San Mateo Community College Federation of Teachers, AFT 1493


Minutes of
General Membership/Executive Committee Meeting

March 12, 2008 - CSM



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

 

Guests: Carla Campillo, Patty Dilko, Ann Freeman, Dave Mandelkern, Martin Partlan, Karen Schwarz

 

Meeting began at 2:20

Facilitator: Yaping Li

 

 

  1. Welcome and Introductions

 

 

  1. Conversation with Trustee Dave Mandelkern and Trustee Karen Schwarz                                                  

Ernie began by asking Dave and Karen the same question he had posed to Pat Miljanich and Helen Hausman at the previous EC meeting: what was their reaction to learning that CSM and Cañada had been place on warning by the Accreditation team? Both expressed surprise and felt the visiting team had not clearly communicated that it felt the two campuses had major problems to address Karen assured us that the Board takes the warning very seriously and that the District has already hired consultants to help us address the report’s recommendations.

 

An often heated discussion began almost immediately following discussion of the Accreditation report. Highlights:

 

Ø    AFT & “the press”:  Karen began by expressing her frustration over what she sees as the Board’s need to constantly react and respond to incorrect, misleading, or unflattering information disseminated by AFT. Dave urged Aft to “use discretion and judgment” when talking to the press. Ernie assured both Karen and Dave that AFT has never gone to the press about any issue, but has merely responded as accurately and honestly as possible to queries from reporters. He, and others, also stressed that The Advocate has never knowingly published false or inaccurate information in its role as the place for faculty to voice their opinions on a wide range of issues. More than one EC member stressed that AFT makes every reasonable effort to ensure the accuracy of the articles published in The Advocate. Karen’s criticisms of The Advocate, along with those of Trustee Miljanich at February’s meeting, caused some EC members to question the Board’s understanding of the union’s role.

 

Ø    AFT’s relationship with the Chancellor:  Karen also questioned why AFT is so critical of the Chancellor. Members explained that despite the Chancellor’s strengths, he has often offended faculty and that many faculty feel the District does not always respect or fully understand the shared governance process, thereby hurting faculty morale. AFT is also frustrated that the Chancellor appears to have a much more direct line of communication with the Board and greater support from the Board than we do.

 

Ø    Administrative salary increases:  While the Trustees defended the Board’s decision to grant significant administrative salary increases, one faculty member stressed that there is something fundamentally wrong with our system when the salary of a professor with a PhD and 23 of teaching experience in the District caps out at the bottom end of most administrative salaries and encouraged the Board and District administration not to liken SMCCD to a corporation in its rationale for raising administrative salaries.

 

Ø    Future steps:   Karen encouraged EC members to attend future Board meetings and the group discussed holding some sort of retreat for EC, Administration and Board members to provide extended time for the kind of frank discussion we had today.

 

 

  1. Concurrent Enrollment Update

 

Ernie praised the District Academic Senate’s recent report on Concurrent Enrollment, especially its recommendation that we all think about Concurrent Enrollment in a broader context than has often been discussed. The EC decided to let the MOU expire (in Summer 2008) and then reopen the discussion. As of today, the Board had not yet received the report; Patty Dilko expressed optimism that the Board is gaining a better understanding of the need for a comprehensive plan regarding Concurrent Enrollment.

 

AFT moved to support the recommendations of the Senate’s report.

 

  1. Minutes of the January 30 EC meeting

 

Approved

 

  1. Grievances/Grievance Training

 

Five people attended the grievance training held at CSM earlier this month . AFT is considering forming a grievance committee, comprised of 1 – 3 people on each campus and one person to oversee the entire process.

 

Current grievances:

Ø    Three non-renewals of probationary faculty (John recently learned that there is a third one, a second-year faculty): one has been filed and is now being pursued at the college level; one is being prepared; one is being investigated.

Ø    ESL & English faculty at CSM have requested to continue being paid for reading Challenge Exams. A grievance was seen as the only way to protect past practice.

Ø    P/T Librarians – AFT is still waiting to hear from PERB.

Ø    P/T seniority violation. The campus president and the Chancellor have turned it down; John will bring the case to a future EC meeting for a vote on whether to pursue it further.

 

  1. Negotiations Update

 

There was nothing to report at this time.

 

  1. 2008-2009 AFT Release Time allocation discussion

 

Dan distributed a handout containing some proposed changes to AFT’s current release time allocations. At our next meeting, we will discuss possible changes as well as candidates for the upcoming AFT EC elections.

 

  1. Richard Holober campaign

 

Richard Holober did not receive the endorsement of the San Mateo County Labor Council – no action was taken. AFT unanimously agreed to table the question of whether to make additional contributions to Richard’s State Assembly campaign.

 

  1. Statements from AFT members on Non-Agenda Items

 

Ernie announced that Jing Luan contacted him about forming a Task Force to address issue regarding a Compressed Calendar and requested AFT representation. Ernie felt AFT should wait until the District Academic Senate and the Calendar Committee send forward an actual recommendation. Though Patty Dilko expressed the Senate’s desire to have AFT involved now, AFT agreed that there will currently be no official AFT representative on the Task Force, but we requested periodic updates from the Committee.

 

  1. Open Discussion/meeting critique

           

At least one EC member felt that our EC meetings are not the appropriate place for discussions with Board members; our meeting time is limited; we have other important business to take care of; and we must accept that the union’s relationship with the Board is inevitably adversarial and trying to smooth over our relationship with the Board may prove to be fruitless. While some members also had misgivings about giving up our meeting time to Board members to vent their frustrations with AFT, others felt is useful to understand where they stand on issues that concern us.

 

Meeting adjourned: 4:55

 

 

 

AFT 1493 Home