Monthly Archives: January 2010

October 8, 2008


Minutes of

General Membership/Executive Committee Meeting

October 8, 2008 at Cañada College

 

Present: Eric Brenner, Chip Chandler, Victoria Clinton, Nina Floro, Katharine Harer, Teeka James, Dan Kaplan, Yaping Li, Monica Malamud, Karen Olesen, Sandra Raeber, Joaquin Rivera, Katie Schertle, Dietra Prater Slack, Anne Stafford, Elizabeth Terzakis

Guests: Michael Stanford, Harriet Tucker

Meeting began at 2:25

Facilitator: Karen Olesen

 

1. Welcome and Introductions

2. Minutes of the May 14, 2008 EC meeting

Approved


3. Statements from AFT members on Non-Agenda Items:

A. Dan mentioned, and distributed a few copies of, the San Mateo Labor Council’s paper, Labor. The issue distributed contained an article about Dan’s discussion of education issues to candidates running for office in San Mateo county.

B. Dan reported that he had attended the PERB hearing for P/T Librarians. AFT 1493 was able to get one librarian a regular schedule that will last until retirement. The PERB officer recommended that we revisit this issue during the next round of contract negotiations.

C. John Kirk’s retirement part video is available – contact Dan if you are interested.

D. Monica relayed a request that AFT 1493 endorse “No on W,” a measure regarding open space in Redwood City. AFT 1493 does not, however, make political endorsements other than for Board of Trustee candidates.

E. Yaping mentioned that a CSM faculty member was traumatized by an incident in which a deer broke windows in two faculty offices, leaving behind broken glass and blood. The faculty member requested that Yaping distribute to the EC a letter she wrote about the handling of the incident. Dan will request an electronic copy and distribute to the EC.

4. AFT Local 1493 2008-09 budget

Harriet pointed out that we have no control over projected income or over the expenses listed on page 2 on the handout she distributed; we do have some control over staff salaries, taxes and benefits (item #2) as well as items #3 – 14. We have a new clerical assistant – Mark Mantell, who gets a $100 stipend for health benefits. The cost of Harriet’s benefits went down.

The budget was approved unanimously.


5. Toward a more efficient and effective union

A. Agendas and Meetings: Monica created a slightly new format for this month’s agenda, which designates action items. She suggested that in the future we list action items at the beginning of the agenda, and that statements from AFT members remain statements only, not items for discussion, and that they be limited to 10 minutes in total.

Teeka asked that in the future we talk about having additional meetings, especially when special issues come up.

B. Organizing Members: Teeka talked about some of what she learned at ULI this past summer, in particular the importance of face-to-face contact with members. She distributed a handout describing the “organizing conversation,” and including suggestions for effective communication with members.

Katharine suggested that we restart our yearly retreats (generally held in August). Elizabeth said that she is interested in creating flyers to help organize faculty, using issues like the use of SLO’s in faculty evaluations, Distance Education, etc. to foster faculty involvement.

C. Email: Anne requested that people use the “reply all” option judiciously, to help prevent email overload.

D. Communication with Board/District: The Board of Trustees is apparently not interested in our idea of “summit meetings” which would have included EC, Senate, and Board members along with administrators, meeting to discuss major issues of concern. Instead, they have suggested that a small group of us meet with the Chancellor. A small group of EC members agreed to schedule a meeting with the Chancellor.

Joaquin raised a question about whether or not the Board may have violated the Brown Act when they made their decision about this only in closed session, and failed to report this decision in open session.

Anne suggested that EC members consider signing up to attend one Board meeting a year as a way to show our interest in improving communication between the EC and the Board, and between the EC and Administration.

6. District Shared Governance Council

A. Revision of Rules and Regulations: 2.09: In spring 2008 the EC agreed that DSG’s decision-making process should no longer be called ‘consensus’; instead, it is simply democratic voting. DSG has essentially abandoned the consensus model.

B. Review of process for evaluation of delineation of functions: ACCJC is requiring a map, or plan, of our “process for evaluation of delineation of functions,” by which it means a list of who, or which constituencies, are responsible for which tasks.

C. Partial revision of Rules and Regulations: Section 6: DSG has proposed substituting the following statement from 6.12, section 1a (Definition of Credit Courses) – “The course shall be taught by a credentialed instructor – with “The course shall be taught by a qualified instructor.”

Teeka wanted to know what we thought about including a statement about SLO’s in 6.12, section 1g.

Teeka will send AFT the newest version when it is ready.


7. Class size MOU discussion

We’ve already renewed it until December 2008. Joaquin suggested we table the issue until our next meeting. Katharine suggested that it would helpful to have somebody do some research on what other colleges are doing. This issue of what to do about large classes will require a big discussion – it will be on the November agenda.

Decisions about large classes may also impact our language on Distance Education.

8. Flex days poll 2009-10 calendar

The online faculty poll resulted in some very mixed responses about converting teaching days to Flex days. A number of EC members feel conflicted about not wanting to do a lot of administrative work for free on the one hand, and not wanting to give up instruction days on the other hand. Teeka reminded us that one of our (the EC) primary obligations to our members is to work to obtain the highest pay and best working conditions – and this change to the calendar is an attempt to do exactly that.

The EC unanimously approved taking our proposal (to convert 4 additional instruction days to Flex days in the 2009/2010 academic year) to the Board. We intend to treat the change as a two-year experiment. Next year we will have to assess how the additional Flex days are working.

We need to communicate to P/T faculty that they can get paid for activities they participate in on days when they wouldn’t normally be teaching.

9. Trust Committee release time update

On 9/12 Teeka met with Harry Joel to discuss compensation – in the form of release time – for faculty who ultimately serve on the new Trust Committee. Though Susan Estes is very eager to move forward with the formation of the new Committee, the EC decided that we must follow the precedent set by the original Trust Committee (whose members did receive release time); if the District won’t pay participants, we will wait.


10. Alternative Calendar Task Force

Faculty recently received a proposal from Patty Dilko and Jing Luan about the formation of a task force to explore the possibility of changing to a compressed calendar. Monica explained that District Administration and Administration from all three campuses have done some modeling, saving faculty from having to do all of the groundwork.

The EC discussed how the task force and the AFT will fit together. Do we want to participate fully or merely weigh in once there is an actual proposal? Katie announced that she plans to participate, whether as an AFT rep. or simply as a faculty member.

The EC decided to continue this discussion at our November EC meeting.


11. Union and Senate roles discussion

Tabled until November meeting.

12. Grievances

There was no report.


13. Proposed change in Dan Kaplan’s SEP/IRA

Dan was previously limited to an Employer contribution of 15% of his gross salary to a SEP IRA (which, unlike the retirement plans of faculty, is a defined contribution rather than a defined benefit plan). The law changed in 2002 to allow for a contribution of 25% of his gross pay, but his broker did not notify him of this change. Dan requested that the EC approve an increase now to 20%, which would allow an additional 1% increase retroactive to the 2002 date at which time the law changed, with an additional 1% increase each year until he reaches 25%.

The EC voted unanimously to increase the contribution to 20% this year, and will decide next year on future increases.


Open discussion/meeting critique: Meeting adjourned: 4:50

 

September 10, 2008


Minutes of

General Membership/Executive Committee Meeting

September 10, 2008 at CSM

Present: Eric Brenner, Ron Brown, Alma Cervantes, Chip Chandler, Victoria Clinton, Dave Danielson, Nina Floro, Katharine Harer, Teeka James, Dan Kaplan, Yaping Li, Monica Malamud, Karen Olesen, Sandra Raeber, Joaquin Rivera, Katie Schertle, Anne Stafford, Elizabeth Terzakis

Guests: Salumeh Eslamieh, Jesus Moya, Mary Stegner, Paul Stegner, Yolanda Valenzuela

Meeting began at 2:25

Facilitator: Eric Brenner

 

1. Welcome and Introductions


2. Minutes of the May 14, 2008 EC meeting

Approved.

Teeka pointed out that it is important to track issues that we say we will carry over, like the Large Class Size MOU (what to do about classes with 45-69 students) and the Ethics Statement.

3. Statements from AFT members on Non-Agenda Items:

Jesus Moya expressed his concern and unhappiness over a deteriorating relationship with the new Dean of the Social Science/Creative Arts Division. After not seeing the classes he normally teaches listed in the schedule of classes for Fall 2008, and feeling that the Dean was intruding into his (Jesus’) relationship with his students, he went to talk with the Dean in the Dean’s office. After some discussion, the Dean threatened to call CSM security to escort Jesus out of his office. He feels he can no longer talk to the Dean and would like some help from AFT.

4. Negotiations Update

Future issue:

Many faculty have suggested adding additional Flex days to the Academic Calendar to allow us more time to complete the increasing administrative workload falling on faculty. The objective would be to increase faculty participation in tasks such as Program Review, SLO work, etc. Dan says that District Administration is eager to help us do this. Rather than adding the current number of days in the regular semester, these Flex days would replace existing instruction days. Cañada replaced one day of instruction in Spring 2008 with a Flex day to allow faculty time to work on SLO’s – the experiment was quite successful, and AFT and the District have already negotiated one additional Flex day for Spring 2009 (March 12).

AFT will poll faculty to determine whether they support adding two Flex days in Fall 2009 (November 11 & 12) and two Flex days in Spring 2010 (March 10 &11). AFT will write a rationale for additional Flex days and will consult with the Academic Senate before creating and posting the poll online.

Ongoing issues:

a) P/T seniority list:

AFT and the District have agreed to the following:

  • Deans will send the lists to Harry Joel’s office and AFT can then request the lists from Harry. It is still faculty’s responsibility to check that the lists are correct, but they can now ask Dan for the list, rather than having to request them from their Deans.
  • Administrators will have to provide a fuller explanation to P/T faculty (and F/T faculty on the seniority list) who are not assigned courses. To help with this, all Deans will be required to ask for faculty teaching requests in writing.

    Note: Not addressed in this round of negotiations – F/T’s positions on the seniority list count throughout the entire District while P/T’s positions on the list count only by campus. The list also does not apply to courses taught in summer. These items will be addressed in future negotiations.

  • If faculty request an assignment and don’t get it, they will stay on the list for five consecutive semesters (rather than the current three semesters).

    One question arose: Do all Distance Ed. courses count toward faculty load and affect their position on the P/T seniority lists? Joaquin said he would look into this.

b) Grievances:

AFT and the District have agreed to the following changes to current contract language:

  • Level 1: Filing time extended from 20 days to 30 days.
  • Level 2: If there is going to be a hearing, the Chancellor must schedule it within 10 days.

Binding arbitration: SMCCD is currently one of just three Districts in the Bay 10 that do not have binding arbitration. The District did not agree to binding arbitration, arguing that it is unnecessary since the Board always goes along with arbitrators’ recommendations.

c) Distance Education:

All of this language is completely new. Eric and Alma joined in the negotiations around Distance Ed. The District has agreed to the following:

  • AFT will be guaranteed membership on DEAC.
  • Compensation for developing Distance Ed. courses: The District hasn’t really acknowledged the additional work load involved in developing Distance Ed. courses. It agreed to pay faculty at the Special Rate (no more than 25 hours) if approved by the appropriate administrator.
  • Enrollment caps: The District wants the class size limits to be the same as for on-campus classes. As with course development, the District does not acknowledge the additional per-student workload involved in teaching many Distance Ed. courses.

The next bargaining session is Friday (9/12). The District’s position is that it will not negotiate on the three re-openers separately. They say we must accept their most recent offer on Distance Ed. if we want the proposed changes to P/T seniority and grievances. How do we want our negotiators to proceed? Some EC members felt is was most important to simply get some language in the contract about Distance Ed. Others felt we need to continue to push for enrollment caps and more compensation. We voted to settle on P/T seniority and grievances and continue to negotiate on Distance Ed. If the District refuses to “de-link” the three items, we will continue negotiating the entire package.

5. Trust Committee release time discussion

Compensation:

Teeka provided a brief history of AFT’s unofficial negotiations with the District regarding compensation for faculty who will serve on the Trust Committee. She began discussions with Harry Joel last semester (Spring 2008). The District initially said that it would not give reassigned time for Trust Committee members, but after AFT provided documentation that members of the original Trust Committee did indeed get some reassigned time, the District offered a $1,500 per semester stipend. Teeka is advocating for 3 units of reassigned time for each faculty member on the Committee (AFT wants 10 faculty on the Committee, three from each campus in additional to a faculty Chair) and wanted to know how the EC feels. John and Ernie, both of whom served on the original Trust Committee, were emphatic that faculty need to be released from part of their ordinary work load, rather than given a small stipend, in order to do the job well. We discussed the possibility of having AFT calculate the total cost to the District of provided 3 units of reassigned time to 9 faculty and presenting that information to the District.

Using SLO’s as part of faculty evaluation:

Members expressed concern over language contained in the District’s Response to ACCJC regarding the use SLO’s in faculty evaluations. This letter suggested that the Trust Committee would consider using the outcomes of SLO assessment in faculty evaluation. The language in this report was eventually changed to say only that the Trust Committee would consider linking the production and articulation of SLO’s, rather than the outcome, to the faculty evaluation process.

Dan mentioned that Bob Bezemek will give a presentation at the October 10 CCC meeting on this very issue. Dan suspects that if CFT is unhappy with WASC’s response to a proposed letter from Marty Hittelman, it may proceed with a lawsuit against WASC.

Some EC members felt we should push back hard against any pressure from the District to link SLO’s to faculty evaluation in any way.

In the end the EC voted unanimously not to move forward with the formation of the Trust Committee without 3 units of reassigned time, or the equivalent, for all faculty serving on the committee. Teeka agreed to contact the Senate Presidents and Harry Joel regarding our decision. AFT will clarify at tonight’s (9/10/08) Board meeting that the committee has not yet been formed, nor has AFT agreed to discuss the issue of linking SLO’s with faculty evaluations.

General:

Paul Stegner, a member of the original Trust Committee, made the following recommendations to the future committee:

  • AFT should insist on 3 units of reassigned time for all faculty members.
  • Use a Shared Governance model (including accurate and thorough documentation of all meetings, tasks, etc., and rotation of Chair position).
  • Consult with members of the previous Trust Committee on existing language, intent, rationale, etc.
  • Once the Board has approved the Trust Committee, form an oversight committee on each campus similar to the Peer Evaluation Guidance Committee.
  • Always ask for the EC’s approval before finalizing anything.
  • Develop and maintain a good relationship with the Academic Senate.
  • Continually portray the Trust Committee as something positive and beneficial for faculty.

6. Grievances

The EC voted unanimously to take the case of a faculty member who was terminated after his/her second year of the tenure process to arbitration – a hearing is scheduled for October 28 & 29.


7. “Food for Thought” discussion

This item was tabled until our October meeting.

8. Communications with Board/District

This item was tabled until our October meeting.

 

9. The Organizing Conversation

This item was tabled until our October meeting.

 

10. AFT Local 1493 2008-09 Budget

This item was tabled until our October meeting.

 

11. Proposed change in Dan’s SEP/IRA contract article

This item was tabled until our October meeting.

 

12. Open discussion/meeting critique

Meeting adjourned: 4:45

October meeting facilitator: Karen Olesen