San Mateo Community College Federation of Teachers, AFT 1493


Minutes of
General Membership/Executive Committee Meeting
December 12, 2007 at CSM

 

Present: Eric Brenner, Alma Cervantes, Chip Chandler, Victoria Clinton, Nina Floro, Katharine Harer, Rick Hough, Teeka James, Dan Kaplan, John Kirk, Yaping Li, Monica Malamud, Karen Olesen, Sandra Raeber, Ernie Rodriguez, Anne Stafford, Elizabeth Terzakis

 

Guests: Patty Dilko

 

Meeting began at 2:20

Facilitator: Karen Olesen

 

 

  1. Welcome and Introductions

 

 

  1. Statements from AFT Members on Non-Agenda Items                                                    

Ø      Dan distributed a packet of information about the Free Exchange on Campus Coalition, founded and coordinated by AFT.

Ø      Patty Dilko announced that the CSM and Cañada Senates have authorized her to ask Jing Luan to draw up possible options for a 15-week calendar.

 

 

  1. Minutes of the May 9 EC Meeting

 

Approved

 

  1. Concurrent Enrollment

 

Patty reported that though there is a lot of continuing discussion about the specific issue of high school teachers teaching our courses, and it’s clear that such a plan is not workable. At a recent meeting with Jeremy Ball, Mike Claire, Susan Estes, and the Chancellor, District Senate GC said it is considering the possibility of setting aside the work of the MOU in order to allow other conversations about concurrent enrollment to flourish. According to Patty, although the Chancellor pointed out that we need to consider the reaction of the Trustees, who have “high expectations” for the promise of Concurrent Enrollment, he agreed to rescind the MOU. He also wants an update on the process in January (2008). Ernie pointed out that the MOU is in effect for one year and we will not do anything with it at this point.

 

Patty acknowledged that the focus on the specific model of allowing high school teachers to teach SMCCD courses has prevented more meaningful discussion of other potential links between our district and the high schools.

 

  1. Trust Committee composition and letter

 

The original Trust Committee resulted from AB1725. Questions and concerns regarding the faculty evaluation process arise continuously and many people feel it is time to reconstitute the Trust Committee, which would have AFT, Academic Senate, and Administrative representation from each campus. The EC agreed that the Committee should not get too big. We might need subcommittees, or “special teams,” to include the following groups/issues:

Ø      librarians

Ø      counselors

Ø      distance education

Ø      part-time faculty

Ø      vocational education

 

Teeka will draft a letter to the District to get the ball rolling; in it she will request that the past practice of providing compensation for participants be reinstituted.

 

The role of the Trust Committee should be two-fold:

Ø      Review both the existing evaluation documents and the process itself.

Ø      Address the recent WASC recommendation that Student Learning Outcomes be used in the faculty evaluation process.

 

The EC expects the revision process to take between one and two years, perhaps being implemented in Fall 2010.

 

 

  1. New Administrative/Executive Salary Schedule

 

Ernie reported that some of the Board members were questioning the numbers AFT has been using in its argument against the proposed Administrative salary schedule increases. He also said that at least one Board member who was initially supportive of the increases is now considering AFT’s point of view.

 

  1. SLO’s and faculty evaluation update

           

AFT 1493 is currently considering its response to the suggestion by WASC – in our accreditation exit interview – that our District begin using SLO’s in the faculty evaluation process. Though we didn’t have much time to discuss the issue at this meeting (there will be a fuller discussion in January and February), the central debate revolves around whether it is best to take an early stand against WASC’s request or wait and see what happens elsewhere in the state, particularly at a January 12 Manhattan Beach meeting of the Community College Council of the CFT.

 

Some faculty are concerned about demands on them to create numerous new course outlines which must include SLO’s and language about the means for assessing them. The campus SLO coordinators have apparently developed different processes and requirements regarding the development, implementation, and assessment of SLO’s on the three campuses.

 

  1. District Shared Governance Council

 

Teeka expressed her frustration that there is little real discussion at District Shared Governance Council meetings and that issues brought to the meetings often do not get resolved (for instance, Distance Education). Patty pointed out that Administration representatives rarely attend the meetings. Dan, however, reminded the EC that our participation in DSGC has allowed us to block some potentially disastrous proposals (electronic surveillance and the Mutual Respect Policy).

 

  1. DEAC

 

Eric reported that when he attended the last meeting he told the group that many of the issues it has been addressing must be negotiated, such as load and evaluation procedures, and some of the issues must be discussed with Academic Senate. He will continue to attend DEAC meetings.

 

Question: Should a sub-committee of DEAC deal with these issues, or should this be addressed by a sub-committee of the new Trust Committee? (Existing sub-committees: technology [course platform], resources [load, student support services, faculty compensation], policy [which courses will be offered, etc?]).

 

What to do next? It’s clear that the District wants to expand Distance Education. One member suggested that we look at City College of San Francisco’s plan as a model to push in negotiations even though it isn’t comprehensive enough for us.

 

  1. Negotiations

 

There was no report at this time.

 

  1. Grievances

 

  1. Part-time librarian contracts – AFT is still waiting for a decision from PERB and can do nothing until it rules.
  2. Level 2 grievance regarding full-time faculty whose overload was taken away by the Dean. The college president turned down the initial grievance, claiming the faculty member was reassigned to a different position though she stayed within the same FSA. A hearing is scheduled with the Chancellor for tomorrow (12/13/07).
  3. A part-time instructor was not told about her spring schedule, at the same time that a job announcement for a part-time hiring pool was posted on-line. John Kirk investigated, and even though there is a legitimate function for such a pool, the instructor got classes after John talked with the Dean.
  4. Two probationary faculty did not advance in the tenure process (a 2nd-year from CSM, and a 4th year from Cañada). The 2nd-year can grieve only on the basis of a violation of process – he/she wants to file a grievance. The 4th-year can grieve regarding process and substance/content. The faculty member has not contacted AFT – John will contact faculty member to explain his/her rights.
  5. A selection committee was formed, but there are no tenured faculty in that department on one of the campuses. There is only one tenured faculty, but the Dean doesn’t like the person.
  6. A CSM faculty member is seriously concerned about a threatening letter he received from a student. The college is dealing with the situation.
  7. Professional Development Committee. The District claims that the carry-over money does not have to be retroactive. AFT proposed a compromise – the District declined. AFT will ask for an audit to figure out how much money we lost.

 

  1. Apprenticeship Programs

 

 

Background: CSM currently operates all of the District’s apprenticeship trainee programs, in joint partnership with a Joint Apprenticeship Training Committee (JATC)  that each of three unions in the county have organized. We have a 5-year apprenticeship training program, governed by state and federal guidelines. The programs are funded through the Montoya fund, rather than through FTES. Funding hasn’t increased much over the years, and any excess money goes back to the unions. If there is a shortfall, the unions have to pay the District, which takes 12% as overhead costs.

 

Problem: In summer 2007 the District billed the unions retroactively for the last several years of funding shortfalls, at a total cost of $230,000. In response, the unions wanted to cut the salaries of faculty (most of whom have been SMCCD faculty for the last few years) by about 50%. Harry Joel would like to move to a “teacher of record” model, which would result in 25-30 faculty being let go; the unions would then rehire them at a lower rate. Harry Joel and Martha Tilmann are pressuring AFT to deal with this situation, but AFT has refused to create a differential pay scale for District faculty. The 7 affected faculty who attended a meeting last week clearly expressed their desire to leave the current contract unchanged.

 

It seems that our District essentially ignored its relationship with JATC until it sent them the retroactive bill. The District is now concerned because JATC is threatening to move the apprenticeship program Foothill College.

 

Ernie proposed that AFT send a letter to the JATC’s stating that we will do nothing to change the contract, and Richard Holober is going to recommend that the District forgive the entire debt.

 

  1.  Proposition 92 campaign

 

There will be a press conference (11:30 a.m.) & rally (12:00 noon) in support of Prop. 92 on January 29. The Chancellor has agreed to speak at both. Anybody interested in volunteering to help should contact Dan Kaplan. Our student trustee is helping organize, and Katharine suggested we try to get CSEA and AFSCME members to speak.

 

  1. Open discussion/meeting critique

 

There was no discussion about this item.

 

 

Meeting adjourned: 4:50

 



AFT 1493 Home