Monthly Archives: February 2012

February 2012

The Advocate – 35.4  – 
February 2012

In this issue:

December 7, 2011

San Mateo Community College Federation of Teachers, AFT 1493

Minutes of
General Membership/Executive Committee Meeting

December 7, 2011 at CSM


EC Members Present:

Eric Brenner, Chip Chandler, Victoria Clinton, Dave Danielson, Nina Floro, Katharine Harer, Teeka James, Dan Kaplan, Yaping Li, Monica Malamud, Lisa Suguitan Melnick, Emily Munson, Lucia Olson, Sandi Raeber Dorsett, Joaquin Rivera, Doug Sherman, Anne Stafford, Masao Suzuki, Elizabeth Terzakis, Lezlee Ware, Rebecca Webb

Other Attendees:

Zev Kvitky (CFT Field Rep), Ali Shokouhbakhsh, Huy Tran, Ruth Zucca

Meeting begun: 2:35

Facilitator: Dan Kaplan


1. Welcome and Introductions

2. Statements from AFT (non EC) members on Non-Agenda Items




3. Minutes of November 9, 2011 AFT Meeting



12 “yes”

1 “abstain”


4. Negotiations: The Fact Finding Process


The most recent mediation session was brief; the District did not present a counter-proposal. Now, the District and/or AFT 1493 must formally request that we move to fact-finding, a process that could provide valuable information. The pool of state arbitrators is somewhat limited; the two sides can agree to pay for an outside arbitrator. The role of the arbitrator in this process is to push the two sides to reach agreement. Once the arbitrator’s report comes out, it may be rejected by one, or both, parties, in which case the District can impose its last best offer.

The EC agreed that AFT 1493 must continue to push for an acceptable contract during this current contract period even though we will begin negotiating for the next contract soon, and that the time has come to move to fact-finding.


It is possible that an increasingly protracted contract stalemate will have a negative impact on accreditation.

5. Academic Calendar 2012-2013


Due to the numerous specific requirements for the academic calendar and the particular holidays for the 2012/2013 academic year, we must begin instruction on August 20, and fall semester final exams may have to be split into two different weeks. The EC voted unanimously (15 “yes”) to poll faculty over the next week about our calendar options, to be followed by an electronic vote of the EC.


Added item: 5a. Student Success Task Force


The Task Force issued a new draft of recommendations last week, some of the most objectionable ones (to the State Academic Senate) having been removed (consolidation of categorical funds, differential fees based on whether students are taking courses identified in their Educational Plans). However, it still recommends a “report card” for community college districts, as a way to measure student success.



6. Appointment of the New Cañada EC Rep


Following Lezlee’s and Elizabeth’s recommendations, the EC voted unanimously (16 “yes”) to appoint Emily Munson and Lucia Olson as Co-Reps for Cañada.


7. AFT Constitution: Ratification Vote Update

Faculty will vote at the end of January or beginning of February on the new AFT 1493 Constitution; the EC had already voted to accept the new language.

Lisa asked whether a PT faculty member serving in an elected EC position can continue to pay dues during a break in service in order to remain a voting member of the EC, and whether other PT faculty members can continue to pay dues during a break in service in order to vote in AFT 1493 elections, contract ratifications, etc. Though this issue had been discussed at our May 2011 meeting, we agreed to revise the language in Article III, Section 1, to allow PT faculty to pay a $1 fee (as allowed by ???) in order to retain the full rights and responsibilities as AFT 1493 members. Exact language will be drafted over email.


8. Grievances


Chip reported that the District is pushing a number of FT faculty (at all three campuses) to retire with severance packages, which he is currently helping the faculty members negotiate.

Announcement: PERB has issued a formal complaint against the District in response to AFT 1493’s Unfair Labor Practice charge regarding the District’s inclusion of faculty work on SLO’s in the faculty evaluation process. PERB has scheduled an informal hearing for December 16, and the case may go to a formal hearing.


9. Evaluation Procedures: MOU Update

The District Academic Senate and AFT have agreed on language, after making a few clarifying revisions. Diana Bennett agreed adamantly that we now have the absolute final language. At today’s meeting, we discussed strategies for presenting this final draft to the District. AFT is concerned that the entire project could be shelved by the District’s failure to accept the current language and about how this failure could impact accreditation.


10. District Shared Governance Council Report



The District wanted to add language stating that faculty cannot campaign for political candidates or measures as representatives of the District, and that faculty can be prosecuted by the county for doing so. Teeka pointed out that the regulation is unnecessary as the District already has the power to prosecute.


11. Statements from EC Members on Non-Agenda Items

Students at all three campuses have endorsed the new Oil Extraction Tax Initiative. New petitions are available. Dan expressed concern about the likelihood of a successful grassroots signature gathering drive; such an effort has not been successful in the last 25 years.


Meeting adjourned:             4:55


November 9, 2011

Waiting for corrected minutes


October 12, 2011

San Mateo Community College Federation of Teachers, AFT 1493

Minutes of General Membership/Executive Committee Meeting

October 12, 2011 at Cañada College

EC Members Present:

Chip Chandler, Victoria Clinton, Nina Floro, Teeka James, Dan Kaplan, Yaping Li, Monica Malamud, Lisa Suguitan Melnick, Sandi Raeber Dorsett, Joaquin Rivera, Anne Stafford, Masao Suzuki, Elizabeth Terzakis, Lezlee Ware, Rebecca Webb

Other Attendees:

M. Ricardo Flores, Margaret Hanzimanolis, Michelle P. Kern, Emily Munson, Lucia Olson, Doug Sherman, Zev Kvitky, CFT Field Rep

Meeting begun: 2:30

Facilitator: Lezlee Ware


1. Welcome and Introductions

2. Statements from AFT (non-EC) Members on Non-Agenda Items

Doug Sherman, from Skyline, expressed his concern over what he sees as a movement toward the standardization of curriculum. He believes the FT faculty are divided over this issue. More than one person suggested that this is really a departmental and/or division issue, one that should be addressed through the course outlines.

3. Minutes of May 11, August 19, September 7, and September 14, 2011 AFT Meetings

Because some EC members did not receive their EC packets through campus mail, they had not been able to read all of the minutes. Dan asked that people read them later and that we do an e-vote to approve. He will make any necessary corrections before sending them to Eric for posting on the AFT 1493 website.

4. Parity Issue

Joaquin provided some history of the move toward PT parity/equity in our District. In academic year 2001/2002 the state provided $50 million to the community colleges to be used to bring PT faculty closer to parity with their FT colleagues. Our District originally tried to use the money to fund pay increases that PTs would have gotten anyway without the additional state funds; the state money was intended to supplement, not supplant, PT salaries. AFT 1493 went to mediation over this issue and eventually the District agreed to use the money appropriately. Unfortunately, the state stopped funding for PT parity after the first year.

Monica stressed the need to determine our specific parity goal – each district must decide this for itself.

SB 114, a bill that would create similar salary schedules for both FT and PT faculty, and would standardize the reporting of salaries for retirement purposes, is currently stalled in the state legislature; it may ultimately be split into two separate bills.

We talked about conducting a faculty survey to help determine how the duties of FT and PT faculty compare, in particular to try to determine how much FT faculty work time is spent on duties not directly related to classroom teaching, especially given that FT faculty have more administrative duties than they did ten years ago. Emily pointed out the vicious cycle PT faculty find themselves in: because they are not compensated for work outside their teaching duties, and because they often teach at multiple colleges, many PT faculty do not participate on committees or other department, college and district-wide projects. This lack of participation contributes to the argument that because they contribute less to the institution, 100% parity is not a reasonable goal.

Masao asked about the health benefits for PT faculty (only a small stipend), and suggested that we should find out whether the majority of PT faculty are more concerned about closing the pay gap or the benefits gap.

5. P/T Report

Lisa wanted to focus on two issues of particular concern to PTs:

  • Changing the description of pay for PTs from one based on FTE to one based on LOAD. Joaquin pointed out that this is a monetary issue.
  • Returning to the negotiating table with a request for a specific % of parity. The problem here is that it will take time to determine what percentage is fair. Since the state is no longer funding PT parity, we can certainly ask for differential pay increases for FT and PT as Masao suggested. This may be our best immediate strategy. Dan reminded everybody that before the community colleges received PT equity money from the state, our union had often won an additional 1% pay increase for PT faculty during contract negotiations.

It will be important to remind FT faculty that narrowing the pay gap is in their best          interest; when PTs are not seen as a bargain in the eyes of the administration, there will     be less incentive to rely on PT faculty and more incentive to hire FT. San Francisco City College has narrowed the pay gap and has consequently reduced its percentage of PT faculty.

Margaret pointed out that if we use different calculations than those used in the salary comparison chart in the September Advocate, PTs in our district rank between 8th and 9th place within the Bay 10, rather than 5th, 6th, or 7th.

6. Negotiations Strategy Discussion

The EC discussed our negotiations strategy.

Due to scheduling difficulties with the mediator, the next mediation session is scheduled for October 26. We go back to mediation because that is where we were before we reached the Tentative Agreement in August.

Margaret asked how faculty should forward ideas to the negotiating team; Joaquin suggested PT faculty work through the PT negotiators (Sandy and Victoria).

7. District Bond Discussion

The EC agreed not to take a position of either support for, or opposition to, the District’s proposed Bond measure (Measure H).

8. Number of EC Meetings per Month

Because the EC often struggles to get through its meeting agenda each month, and because the “between-meeting” group (comprised of the President, the Vice Presidents, the Chief Negotiators, and/or a Grievance Officer, with at least one representative from each campus) has met on multiple occasions this semester to address issues that cannot wait until the next regularly scheduled meeting, we again discussed whether we should consider meeting twice a month. Lezlee argued that it is irresponsible for the EC not to discuss in greater detail many of the issues we must address and reminded us that we make decisions that affect a lot of other people.

Some members are strongly opposed to meeting more often than once a month, some feel that meeting twice a month is essential, some suggested that we hold one meeting most months with two additional meetings scheduled each semester, and others suggested we schedule additional meetings as needed (this last option is essentially the one we have been using recently).

Because the time we had to discuss this agenda item today was limited, and because we no longer had a quorum (as some people had already left the meeting), we agreed to hold an e-vote.

9. Procedure for Filling Vacant EC Positions

Cañada currently has a vacant EC rep position, and Skyline currently has a vacant PT EC rep position – the faculty who had been serving in those positions resigned. Elizabeth had originally suggested that the EC simply fill the vacant positions with PT faculty who had recently expressed interest. A number of EC members felt that the positions should be announced to all eligible faculty on those two campuses. Monica also pointed out that she had not yet been notified officially that the two people serving as PT reps at Skyline and Cañada had resigned. Chapter Chairs agreed that would get the word out to their respective faculty.

10. Grievances

Nothing to report at this time.

11. Statements from EC Members on Non-Agenda Items

Monica announced that the District Academic Senate voted unanimously to pass a resolution demanding that the District not implement its revised deadline for Fall 2011 faculty grade submissions and suggested that AFT 1493 consider passing the same resolution. The change in deadline was made without faculty consultation and was not communicated clearly to faculty – many faculty are still unaware that a change was even made.


Meeting adjourned: 4:50


September 14, 2011

San Mateo Community College Federation of Teachers, AFT 1493

Minutes of
General Membership/Executive Committee Meeting

September 14, 2011 at College of San Mateo

EC Members Present:

Eric Brenner, Chip Chandler, Victoria Clinton, Dave Danielson, Nina Floro, Katharine Harer, Teeka James, Dan Kaplan, Yaping Li, Monica Malamud, Lisa Suguitan Melnick, Sandi Raeber Dorsett, Joaquin Rivera, Anne Stafford, Masao Suzuki, Elizabeth Terzakis, Lezlee Ware, Rebecca Webb

Other Attendees:

Isabel Anderson, James Carranza, Jessica Einhorn, Violeta Grigorescu, Angela Skinner Orr, Doug Sherman, Mike Stanford

Zev Kvitky, CFT Field Rep 


Meeting begun: 2:35

Facilitator: Joaquin Rivera


1. Welcome and Introductions


2. Statements from AFT (non-EC) Members on Non-Agenda Items




3. Minutes of May 13, 2011 AFT Meeting

Tabled until October meeting.


4. Tentative Agreement Campaign, Including Media Discussion


Our first item of discussion was how to convey our personal positions on the TA to faculty. We agreed that we should be consistent in our messages to faculty and that we should emphasize why we rescinded our August vote – our withholding of recommendation is not a neutral position. The Advocate will run an article by Elizabeth Terzakis, explaining why she does not support the TA.

If faculty reject the TA, the District must return to the bargaining table; they have indicated that they will not do so unless compelled to.


We agreed that the ratification vote should take place the week of September 26. At our August retreat the EC voted to institute electronic voting, but Dan has encountered some problems. Dan believes he will be able to get the bugs worked out, but if we are concerned that the electronic will not go smoothly, we may try some type of electronic/in-person voting.

Prior to the ratification vote, AFT will create and distribute flyers outlining the history of our August vote to recommend ratification and our decision to rescind that vote; an explanation of what a “yes” vote on the TA would mean and what a “no” vote would mean; and salary comparisons of faculty in the Bay 10 Community Colleges.

After some discussion, we decided that rather than hold forums on each campus, we would set up information tables.


5. District Bond Discussion

Tabled until October meeting.


6. Board of Trustees Election Discussion

The EC voted last week to endorse Joe Ross. The San Mateo Labor Council has also endorsed Ross, along with the three incumbents running for office: Pat Miljanich, Karen Schwartz, and Dave Mandelkern. Today, the EC voted not to endorse any of the three incumbents (9 “yes,” 0 “no,” and 0 “abstain”).


7. Statements from EC Members on Non-Agenda Items


Meeting adjourned: 4:50