickers, etc. endorsing candidates or specific ballot initiatives violates both the California Education Code and our District Board’s Rules and Regulations. A number of faculty were unhappy with her email and questioned its accuracy. A few days later the EC received a letter from our attorney, Bob Bezemek, casting doubt on the District’s interpretation of the Ed. Code.

Barbara Christensen is working with the County Counsel to determine what sorts of political signs, posters, stickers, etc, faculty and staff are allowed to post in or around their offices. The County Counsel’s interpretation of California Ed. Code and the Board’s Rules and Regulations is narrower than past interpretations. Dan had hoped to get our attorney and the attorney assigned in the County Counsel’s office to work with the Community College District together for discussion, but that hasn’t happened.

It seems that the original email sent to CSM employees by Barbara Christensen resulted from an incident at Skyline, in which a student complained about a political sign posted in a faculty member’s office window. The faculty member declined to remove the sign and was supported in his refusal by his immediate supervisor. There was a subsequent threat to cancel a previously planned forum at Skyline on marriage equality if a “Yes on Prop. 8” speaker was not included.

Dan was also told by Barbara Christensen that he could not distribute copies of The Advocate in faculty mailboxes if it includes political endorsements.

The EC decided to continue discussion with our attorney about what faculty’s rights of political expression are. No decision was made about additional next steps.


Appointment of Cañada Chapter Co-Chairs for Spring 2009-Spring 2010

Katie Schertle cannot continue to serve as Cañada’s Chapter Chair after this current semester. The EC unanimously approved the appointment of Elizabeth Terzakis and Lezlee Ware as Chapter Co-Chairs.


Open discussion/meeting critique

We agree to put on a future agenda the question of whether to hold more meetings – we are finding it extremely difficult to get through the entire agenda at most meetings, and some issues really can’t wait the whole month between meetings.

Meeting adjourned: 4:50

December 10 facilitator: Teeka