March 14, 2012

San Mateo Community College Federation of Teachers, AFT 1493

Minutes of
General Membership/Executive Committee Meeting

March 14, 2012 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, Lucia Olson, Joaquin Rivera, Doug Sherman, Anne Stafford, Masao Suzuki, Elizabeth Terzakis, Lezlee Ware, Rebecca Webb

Other Attendees:

David Locke (CSM), Zev Kvitky (CFT Field Rep)

Meeting begun: 2:30

Facilitator: Dan Kaplan

1. Welcome and Introductions

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

3. *Minutes of January 18, 2012 AFT Meeting

Approved:

  • 10 “yes”
  • 3 “abstain”

4. Performance Evaluation Task Force: Discussion of Desirable Qualifications for Selection of Faculty

We have reached final agreement with the District on an MOU, with the language AFT had originally wanted. Decisions will be reached by a majority vote; final draft will go to the Board of Trustees only for a final review and approval – a simple up or down vote.

We reviewed a draft of the Performance Evaluation Review Committee (PERC) selection process document. The EC agreed to some general, and some specific, revisions to the document, which will be made by the standing committee. This draft will be voted on by the EC within 48 hours of receiving it and brought to District Academic Senate for approval, with the final draft brought back to AFT’s April 11 meeting.

5. Fact Finding Update

The AFT and District negotiating teams have agreed on a third, neutral arbitrator. Fact finding will take place May 1 & 2. AFT will present its case, followed by the District. The fact finders may work to push the sides to reach agreement, but if that does not happen, the neutral fact finder will author a report, a public document that will go to AFT, the Board of Trustees, and PERB. This report, however, will not be binding.

6. *The Contract Campaign: Petitions in Support of AFT in Fact Finding, Binding Arbitration, and the Millionaires’ Tax

We will circulate a petition of support for the negotiating team that focuses on the following four contract issues:

• Compensation

• Academic freedom

• Strengthening PT seniority rights

• Binding arbitration

Joaquin urged us to take time at today’s meeting to make some specific plans for the campaign. Skyline EC members have already met with Dan and Zev to develop strategies for reaching out to their faculty. Cañada faculty will meet with Dan and Zev immediately following today’s AFT meeting, and CSM will meet with them next week.

7. Part-Time parity

Monica presented a draft of a faculty workload survey, the purpose of which is to determine faculty workloads (both full-time and part-time), gather information to help us determine what constitutes parity, and gather information we can use in future contract negotiations.

One issue of concern regarding adjunct faculty workloads is that their smaller involvement outside the classroom – in many cases due primarily to the fact that they aren’t currently paid for that additional work, and that they frequently teach on multiple campuses – could be used to argue against parity in pay. AFT can argue, however, that they should be paid for that work.

8. Basic Aid: Discussion of Ramifications

It is almost certain that SMCCCD will become a Basic Aid district this academic year, a status that is likely to continue. The greatest benefit of being Basic Aid is that future state budget crises will not directly impact our District. The initial determination about whether we do, indeed, become a Basic Aid district will be made in October 2012, with the final determination made in January 2013.

Two possible negative consequences of being Basic Aid are that our total funding is no longer dependent on enrollment (possibly less incentive to increase enrollment), and that under Basic Aid there is no funding penalty if the District fails to meet its Faculty Obligation Number (FON). The FON is currently frozen due to budget cuts, but will eventually be in play again.

Teeka asked about the possible impact that becoming Basic Aid could have on how the three colleges use the money generated by their TBA’s/To-Be-Arranged hours (formerly HBA’s/Hour-by-Arrangement) and on how they comply with state guidelines regarding TBA’s. Some people have suggested that because we are likely to become Basic Aid soon, and therefore no longer reliant on state funding, we don’t need to worry about meeting all of the state guidelines regarding the TBA. Others, however, have pointed out that it is quite possible to move in and out of Basic Aid status, making it far more practical to develop TBA’s that do, indeed, meet all state requirements.

9. SLO Discussion

AFT has received a few responses critical of the March (?) Advocate article about issues of academic freedom surrounding the inclusion of course SLO’s on individual faculty syllabi – and some responses of support. One article has already been submitted for publication in the April (?) Advocate, opposing the viewpoints expressed by AFT’s original article; another article, a letter written by the three campus SLOAC coordinators, will be submitted soon. The SLOAC coordinators’ letter is intended to encourage faculty to include SLO’s in their syllabi given that SLO’s are part of the accreditation standards. College and district administrators are in a tough position: they cannot require faculty to include anything in their syllabi that is not spelled out in the contract, but the colleges are under very real pressure to meet WASC demands in order to be accredited.

The EC agreed that an AFT response to the two articles, clarifying apparent misunderstandings of our position, is appropriate, but we must be clear that we are not opposed to including SLO’s in faculty syllabi; rather, we oppose administration demands that we include them, demands which clearly violate our contract and our rights to academic freedom. Including, or not including, SLO’s in syllabi is a decision to be made by individual faculty.

10. 2012-2014 AFT Elections: Continuation of Discussion

Dan has talked with a number of faculty who are considering running for EC positions, but he has no firm commitments. He urged officers who plan not to run again to encourage other faculty to consider running for office. Dan will contact all nominees to be sure they do want to run. Nominations will be due April 6 or can be made in person at the April 11 AFT meeting at Cañada.

Reminder: agency feel payers may vote on the contract, but not in EC officer elections.

11. *AFT Social: Spring Election Reception Prior to the April 11 EC Meeting at Cañada College

Information only – Dan is organizing.

12. AFT1493.org Email Addresses for all EC Members: Update

Eric will be getting AFT1493.org email addresses for all EC members.

13. Statements from EC Member on Non-Agenda Items.

Monica stressed that to make any real headway in resisting WASC’s pressure on colleges to require faculty participation in developing and assessing SLO’s, and on the use of SLO’s in faculty evaluations, we will need to get other districts involved in the fight. At least one member of the District Academic Senate believes AFT has done the right thing in filing an unfair labor practice charge with PERB over the District Administration’s insistence on faculty participation in SLO’s, but is also very concerned about risking our accreditation. Monica emphasized the importance of developing a joint AFT/DAS resolution to show that the two are in agreement on this issue.

 

Meeting adjourned: 5:05

*Action Item