San Mateo Community College Federation of Teachers, AFT 1493


Minutes of
General Membership/Executive Committee Meeting

May 13, 2009, at Skyline

 

 

Present: Eric Brenner, Ron Brown, Alma Cervantes, Chip Chandler, Victoria Clinton, Nina Floro, Katharine Harer, Teeka James, Dan Kaplan, Yaping Li, Monica Malamud, Karen Olesen, Sandi Raeber, Joaquin Rivera, Anne Stafford, Elizabeth Terzakis, Lezlee Ware

 

Guests: Rick Hough, Masao Suzuki

 

Meeting began at 2:40

Facilitator: Lezlee Ware

 

  1. Welcome and Introductions

 

 

  1. Statements from AFT (non-EC) Members on Non-Agenda Items

 

 

  1. Minutes of the April 15, 2009 EC meeting              

                                   

Approved unanimously with corrections.

 

  1. Negotiations survey: preliminary results

 

*Items 4 & 5 are combined.


Survey is currently being conducted. Joaquin will compile results and send to EC over email in June and will start communications with the District. One member asked whether we have a formal agreement with the District to follow past practice and carry over our existing contract until a new one is negotiated. Dan asked Joaquin to try to get such an agreement.

 

Some initial thoughts & ideas were discussed.

 

  1. Negotiations proposal

           

 

  1. Binding arbitration educational campaign

 

An educational campaign would need to address topics/issues:

·        what a grievance is about (the process, not the person)

·        the concept of  “innocent until proven guilty”

·        the protection of faculty’s contractual rights

·        the reality that binding arbitration might mean we have to accept a decision we don’t like

 

We discussed creating and distributing a letter or petition that would include a brief summary of the events of the recent arbitration ruling overturned by the District and a statement of faculty support for AFT’s efforts to negotiate for binding arbitration. This document would be presented to both the District Administration and the Board of Trustees. Chapter Chairs might circulate the document in person to faculty on each campus

 

  1. District Shared Governance Council report

 

A)                Teeka reported that AB 1455, a bill that would allow our District to begin offering Baccalaureate degrees in a limited number of majors, is currently working its way through the State legislature. This process could take up to two years; nothing will happen in our District in the next academic year. Apparently the Board had not heard about this prior to the Chancellor’s announcement at the last Board meeting. The District believes that a significant number of people in the community would be interested, in part due to difficulties students are facing getting into CSUs. It is not clear whether any SMCCD faculty were consulted, and it is not clear who would teach the upper division courses (probably not our faculty).

 

B)                 Teeka reviewed a number of Board regulations that people at the last DSGC meeting had concerns about, or objections to. The EC needs to consider these and then discuss at our September meeting. Give feedback to Teeka for September DSGC meeting.

 

*Note: Joaquin said that our attorney has suggested we add language about faculty disciplinary procedures.

           

  1. Improving communications (continued from April)

.

We agreed to discuss this item at our retreat in August.

 

  1. CCC/District budget prospects

 

A)                Dan was asked by the Community College Council to help create a joint budget task force. He pointed out that we already have structure similar to this proposed task force (our District Budget Committee).

B)                 Dan reported that the Chancellor has agreed not to “surprise” us with any major budget decisions or actions over the summer. Despite such assurances, some faculty believe that some decisions about cuts will be made “on the fly.” Elizabeth suggested we be ready to respond quickly over the summer, maybe even creating a traditional phone tree.

C)                PIV: The process has been awfully slow, and Diana Bennett reported that the Administration has said it might have to move faster. If there is a true crisis, and programs have be cut, it will probably be one, or more, of the four currently going through the PIV process, a reality that makes the program potentially problematic. While it is true that PIV is actually conducted by the Senates, the administration chooses which programs undergo PIV.

 

  1. Jefferson Elementary School District Measure A contribution?

 

A small school district in San Mateo County has asked for contributions to help them pay off the costs of a campaign to put a parcel tax on the most recent ballot. AFT 1493 voted to make a contribution (yes-8, no-2, abstain-3).

 

  1.  AFT 1-day retreat: date and location

 

We were unable to decide on a date. Dan will send out a poll regarding two possible dates: Friday, August 21 and Saturday, August 22.

 

  1.  Grievances

 

A Level 1 grievance was pending for a faculty member denied tenure after year 2. The grievance was denied, and the faculty member may decide to move to Level 2.

 

  1. Statements from EC members on Non-agenda items

 

 

  1. Open discussion/meeting critique

 

 

Meeting adjourned:   4:45

 

 

 

AFT 1493 Home