Minutes of
General Membership/Executive Committee Meeting
November 14,
2007 at
Present:
Guests: Sandra Stefani Comerford, Alice Erskine, Karen Wong
Meeting began at 2:20
Facilitator: Monica Malamud
- Welcome and Introductions
- Statements from AFT Members on Non-Agenda
Items
A) Ernie learned at a meeting with Harry Joel last week that the District has proposed a special augmentation for all administrative salaries. The administration wanted these salary increases approved at yesterday’s Board meeting. Ernie made it clear to Harry that rushing these increases through with no real faculty input was unacceptable; the Chancellor has agreed to carry the issue over to the next Board meeting and give us time to respond. Our response must be forwarded to the Board before its next meeting.
On behalf of the AFT John has asked the District to provide a list of the top 20 faculty salaries (the Chancellor claims that some faculty are earning as much as $160,000), and a copy of the full consultant’s report upon which the augmentation request was based.
B) Monica asked that some people stay after today’s meeting to discuss CSM’s and Skyline’s hiring processes.
- Minutes of the October 10, 2007 EC
Meeting
Approved with corrections
- Open discussion/meeting critique
At our last meeting we found ourselves with insufficient time to fully address every agenda item. Today we discussed ways to move the agenda along more efficiently, in a way that everybody feels good about. Some suggestions:
Ø Longer meetings
Ø More frequent meetings
Ø Be more flexible with the suggested time limits for each agenda item
Ø Adhere strictly to time limits and vote on whether to extend
Ø Have a time-keeper give a “two-minute warning” when time is almost up
Ø Conduct more of our discussion/business over email
Ø Make a greater effort to start meetings on time
Ø Be sure to read all relevant material before meetings
We took a straw poll on the following questions:
YES NO
Would you be willing/able to meet until 5:00? 11 7
Would you be willing/able to attend 2 meetings per month? 4 10
Do you support investigating some sort of virtual meeting? 13 2
Do you support experimenting with voting to extend time on
individual agenda items? 16 2
While some people feel that voting to extend time on individual agenda items will make the meetings more efficient and more democratic, others fear it will be cumbersome and inflexible. The EC ultimately voted to try out such a system at our December meeting. (All members were in favor with the exception of one abstention.)
- Veteran’s Day calendar debacle
Though District administrators knew about the state requirement to take Monday, November 12 as the Veteran’s Day Holiday, rather than Friday, November 9 as far back as August, Harry Joel and the Chancellor are claiming that AFT is equally responsible for the mix up. CSEA has a string of emails documenting Harry Joel’s claims that AFT is at fault. However, when Joaquin brought up the issue with Harry in September, Harry told him the District was prepared to simply lose the apportionment – apparently not realizing how much money we stood to lose. Ten days before the holiday, Joaquin received a call from Harry, saying that the District could lose half a million dollars and we needed to do something. Classified staff at Skyline allegedly began questioning requests to falsify information regarding the actual holiday about 4 weeks ago, and Kathy Blackwood says she didn’t know about the extent of the potential financial loss to the District until the beginning of November.
The EC decided that AFT would send an open letter to all District employees explaining that the District Administration bears responsibility for the mess and expressing our solidarity with classified staff, who ended up having to work on Friday, November 9 or else take a vacation day.
- SLO’s and faculty evaluation
AFT has consulted with our attorney regarding WASC’s recent recommendation that SLO’s be tied to faculty evaluations; at the accreditation exit interview, WASC stated that our District’s assessment data should be linked directly to faculty evaluation. Those involved in the accreditation process feel WASC’s language about this is vague enough that we can determine our own policy/response. Our attorney has suggested the following possible responses/actions:
Ø Join with other locals and file a lawsuit against WASC, demanding that it refrain from getting involved with issues regarding faculty evaluation.
Ø Create language of accommodation to get them off our backs, without really changing what we do. Some schools have tried this, but it hasn’t been fully tested. The argument here is that if we take control now, we may be able to use the process to our benefit. Others pointed out that this same argument was used when SLO’s were introduced initially – and now look where it’s gotten us.
Ø Just say “no.” Sandra feels that this is not a good option.
A joint Senate/AFT meeting will be held on Monday, November 26 (2:15 – 3:30) at CSM to discuss WASC’s recommendation. Because faculty evaluation is a negotiated item, AFT will ultimately make the decision about how to respond. Dan suggested that AFT, District Academic Senate, and SLOAC (Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Committee) agree on a position and write a joint statement. He thinks WASC isn’t likely to accept any “language of accommodation” in the long run. Our attorney thinks this may be a good test case to take on WASC and believes CFT would be willing to join us. There was a strong feeling among EC members that we need to fight WASC on this issue, that we need to go on the offense, rather than respond defensively.
The SLOAC representatives and Monica pointed out that we should not panic; WASC’s final accreditation report isn’t even out yet.
- Faculty Evaluations, Peer and Tenure
Review
Teeka referred everyone to her recent Advocate article outlining the changes made to District faculty evaluation materials this semester. Because there are so many new and interim Deans, Susan Estes decided to put together packets of all the evaluation materials for all the Deans. In the process, she noticed that some forms had disappeared in the most recent copy of the contract. Teeka believes that Susan’s intentions were good, and that any changes were minor enough not to be concerned about. She suggested we form a small committee to carefully proofread the next contract. She also suggested that we reconstitute the Trust Committee to review all evaluation documents; some forms do not work well for certain faculty. The committee should include Academic Senate, Administrative (one VPI and two Deans) and AFT representation. The EC decided that faculty should go ahead and use the “new” forms this year. There was also some discussion about the reforming the Trust Committee to review evaluation procedures as well as documents. John pointed out that in the past faculty on the Trust Committee received reassigned time for their work. The EC agreed unanimously that Teeka would draft a letter to the District about all of these issues.
- DEAC discussion
Eric will attend the upcoming DEAC meeting (Friday, November 16) as an AFT liaison, not a negotiator. He will convey our unanimous decision that the shared governance process regarding Distance Education has been inadequate and that because much of what is contained in the DEAC draft policy document is collective bargaining material, we will suspend our participation on the committee. The AFT negotiations proposal, in fact, was presented at last night’s Board meeting – Distance Education is one of our bargaining items.
John reminded us that AFT has had a demand to negotiate letter on file for six months.
- Negotiations update
A) Initial proposals were presented to the Board last night; negotiations will probably start in January.
B) Calendar. The proposed Spring 2009 calendar leaves no Monday for final exams. There are two possible solutions:
Ø Start the spring semester one day later (1/21/09) and have final exams run through June 1.
Ø Start the spring semester as planned (1/20/09) and keep June 1 as a final exam day ONLY for classes meeting once a week on Mondays.
The second option was adopted, with one vote opposed and two abstentions.
- Grievances
Ø The case of the faculty member who had a stroke (written about in The Advocate) has been resolved.
Ø At CSM ESL and English faculty have been paid at the special rate to read challenge exams. Jennifer Hughes (VPSS) has said they cannot be paid anymore, as reading the exams constitutes part of their regular duties. John has written a letter explaining that payment has been past practice and should therefore continue.
Ø Professional Development Committee funding. The District has corrected the situation so that the correct amount of money will be taken out of the Committee’s account, but it has not made the correction retroactive. AFT has requested data for the last five years to ensure that the District has made the proper corrections.
Ø John has met with Harry Joel and Jennifer Hughes regarding a reduction in DSPS faculty hours (from 37.5 to 27). These faculty weren’t included in the contract, but past documents show that the hours used to be 27. The question of back pay has not been resolved.
Ø A formal grievance was filed at Skyline regarding a full-time faculty member’s overload; the campus President turned down the grievance.
Ø Part-time nurses: we are still waiting to hear from PERB.
- Apprenticeship Programs
This item was deferred to the December meeting.
- Proposition 92 campaign
Dan is working with our Student Trustee to put together a group of Associated Students at CSM interested in campaigning. She will try to bring in students from the other two campuses.
Fred Glass (Communications Director for CFT) will meet with faculty to give us talking points, and Dan is working on arranging a press conference, at which the Chancellor has agreed to speak.
Meeting adjourned: 4:50