November 10, 2010

San Mateo Community College Federation of Teachers, AFT 1493

Minutes of General Membership/Executive Committee Meeting

November 10, 2010 at Skyline College

 

EC Members Present:  Eric Brenner, Chip Chandler, Victoria Clinton, Dave Danielson, Sandi Raeber Dorsett, Nina Floro, Katharine Harer, Teeka James, Dan Kaplan, Yaping Li, Monica Malamud, Lisa Suguitan Melnick, Joaquin Rivera, Masao Suzuki, Elizabeth Terzakis

Other Members Present: Tadashi Tsuchida

Facilitator: Katharine Harer

Meeting began at 2:30

 

1.                  Appointments of a) new CSM Part-time faculty co-representative and b) a new Cañada College Professional Development Chair

Lucia Olsen has stepped down from her position as co-PT Rep, which she had shared with Lisa Melnick. Rebecca Webb, a part-time English instructor at CSM has offered to fill in for the remainder of Lucia’s term. The issue was taken up in two parts: first to fill the vacant co-position or not.

Motion: The EC agrees to appoint a replacement for Lucia Olsen, who has resigned.

The motioned carried.

Vote:

Yes -9
No – 2
Abstain – 0

Motion: Rebecca Webb nominated as the replacement for Lucia Olsen.

Discussion: Katharine is in favor.

The motioned carried.

Vote:

Yes – 8
No – 0
Abstain – 4 

The EC agreed that Monica should appoint a new Professional Development Chair for Cañada College. Janette Medina will be the new chair.

 

2.                  Introductions were made.

 

3.                  Statements from AFT members (non EC members) on non-agenda items.

Joaquin—Richard Holober is running for supervisor. Put it on the agenda for the next meeting.

Katharine—Joe McDonough passed away. Dan will send out a card from the EC. An article will appear in the upcoming December Advocate.

 

4.                  Minutes of October 13, 2010 AFT Meeting

The minutes were approved with minor changes.

 

5.                  Negotiations update

The negotiators announced that the first mediation session would occur the following week. The EC discussed future strategies for negotiations.

 

6.                  Academic calendar discussion

Joaquin distributed a rollover calendar mock up for discussion. We agreed that it was time to send out another academic calendar survey to faculty to see how the “fewer” FLEX days approach worked out for faculty across the district.

Motion: The EC accepts the rollover calendar.

The motioned carried.

Vote:

Yes -13
No – 0
Abstain – 0

7.                  Discussion of possible dates for three meetings:

a.      the union philosophy/union-building strategies “special focus” EC meeting;

We decided to schedule this meeting on the March 11, 2011 FLEX day. Dan will send out an email to solidify details of time and place. Plan on a two- to three-hour meeting.

b.      the CFT leadership training meeting;

We decided to arrange this meeting via email. CFT had proposed several dates in January 2011.

c.       a meeting to explore collaboration with CSEA

Teeka, Dan, and Monica will work on our possible increased collaboration on projects of mutual interest with our CSEA colleagues.

 

8.                  District Shared Governance Council (DSGC) Report

We successfully stopped the board policies that we believe should be negotiated items from being pushed through at DSGC last month. AFT had support on this issue at the DSGC table from Senate faculty, classified staff, and administrators. The items in question were tabled until the legal questions regarding the Council’s purview are resolved. We are still waiting to hear from the District’s legal counsel regarding the November 2009 and October 2010 demand letters prepared and sent by our attorney.

Jim Keller presented a Measure G update at the November 1, 2010 DSGC meeting. Faculty asked about the District’s plans for allocating Measure G funds amongst the three colleges, but Keller could only respond that the plans were “ambiguous” at this point. Faculty asked Keller why the Measure G allocation process has not been more transparent. Jing Luan insisted that in fact the process has been completely transparent (even though it has also been ambiguous). Keller also reported that the District had hired a consulting firm to help with the logistics of implementing Measure G. He also indicated that the District was actively exploring how to renew the Measure G parcel tax funding once it expires in 2014.

 

9.                  District Committee on Budget and Finance (DCBF)

Masao reported that two-thirds of the Measure G money has now been allocated in accordance with the District’s usual allocation model. The District will keep one-third of the funds in reserve. The DCBF has emphasized that Measure G funds are fungible, meaning they may not be used for ongoing expenses. However, it does seem that the District can use Measure G monies to pay current part-time faculty’s salaries and use the resulting fund one “savings” for District expenses that fall outside the legal parameters of Measure G. Some EC members present felt concerned that money might be used inappropriately, but others reported that the Measure G meetings and reports at their campuses seemed to be above board and to be following the appropriate shared-governance avenues. Watchful waiting is our current charge.

 

10.              Measure G spending update

Eric reported his concern that Measure G funds may be being spent without careful consideration of the colleges’ and District’s educational planning priorities. Despite Teeka’s report that the District reported through Jim Keller that the campus allocation process was still ambiguous, the spending requests at Skyline came out to exactly $1.7 million, which seems to be the unambiguous amount forwarded to each of the colleges as budget “placeholders.”

Others chimed in that in their observations the Measure G requests seemed reasonable and appropriately followed established college procedures of shared governance and equipment request.

Dan noted that while the Board of Trustees had noted that Measure G funds would be used to bring back cut classes, the language of Measure G was significantly broader in scope. Measure G funds can legally (and must be) spent on not only part-time faculty salaries, but also on instructional equipment and student services, among other budget areas that seem somewhat distant from the classroom.

 

11.              No-strike clause campaign

Elizabeth has had success with the no-strike clause campaign. She explained her techniques. CSM and Skyline EC members will try to replicate Elizabeth’s efforts on their campuses. We are seeking full-time faculty signatures first.

 

12.              AFT/Academic Senate statement on the Trust Committee update and spring 2011 social event

Ray Hernandez is writing a one-page abstract of the longer “white paper.” It is the abstract that he will read to the Board of Trustees in early 2011.

The Senate asked if AFT would like to plan a social event together in the spring. The EC agreed to do so.

 

13.              DEAC discussion

We need an AFT member to serve on a DEAC subcommittee (guidance for student-teacher contact).

 

14.              Changes to AFT 1493 constitution

Monica and Lezlee have worked some more on the updating of our constitution. Monica will form a subcommittee over email to continue this effort.

 

15.              Grievances

PERB issued a complaint against SMCCD for violating an employees hours of employment. There will be an informal settlement conference on November 30. 

 

Meeting Adjourned: 4:55 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted by
Teeka James, Acting Secretary