PART TIMERS

AFT 1493 hosts get-togethers for part-timers and full-timers to meet at all three colleges 

AFT Local 1493 hosted “Meet and Greet” gatherings at CSM and Cañada College in February to show appreciation for adjunct faculty and to provide a chance for part-time and full-time faculty to meet, get to know one another and discuss issues related to working at our colleges. Reports from those two events are on the next page. 

A third event–“A Party to Celebrate Part-Time Faculty:  Pizza, Prizes & Parity”–will be held at Skyline College on Thursday, March 20.  This event will be held from 1:00-5:00 pm.  The Skyline College community is invited to join in showing their appreciation and support for adjunct faculty.

Gift cards, donated by the Skyline College Bookstore, will be raffled each hour; lucky winners must be present to claim their prize. The Skyline AFT Chapter will raffle off five $10 gift cards (or ten $5 gift cards) every hour: 1:00, 2:00, 3:00, 4:00, 5:00.

Skyline AFT 1493 Executive Committee members Katharine Harer, Nina L. Floro, Eric Brenner, Janice Sapigao, and Paul Rueckhaus are planning the event.

Part-timers raise issues at CSM’s  “Meet & Greet with Treats”

On Monday, February 24, CSM AFT Executive Committee members, Teeka James, Anne Stafford, Lin Bowie, Sandi Dorsett, and Michelle Kern (designer of the wonderful flyer partially displayed below), hosted an Adjunct Faculty Appreciation Meet and Greet with Treats to show appreciation for adjunct faculty and to provide an opportunity for part-time and full-time faculty to meet and get to know one another.

Part-time faculty came from a variety of disciplines: Fire Academy, ESL, Biology, Dance/PE, Business Technology, Physics, Speech, and Kinesiology. Full-time faculty and AFT provided pizza, cookies and fruit as the treats and those who attended shared information about themselves to help everyone get to know each other.  

Both part-time faculty who attended and those who sent regrets expressed their appreciation for the event.  And both part-time and full-time faculty in attendance shared that they enjoy teaching at CSM more than at any of the other schools at which they have taught because of the classroom and office facilities available to all faculty and the friendly and helpful faculty members themselves.

Those in attendance were also encouraged to share any questions or issues they had about teaching at CSM. One concern that the part-time faculty shared was a lack of good information about part-time faculty retirement plan options.  During the discussions, Teeka James, President of our AFT local, came up with the idea for AFT to organize an Adjunct Faculty Retirement Workshop similar to those that are offered during the academic year for full-time faculty.  

Another important issue that was discussed concerned being asked to perform work (e.g. SLO work, meeting attendance) without compensation. AFT members explained that CA labor law requires being paid for all work done. It was pointed out that when a Dean asks a PT faculty member to do SLO or other extra work that an affirmative response should be contingent upon compensation at least at the Special Rate for all work done. Most Deans seem to find the necessary money, but usually only when asked.

Concern was also expressed about the recent change in the photocopying policy. It is now much more difficult or impossible to make last minute copies of materials for classroom use. This especially has a negative impact on part-time faculty, who often are rushing from campus to campus, photocopying materials an needed.

Cañada adjuncts discuss parity, pay for non-classroom work, e-portfolios, and much more

Cañada College AFT representatives held a Meet and Greet for adjunct faculty on Monday, March 10th, at the Cañada Vista clubhouse.  The objective of this event was to give adjunct faculty a chance to meet their AFT representatives; ask their questions; present their concerns; and provide suggestions.  Faculty who attended provided AFT representatives with insight into issues they are facing and expressed their appreciation for such an event as well as a desire for AFT to hold additional similar events. 

A gist of the meeting included topics like part-time parity; part-time representation on committees; compensation for tasks that extend beyond the classroom; clarity on college-wide policies (e.g., flex day compensation, methods for keeping records, and hiring and staffing processes); e-portfolios; recognition for contributions to their departments and the college; consideration for adjunct contracted responsibilities and time; leveled classes and repeatability of courses; and fair compensation for student-contact hours.  

AFT is thankful to those faculty who were able to attend the Meet and Greet, for they helped start a cross-campus discussion of adjunct concerns.  We hope that if you have a concern, you find the chance to let one of the AFT reps know, so we can help build a thriving and amiable working environment across campus.  As AFT continues to advocate for increased part-time parity, your suggestions, concerns, and involvement are of vital importance to the negotiations team.

Please contact: Victoria Clinton, Salumeh Eslamieh, Monica Malamud, Elizabeth Terzakis, or Lezlee Ware with your questions, concerns, and suggestions.

AFT 1493 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

AFT 1493 elections to take place in April;
New leaders encouraged to run for office

In mid-April AFT Local 1493 will be holding elections to determine the leadership of the Local for the next two years. Have you ever considered running for President, Vice-President, Secretary, or Treasurer, or member of the Executive Committee, of your Union? In other words, have you ever considered taking an active role in the organization that represents the interests of all faculty in this District? Would you like to contribute to the process of making some positive changes for faculty in this District?

Union office entails various different kinds of tasks and responsibilities, ranging from representing the AFT at the negotiating table to working as a grievance officer, as well as running meetings and doing organizing projects for the Local. Some released time is provided for certain union positions.

The Executive Committee conducts the business of the union at its meetings, and makes recommendations regarding policy to the membership. If you are interested in taking an active role in the decision-making process for the Local, this is the place to do it! The Executive Committee meetings are normally held on the second Wednesday of each month at 2:15 p.m. at each of the different colleges on a rotating basis.

The Chapter Chairs at each of the three colleges bring the concerns of their members to the monthly meeting of the Executive Committee. Work as a Chapter Chair (or Co-Chair) is a good place to begin your work in the Union.

During a two-year term as a member of the Executive Committee, a faculty member would have a good chance to develop or improve their leadership skills. Members of the Local 1493 leadership team have various ways in which to hone their leadership talents: there are CFT conferences that newly elected officers and representatives may attend, as well as a range of workshops sponsored by the Community College Council from time to time. These are both excellent places to meet union activists from other Locals around the state and the country, and to develop new skills at the same time.

AFT Local 1493 is not just the President or a few leaders. It takes many people to make this union work well representing the interests of all of the faculty in this District. Please consider running for a union position, and let’s all together make our union stronger and our district a better place to work.

Performance Evaluation Task Force’s revision of faculty evaluation documents almost complete

by Elizabeth Terzakis, PETF representative, AFT Local 1493 Cañada Chapter Co-Chair

The Performance Evaluation Task Force (PETF) is entering the home stretch of its efforts to revise Appendix G, the evaluation portion of AFT 1493’s contract with the San Mateo Community College District.

Much of the work that we have done has involved creating entirely new documents, rather than just revising old ones. After polling our online faculty and studying the evaluation procedures and documents used to evaluate online learning used by other colleges and organizations, we designed an online observation form and decided to incorporate online learning into the same student questionnaire that we hope the faculty will vote to use for face-to-face classes.

Librarians from all three colleges met, produced, and generously turned over to the PETF observation and assessment tools that we are currently vetting and that will also represent a totally new section of Appendix G when they are finalized. Also brand new are tools for evaluating counselors and the growing number of faculty coordinators and evaluation summary forms.

In addition to creating these new sections, we have spent a great deal of time revising existing documents and forms to reduce redundancy, enhance clarity and consistency, and respond to faculty concerns as expressed to us through surveys, focus groups, and faculty meetings. The Classroom Observation form has been completely revised, the ratings scale adjusted to allow for more specificity, and follow-up steps clearly laid out to help remove ambiguity and confusion around which form to use for whom, what the outcome of the evaluation is, and what future actions are needed. As mentioned above, the student questionnaire has also undergone major changes. Specific references to online education have been added, outdated questions have been removed, and criteria for evaluation have been clarified. 

We are currently revising and editing the overall narrative of evaluation procedures and assessing the efficacy of past and current practices: How does the timeline work? Are committees effectively constituted? Who is responsible for orienting new faculty around evaluation procedures and making sure that the process is followed over time? Once again, the results of faculty surveys have been crucial to our discussion of these questions. 

Simultaneously, we are addressing the formatting and appearance of the documents with an aim toward increasing professionalism and ease of use: removing typos, rationalizing the numbering system for easy reference, converting forms to fillable PDFs, and adjusting the overall layout to increase consistency and, in general, make it look nice. We hope to make the student questionnaire available online and on paper.

Our overarching goal for all revisions has been to take out guesswork, to make sure that there is a clearly designated form for every required process, to make sure that there is no unnecessary redundancy, and to produce a professional-looking and error-free document, and I am happy to say that the end of the Task Force’s work is in sight. We plan to present the new and improved Appendix G to AFT leadership and the District Academic Senate before the end of this semester and to vet it with the faculty as a part of the flex days opening the Fall 2014 semester. 

Faculty rights

Skyline’s new media policy restricts employees’ right to free speech

by Robert J. Bezemek, AFT Local 1493 attorney

On March 12, 2014 Skyline College announced to employees its unilaterally adopted “Media Policy” designed to “protect” the college’s “brand and image.” The policy attempts to do this by restricting faculty comments to reporters and “the media.” To be fair, the document does not outright forbid such comments. Rather, it “recommends” and “requests” that employees not speak to reporters, but forward all inquiries to the Director of Marketing, Communication and Public Relations. However, the manner of its presentation, and its emphasis on such protocols reasonably communicates a message that employees should not respond directly to the media. In this way the policy has a “Big Brother”-like approach that coerces compliance, and discourages or “chills” employees’ exercise of their constitutional and statutory rights of employees.

Recalling the Pentagon Papers case

The newly-crafted policy illustrates why it is never too late to review the meaning of free speech in America, and to revisit the famous case of the Pentagon Papers and the “prior restraint” doctrine. It all began when a public employee, Daniel Ellsberg, released documents to the New York Times and Washington Post that included a secret “history” of American involvement in Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia, which contradicted information previously released by the government to Congress and the American people. To prevent publication of the “papers”, the United States obtained an injunction. In a landmark decision, the US Supreme Court held that this injunction constituted illegal prior restraint on speech. See New York Times v. Sullivan (1971) 403 US 713. The Court relied on an opinion issued 7 decades earlier, that a main purpose of the First Amendment was to forbid “previous restraints” on publication of information. The Times case is not limited to the US government, but applies to all governmental bodies.  

The putative Skyline policy is a quintessential example of a prior restraint on employee speech. The practical problem with the policy is that it confuses the right of a public employer to delineate what its official representatives say FOR the college with what its employees, students and even Board members say ABOUT the college. A college is a marketplace of ideas, not a market with one idea. No matter how satisfying it may be for PR folks to control “images” and “brands,” such non-lofty goals cannot interfere in Constitutional rights of freedom of speech. And while such media policies may become ubiquitous with private schools and employers, they are generally illegal when grafted onto public entities.

Public education has always been a matter of public concern in this country.  When employees who work for a public college speak with the media about their college, program, courses, working conditions, activities or other topics, they are exercising their constitutional rights to speak about issues of public concern.  In order to restrain employee speech, a public employer carries a “particularly heavy” burden to prove that its media policies are “necessary to the efficient operation” of the agency.  In the case of Skyline College, it has managed to survive, actually excel, for more than 50 years without muzzling employee speech. Suppression of speech doesn’t just affect the speaker, it also deprives listeners – the public – of essential information. In order to justify a prior restraint, the government must show that the interests of both the speakers and the listeners, present and future, are “outweighed” by actual impacts on the “actual operation” of the college. See, e.g., U.S. v. National Treasury Employees Union (1995) 513 US 454, 468. A “branding” campaign hardly qualifies. For these reasons, a federal court in New York held a media policy unconstitutional, even when employees were regularly exposed to “confidential” information about welfare recipients. See Harman v. City of New York, 140 F. 3d 111 (2d Cir. 1998).

Besides its violation of the Constitution, a policy that restrains future speech will ordinarily violate California’s collective bargaining law, the Educational Employment Relations Act, if its natural and reasonable tendency is to chill employees in the exercise of their EERA rights to inform the press of their working conditions or other employment-related matters. 

Finally, traditional academic freedom also protects academic employees’ rights to offer opinions on topics that affect their colleges, including such matters as accreditation. Demers v. Austin, 729 F. 3d 1011 (9^th Cir. 2013)

Prior restraint policies adversely affect the rights of public employees to comment on matters of public concern, and go to the core of those freedoms the First Amendment was designed to protect. Such policies also harm prospective listeners and the public. 

“Media Policy Clarification” issued

On March 14, Skyline College issued a “clarification” of its media policy, stating: “Faculty members who are speaking to the media as subject matter experts in their area of expertise and are not speaking on behalf of the college are welcome to proceed as they normally would.” This statement, however, does not acknowledge the fact that all faculty are protected by the law, regardless of the level of expertise or knowledge one may have regarding the topics under discussion.

The recently adopted Skyline policy neglects to contain necessary assurances that utilizing a PR service is merely an option for employees, except perhaps for those rare occasions, as when someone has been engaged to speak on behalf of the college to express the college’s “official” position. It wrongfully presents the policy as outlining expected protocols. In my opinion, faculty, students and even Board members cannot be required nor can they be expected by their employer to obtain permission or approval of their words when they decide to talk to the media about their college. The Constitution demands this recognition by public colleges.