Minutes of

General Membership/Executive Committee Meeting

September 10, 2008 at CSM

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

Guests: Salumeh Eslamieh, Jesus Moya, Mary Stegner, Paul Stegner, Yolanda Valenzuela

Meeting began at 2:25

Facilitator: Eric Brenner

 

1. Welcome and Introductions

2. Minutes of the May 14, 2008 EC meeting

Approved.

Teeka pointed out that it is important to track issues that we say we will carry over, like the Large Class Size MOU (what to do about classes with 45-69 students) and the Ethics Statement.

3. Statements from AFT members on Non-Agenda Items:

Jesus Moya expressed his concern and unhappiness over a deteriorating relationship with the new Dean of the Social Science/Creative Arts Division. After not seeing the classes he normally teaches listed in the schedule of classes for Fall 2008, and feeling that the Dean was intruding into his (Jesus’) relationship with his students, he went to talk with the Dean in the Dean’s office. After some discussion, the Dean threatened to call CSM security to escort Jesus out of his office. He feels he can no longer talk to the Dean and would like some help from AFT.

4. Negotiations Update

Future issue:

Many faculty have suggested adding additional Flex days to the Academic Calendar to allow us more time to complete the increasing administrative workload falling on faculty. The objective would be to increase faculty participation in tasks such as Program Review, SLO work, etc. Dan says that District Administration is eager to help us do this. Rather than adding the current number of days in the regular semester, these Flex days would replace existing instruction days. Cañada replaced one day of instruction in Spring 2008 with a Flex day to allow faculty time to work on SLO’s – the experiment was quite successful, and AFT and the District have already negotiated one additional Flex day for Spring 2009 (March 12).

AFT will poll faculty to determine whether they support adding two Flex days in Fall 2009 (November 11 & 12) and two Flex days in Spring 2010 (March 10 &11). AFT will write a rationale for additional Flex days and will consult with the Academic Senate before creating and posting the poll online.

Ongoing issues:

a) P/T seniority list:

AFT and the District have agreed to the following:

• Deans will send the lists to Harry Joel’s office and AFT can then request the lists from Harry. It is still faculty’s responsibility to check that the lists are correct, but they can now ask Dan for the list, rather than having to request them from their Deans.
• Administrators will have to provide a fuller explanation to P/T faculty (and F/T faculty on the seniority list) who are not assigned courses. To help with this, all Deans will be required to ask for faculty teaching requests in writing.

  Note: Not addressed in this round of negotiations – F/T’s positions on the seniority list count throughout the entire District while P/T’s positions on the list count only by campus. The list also does not apply to courses taught in summer. These items will be addressed in future negotiations.

• If faculty request an assignment and don’t get it, they will stay on the list for five consecutive semesters (rather than the current three semesters).

  One question arose: Do all Distance Ed. courses count toward faculty load and affect their position on the P/T seniority lists? Joaquin said he would look into this.

b) Grievances:

AFT and the District have agreed to the following changes to current contract language:

• Level 1: Filing time extended from 20 days to 30 days.
• Level 2: If there is going to be a hearing, the Chancellor must schedule it within 10 days.

Binding arbitration: SMCCD is currently one of just three Districts in the Bay 10 that do not have binding arbitration. The District did not agree to binding arbitration, arguing that it is unnecessary since the Board always goes along with arbitrators’ recommendations.

c) Distance Education:

All of this language is completely new. Eric and Alma joined in the negotiations around Distance Ed. The District has agreed to the following:

• AFT will be guaranteed membership on DEAC.
• Compensation for developing Distance Ed. courses: The District hasn’t really acknowledged the additional work load involved in developing Distance Ed. courses. It agreed to pay faculty at the Special Rate (no more than 25 hours) if approved by the appropriate administrator.
• Enrollment caps: The District wants the class size limits to be the same as for on-campus classes. As with course development, the District does not acknowledge the additional per-student workload involved in teaching many Distance Ed. courses.

The next bargaining session is Friday (9/12). The District’s position is that it will not negotiate on the three re-openers separately. They say we must accept their most recent offer on Distance Ed. if we want the proposed changes to P/T seniority and grievances. How do we want our negotiators to proceed? Some EC members felt is was most important to simply get some language in the contract about Distance Ed. Others felt we need to continue to push for enrollment caps and more compensation. We voted to settle on P/T seniority and grievances and continue to negotiate on Distance Ed. If the District refuses to “de-link” the three items, we will continue negotiating the entire package.

5. Trust Committee release time discussion

Compensation:

Teeka provided a brief history of AFT’s unofficial negotiations with the District regarding compensation for faculty who will serve on the Trust Committee. She began discussions with Harry Joel last semester (Spring 2008). The District initially said that it would not give reassigned time for Trust Committee members, but after AFT provided documentation that members of the original Trust Committee did indeed get some reassigned time, the District offered a $1,500 per semester stipend. Teeka is advocating for 3 units of reassigned time for each faculty member on the Committee (AFT wants 10 faculty on the Committee, three from each campus in additional to a faculty Chair) and wanted to know how the EC feels. John and Ernie, both of whom served on the original Trust Committee, were emphatic that faculty need to be released from part of their ordinary work load, rather than given a small stipend, in order to do the job well. We discussed the possibility of having AFT calculate the total cost to the District of provided 3 units of reassigned time to 9 faculty and presenting that information to the District.

Using SLO’s as part of faculty evaluation:

Members expressed concern over language contained in the District’s Response to ACCJC regarding the use SLO’s in faculty evaluations. This letter suggested that the Trust Committee would consider using the outcomes of SLO assessment in faculty evaluation. The language in this report was eventually changed to say only that the Trust Committee would consider linking the production and articulation of SLO’s, rather than the outcome, to the faculty evaluation process.

Dan mentioned that Bob Bezemek will give a presentation at the October 10 CCC meeting on this very issue. Dan suspects that if CFT is unhappy with WASC’s response to a proposed letter from Marty Hittelman, it may proceed with a lawsuit against WASC.

Some EC members felt we should push back hard against any pressure from the District to link SLO’s to faculty evaluation in any way.

In the end the EC voted unanimously not to move forward with the formation of the Trust Committee without 3 units of reassigned time, or the equivalent, for all faculty serving on the committee. Teeka agreed to contact the Senate Presidents and Harry Joel regarding our decision. AFT will clarify at tonight’s (9/10/08) Board meeting that the committee has not yet been formed, nor has AFT agreed to discuss the issue of linking SLO’s with faculty evaluations.

General:

Paul Stegner, a member of the original Trust Committee, made the following recommendations to the future committee:

• AFT should insist on 3 units of reassigned time for all faculty members.
• Use a Shared Governance model (including accurate and thorough documentation of all meetings, tasks, etc., and rotation of Chair position).
• Consult with members of the previous Trust Committee on existing language, intent, rationale, etc.
• Once the Board has approved the Trust Committee, form an oversight committee on each campus similar to the Peer Evaluation Guidance Committee.
• Always ask for the EC’s approval before finalizing anything.
• Develop and maintain a good relationship with the Academic Senate.
• Continually portray the Trust Committee as something positive and beneficial for faculty.

6. Grievances

The EC voted unanimously to take the case of a faculty member who was terminated after his/her second year of the tenure process to arbitration – a hearing is scheduled for October 28 & 29.

7. “Food for Thought” discussion

This item was tabled until our October meeting.

8. Communications with Board/District

This item was tabled until our October meeting.

 

9. The Organizing Conversation

This item was tabled until our October meeting.

 

10. AFT Local 1493 2008-09 Budget

This item was tabled until our October meeting.

 

11. Proposed change in Dan’s SEP/IRA contract article

This item was tabled until our October meeting.

 

12. Open discussion/meeting critique

Meeting adjourned: 4:45

October meeting facilitator: Karen Olesen

 

Minutes of

General Membership/Executive Committee Meeting

October 8, 2008 at Cañada College

 

Present: Eric Brenner, Chip Chandler, Victoria Clinton, Nina Floro, Katharine Harer, Teeka James, Dan Kaplan, Yaping Li, Monica Malamud, Karen Olesen, Sandra Raeber, Joaquin Rivera, Katie Schertle, Dietra Prater Slack, Anne Stafford, Elizabeth Terzakis

Guests: Michael Stanford, Harriet Tucker

Meeting began at 2:25

Facilitator: Karen Olesen

 

1. Welcome and Introductions

2. Minutes of the May 14, 2008 EC meeting

Approved

3. Statements from AFT members on Non-Agenda Items:

A. Dan mentioned, and distributed a few copies of, the San Mateo Labor Council’s paper, Labor. The issue distributed contained an article about Dan’s discussion of education issues to candidates running for office in San Mateo county.

B. Dan reported that he had attended the PERB hearing for P/T Librarians. AFT 1493 was able to get one librarian a regular schedule that will last until retirement. The PERB officer recommended that we revisit this issue during the next round of contract negotiations.

C. John Kirk’s retirement part video is available – contact Dan if you are interested.

D. Monica relayed a request that AFT 1493 endorse “No on W,” a measure regarding open space in Redwood City. AFT 1493 does not, however, make political endorsements other than for Board of Trustee candidates.

E. Yaping mentioned that a CSM faculty member was traumatized by an incident in which a deer broke windows in two faculty offices, leaving behind broken glass and blood. The faculty member requested that Yaping distribute to the EC a letter she wrote about the handling of the incident. Dan will request an electronic copy and distribute to the EC.

4. AFT Local 1493 2008-09 budget

Harriet pointed out that we have no control over projected income or over the expenses listed on page 2 on the handout she distributed; we do have some control over staff salaries, taxes and benefits (item #2) as well as items #3 – 14. We have a new clerical assistant – Mark Mantell, who gets a $100 stipend for health benefits. The cost of Harriet’s benefits went down.

The budget was approved unanimously.

5. Toward a more efficient and effective union

A. Agendas and Meetings: Monica created a slightly new format for this month’s agenda, which designates action items. She suggested that in the future we list action items at the beginning of the agenda, and that statements from AFT members remain statements only, not items for discussion, and that they be limited to 10 minutes in total.

Teeka asked that in the future we talk about having additional meetings, especially when special issues come up.

B. Organizing Members: Teeka talked about some of what she learned at ULI this past summer, in particular the importance of face-to-face contact with members. She distributed a handout describing the “organizing conversation,” and including suggestions for effective communication with members.

Katharine suggested that we restart our yearly retreats (generally held in August). Elizabeth said that she is interested in creating flyers to help organize faculty, using issues like the use of SLO’s in faculty evaluations, Distance Education, etc. to foster faculty involvement.

C. Email: Anne requested that people use the “reply all” option judiciously, to help prevent email overload.

D. Communication with Board/District: The Board of Trustees is apparently not interested in our idea of “summit meetings” which would have included EC, Senate, and Board members along with administrators, meeting to discuss major issues of concern. Instead, they have suggested that a small group of us meet with the Chancellor. A small group of EC members agreed to schedule a meeting with the Chancellor.

Joaquin raised a question about whether or not the Board may have violated the Brown Act when they made their decision about this only in closed session, and failed to report this decision in open session.

Anne suggested that EC members consider signing up to attend one Board meeting a year as a way to show our interest in improving communication between the EC and the Board, and between the EC and Administration.

6. District Shared Governance Council

A. Revision of Rules and Regulations: 2.09: In spring 2008 the EC agreed that DSG’s decision-making process should no longer be called ‘consensus’; instead, it is simply democratic voting. DSG has essentially abandoned the consensus model.

B. Review of process for evaluation of delineation of functions: ACCJC is requiring a map, or plan, of our “process for evaluation of delineation of functions,” by which it means a list of who, or which constituencies, are responsible for which tasks.

C. Partial revision of Rules and Regulations: Section 6: DSG has proposed substituting the following statement from 6.12, section 1a (Definition of Credit Courses) – “The course shall be taught by a credentialed instructor – with “The course shall be taught by a qualified instructor.”

Teeka wanted to know what we thought about including a statement about SLO’s in 6.12, section 1g.

Teeka will send AFT the newest version when it is ready.

7. Class size MOU discussion

We’ve already renewed it until December 2008. Joaquin suggested we table the issue until our next meeting. Katharine suggested that it would helpful to have somebody do some research on what other colleges are doing. This issue of what to do about large classes will require a big discussion – it will be on the November agenda.

Decisions about large classes may also impact our language on Distance Education.

8. Flex days poll 2009-10 calendar

The online faculty poll resulted in some very mixed responses about converting teaching days to Flex days. A number of EC members feel conflicted about not wanting to do a lot of administrative work for free on the one hand, and not wanting to give up instruction days on the other hand. Teeka reminded us that one of our (the EC) primary obligations to our members is to work to obtain the highest pay and best working conditions – and this change to the calendar is an attempt to do exactly that.

The EC unanimously approved taking our proposal (to convert 4 additional instruction days to Flex days in the 2009/2010 academic year) to the Board. We intend to treat the change as a two-year experiment. Next year we will have to assess how the additional Flex days are working.

We need to communicate to P/T faculty that they can get paid for activities they participate in on days when they wouldn’t normally be teaching.

9. Trust Committee release time update

On 9/12 Teeka met with Harry Joel to discuss compensation – in the form of release time – for faculty who ultimately serve on the new Trust Committee. Though Susan Estes is very eager to move forward with the formation of the new Committee, the EC decided that we must follow the precedent set by the original Trust Committee (whose members did receive release time); if the District won’t pay participants, we will wait.

10. Alternative Calendar Task Force

Faculty recently received a proposal from Patty Dilko and Jing Luan about the formation of a task force to explore the possibility of changing to a compressed calendar. Monica explained that District Administration and Administration from all three campuses have done some modeling, saving faculty from having to do all of the groundwork.

The EC discussed how the task force and the AFT will fit together. Do we want to participate fully or merely weigh in once there is an actual proposal? Katie announced that she plans to participate, whether as an AFT rep. or simply as a faculty member.

The EC decided to continue this discussion at our November EC meeting.

11. Union and Senate roles discussion

Tabled until November meeting.

12. Grievances

There was no report.

13. Proposed change in Dan Kaplan’s SEP/IRA

Dan was previously limited to an Employer contribution of 15% of his gross salary to a SEP IRA (which, unlike the retirement plans of faculty, is a defined contribution rather than a defined benefit plan). The law changed in 2002 to allow for a contribution of 25% of his gross pay, but his broker did not notify him of this change. Dan requested that the EC approve an increase now to 20%, which would allow an additional 1% increase retroactive to the 2002 date at which time the law changed, with an additional 1% increase each year until he reaches 25%.

The EC voted unanimously to increase the contribution to 20% this year, and will decide next year on future increases.

Open discussion/meeting critique: Meeting adjourned: 4:50

 

Minutes of

General Membership/Executive Committee Meeting

November 12, 2008, at Skyline College

Present: Eric Brenner, Ron Brown, Chip Chandler, Victoria Clinton, Alma Cervantes, Nina Floro, Teeka James, Dan Kaplan, Yaping Li, Monica Malamud, Karen Olesen, Anne Stafford, Elizabeth Terzakis

Guests: A. J. Bates, Rick Hough, Jamie Marron, Masao Suzuki, Lezlee Ware, Sita Motipara

Meeting began at 2:25

Facilitator: Monica Malamud

Welcome and Introductions

Minutes of the October 8, 2008 EC meeting

Approved

Statements from AFT members on Non-Agenda Items:

A.        Dan passed around a Board of Trustee meeting schedule for the remainder of the 2008/2009 academic year so that members could sign up to attend specific meetings.

B.         Dan announced the next AFT National Higher Education Issues Conference in Miami Beach, Florida, March 6-8.

C.        Dan pointed out that the Part-Timer newsletter features two part-timers from our District.

D.        Dan asked the Executive Committee to place a statement in the minutes of this EC meeting defining our SEP-IRA Plan Year as extending from June 1^st through May 31^st.

With respect to our SEP-IRA, our Auditor, John Pooley, and our Plan Administrator, Ed Elkin, both recommend that we obtain written confirmation, via Executive Committee Minutes, that our SEP-IRA Plan Year extends from June 1^st through May 31^st. Our SEP-IRA Plan was initially established in 1998 to coincide with Dan’s Contract year, which extends from June 1^st to May 31^st. Contributions to the Plan began as of June 1, 1998, with annual rate increases on June 1^st of each succeeding year until we had reached the then current maximum of 15%. Our new rate of 20%, recently approved by the EC, will be retroactive to June 1, 2008.

E.         Masao requested that we move up agenda item #13 because he could not stay for the entire meeting but wanted to participate in the discussion of the Political Activity disagreement.

F.         Monica announced that Harry Joel had contacted her, Katharine, and Joaquin to schedule a meeting to discuss early retirement incentives for faculty. EC members suggested that we talk to the most senior faculty at the three colleges to find out what might actually motivate them to take early retirement.

G.        Monica pointed out that some of the P/T seniority lists are not accurate (some have serious errors). Dan asked Chapter Chairs to check as many as possible on their campuses.

H.        Teeka reported on an email exchange with the Chancellor regarding the impact of the current budget on faculty salaries; she distributed copies at the meeting.

I.          Monica reminded us about the new limits to faculty members’ 403b investment options. Some members wondered whether the District could actually be offering more choices. Apparently, some of the financial institutions charge large annual fees. Monica will raise the issue at the District Budget Committee meeting on November 18.

Grievances

A.        Chip announced that two days of arbitration remain for the faculty member denied Contract 3 status in the tenure process.

B.         The EC voted unanimously to move forward with a grievance filed by a 4^th –year probationary faculty member who was denied tenure, but only if the grievance officers are confident that the faculty member has been forthcoming with all information relevant to the case. Voting to move forward doesn’t mean the case will necessarily go to arbitration; we will try to settle before it goes that far.

Communication with Board/District

At our October 8 meeting, we talked about having a small group of EC members meet with the Chancellor, as suggested by some of the Board members, but later decided not to request such a meeting without a specific purpose. We voted (4 no’s, 3 yes’s, 2 abstain’s) not to respond to Richard Holober’s email regarding the Board’s decision not to participate in future summit meetings.

District Shared Governance Council

A.        Revision of Rules and Regulations: 2.09:

District Shared Governance Council will no longer be using a consensus model; instead, it will use democratic voting. Rather than the old voting options (A – E), DSGC will move to a model using A = yes, without reservations, B = yes, I can support with reservations, C = I can’t support, and requiring a 60% majority.

B.         Budget information:

Teeka reported that Kathy Blackwood gave a presentation about the    current state of the District’s budget at DSGC. As a result of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the District has lost $21 million of invested bond money and $4 million from the general operating budget. Unless the District is able to sue the County Treasurer (and win), that money is simply   gone. Through various means, she has a set aside $3.7 million, which leaves us with a $300,000 shortfall, in addition to any other mid-year cuts that may be generated at the state level. She believes we are looking at having to cut 3-10% from our general operating budget. She said that just about all strategies for cutting spending are “on the table.” She did specify that we will consider managed hiring, and that we won’t cancel summer session, cancel mass numbers of classes as we have in the past, or lay off large numbers of P/T faculty as we have in the past.

At DSGC Teeka brought up the issue of holding off on the Administrative salary increases. Dan reminded us that he and Ernie had been told by one Board member, at the time the Board approved the salary increases, that we could “revisit” these if the budget tanks.

Large Class size MOU discussion

We think this will become even more of an issue with the current state budget. Kathy Blackwood has said that the District won’t ask faculty to add students beyond the stated class size limits, but encouraged us to work to keep the ones we have.

Dan pointed out that at CSM, some class sizes in the Social Science Division have been increased unilaterally.

We agreed to defer further discussion of the Large Class Size MOU to our December meeting so that Joaquin and Katharine can be present. One member suggested that we not extend the MOU if Joaquin cannot be at the December meeting.

Class size resolution revisited

Dan suggested taking the current language of the resolution to the Senates for their approval, so that we can send it jointly to the Board.

There was some discussion of the 4^th “Whereas”: “Whereas under the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA), class size is a mandatory subject for collective bargaining (Section 3543.2), which means that the administration cannot unilaterally change class size, and that class size cannot be negotiated by individual faculty members (Section 3543.3).

There was also some discussion of the 6th Resolved clause, and agreement to leave the language as is.

Trust Committee release time update

Teeka learned in her most recent conversation with Harry Joel that the Chancellor does not support providing reassigned time for faculty to work on the Trust Committee. Harry, in fact, suggested to Teeka that he could do the majority of the work and the Trust Committee could then give input and revise; this proposal is not acceptable to AFT. The EC agreed that a small group (Dan, Anne, Teeka, Nina, and Monica) will try to schedule a meeting with Ron to discuss this issue – AFT’s position is that we will not participate in reconstituting the Trust Committee without reassigned time for faculty involved.

The Academic Senate shares our view about the necessity of reassigned time and support whatever decisions AFT makes about how to proceed.

Alternative Calendar Task Force

The Task Force has met and started its work, without official AFT representation. Monica is serving on the Task Force as a faculty member, and not in her role as AFT President or as Secretary of Cañada’s Academic Senate.

Union and Senate roles discussion

Tabled until our December meeting.

SLO’s: What should the local (and CFT) do?

Tabled until our December meeting.

Political Activity disagreement

Background: The week before the November election, Barbara Christensen sent an email to District employees, stating that the posting of signs, stickers, etc. endorsing candidates or specific ballot initiatives violates both the California Education Code and our District Board’s Rules and Regulations. A number of faculty were unhappy with her email and questioned its accuracy. A few days later the EC received a letter from our attorney, Bob Bezemek, casting doubt on the District’s interpretation of the Ed. Code.

Barbara Christensen is working with the County Counsel to determine what sorts of political signs, posters, stickers, etc, faculty and staff are allowed to post in or around their offices. The County Counsel’s interpretation of California Ed. Code and the Board’s Rules and Regulations is narrower than past interpretations. Dan had hoped to get our attorney and the attorney assigned in the County Counsel’s office to work with the Community College District together for discussion, but that hasn’t happened.

It seems that the original email sent to CSM employees by Barbara Christensen resulted from an incident at Skyline, in which a student complained about a political sign posted in a faculty member’s office window. The faculty member declined to remove the sign and was supported in his refusal by his immediate supervisor. There was a subsequent threat to cancel a previously planned forum at Skyline on marriage equality if a “Yes on Prop. 8” speaker was not included.

Dan was also told by Barbara Christensen that he could not distribute copies of The Advocate in faculty mailboxes if it includes political endorsements.

The EC decided to continue discussion with our attorney about what faculty’s rights of political expression are. No decision was made about additional next steps.

Appointment of Cañada Chapter Co-Chairs for Spring 2009-Spring 2010

Katie Schertle cannot continue to serve as Cañada’s Chapter Chair after this current semester. The EC unanimously approved the appointment of Elizabeth Terzakis and Lezlee Ware as Chapter Co-Chairs.

Open discussion/meeting critique

We agree to put on a future agenda the question of whether to hold more meetings – we are finding it extremely difficult to get through the entire agenda at most meetings, and some issues really can’t wait the whole month between meetings.

Meeting adjourned: 4:50

December 10 facilitator: Teeka

Minutes of
General Membership/Executive Committee Meeting

December 10, 2008, at CSM

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

Meeting began at 2:25

Facilitator: Teeka James

Welcome and Introductions

Minutes of the November, 2008 EC meeting

Some revisions are necessary; minutes of the November 12 meeting will be approved at the January 21, 2009 meeting.

Statements from AFT members on Non-Agenda Items:

A)        Elizabeth will send EC members information about the worker occupation of the Republic Windows and Doors plant on December 5, 2009, and the related rally at Bank of America’s Chicago headquarters planned for today, December 10, 2008, along with a website where people can make donations. She is also interested in writing a letter of solidarity.

B)        Monica raised the issue of the change – at the state level – in the Math and English requirements for obtaining an Associates Degree, and the potential impact of that change on the way Composition Load is calculated for full-time English faculty. Currently, full-time faculty members who teach 4 Composition courses that apply toward the Associates Degree receive a “bump” of 1.25 FLC’s for each course unit. Because of the current wording of our contract, some Composition courses that currently count toward “Comp Load” will no longer count, despite the fact that the work load has not changed.

Monica suggested that there is an issue of equity since part-time faculty are never allowed to teach a 4-course load and therefore never get the increased load for their classes. However, only those full-time faculty teaching 4 Composition courses get the increase; many English faculty, due to time spent in Writing Centers/Labs, Literature courses, and reassigned time for various projects, do not teach a 4-course Composition load either.

Monica did check with some other colleges to see what they do to compensate English faculty for the heavy paper grading load. Few actually grant increased FLC’s, and some suggested reducing class size as an alternative.

Though the Language Arts Deans at CSM and Skyline recently promised that they would not change how English faculty Composition load is calculated, they may simply not have the power to follow through. The EC agreed that English faculty should probably work on creating appropriate contract language and then meet with Harry Joel to create an MOU that, in effect, maintains the current Composition load.

C)        Teeka announced that at its January 2009 meeting, DSGC will be discussing restrictions on how faculty will be allowed to use the college’s name; Teeka will send us the actual language when it is available. At that same meeting, DSGC will also discuss the issue of District restrictions on political expression by faculty and staff.

D)        The District continues to hold to the position that it will not give reassigned time to faculty who agree to work on the (yet to be) reconstituted Trust Committee. Teeka and Anne reported on a meeting they had recently with Susan Estes to discuss possible alternatives to reassigned time. Teeka and Anne made it clear that faculty feel strongly that they want the time to do the work more than they want a stipend. Susan suggested paying faculty stipends to do the bulk of the work during the summer, and relying on the District office to do a good deal of the initial work. Teeka and Anne told Susan they would report back to the EC, who would continue to discuss the options.

Grievances

There was nothing to report at this time.

Class size MOU discussion

History:

Joaquin reported that in the past, class sizes started creeping up; in an attempt to ensure fair treatment for faculty, we negotiated the MOU. The MOU directs Deans to consult faculty in each discipline regarding the appropriateness of large classes, but we do not know whether this currently happens, and if so, how often or how consistently. A small number of faculty teach large classes and make extra money for doing so.

Current Discussion:

The EC discussed the two separate, but related, issues of workload and pedagogy. An increase in the use, or number, of large classes has the potential to eliminate faculty positions as fewer faculty teach more students. Dan pointed out that some unions have negotiated contracts that either limit the overloads faculty can teach, or in some cases, don’t allow faculty to teach overloads at all.

Some EC members feel that extra pay should be based on workload, rather than on the number of students in a given class since it is entirely possibly to teach a large class without increasing one’s workload.

There was also discussion about whether SMCCD should offer large classes at all since students’ access to smaller classes and to faculty is part of what distinguishes Community Colleges from 4-year institutions. The EC agreed that while workload is an AFT issue, issues of pedagogy should be decided by discipline.

The EC voted (12 “yes” 1 “no”) to direct a small sub-group of the EC to meet with the three campus Senates and request that they get disciplines and departments to discuss what they feel is an appropriate use of large classes.

 

Budget issues: COLA, retirement incentives

In an effort to mitigate the effects of looming budget cuts (CSM may cut as many as 70 class sections in the spring), the District is looking for ways to encourage faculty to take early retirement. Monica polled the top 20-25 most senior faculty to learn what sort of incentives might encourage them to take early retirement – only 4 or 5 responded. Joaquin and Eric then surveyed all faculty eligible for retirement – 87 out of 122 responded. In essence, the District is considering some combination of cash incentives between $20,000 and $25,000, and perhaps guaranteed post-retirement contracts for interested faculty. Most EC members agreed that even $30,000 is a relatively insignificant amount and did not want to be seen as promoting the District’s proposed incentives.

The EC voted unanimously to agree to $30,000 for faculty whose age and years of service total at least 75, $25,000 for those whose total is at least 70, and to attempt to negotiate guaranteed 3-year post-retirement contracts. Though CSEA and AFSCME will have their decisions about retirement incentives ready to present to the Board tonight, Joaquin reminded us that AFT must still negotiate the language we have just agreed to with the District. He will try to negotiate an agreement with Harry Joel before tonight’s Board meeting.

Alternative Calendar Task Force discussion

All Deans have been asked to work out mock schedules to determine whether changing to a compressed calendar is actually possible, and the state must approve any changes we decide to make. The question for AFT 1493 is whether we want to have an official representative on the Task Force, who will communicate the Task Force’s actions and discussions to AFT. The EC voted (11 “yes” and 1 “no”) to have Monica represent AFT on the Task Force.

Union and Senate roles discussion

The central issue, one that some EC members have been discussing for a number of months, both in meetings and informally, revolves around the delineation between the roles of AFT and the Senate. Many members feel that the Senate has developed a closer relationship with the Administration in recent years; simultaneously, AFT has become increasingly involved in issues and responsibilities that might traditionally have been in the purview of the Senate (such as the Accreditation Oversight Committee). Without going into details about particular committees, issues, responsibilities, etc. (due to our limited time at today’s meeting), we talked about whether AFT should consider pulling back more into our traditional role as the faculty bargaining agent if we feel our inclusion on various committees and projects isn’t genuine and complete. While most agreed that AFT should have a place on DSGC, there was some disagreement about whether we should insist on having an AFT representative seated at meetings of the Board of Trustees, as the District Academic President is. We will continue this discussion in the spring.

AFT/Senate areas of collaboration

Diana Bennett, President of CSM’s Academic Senate, spoke to Dan about holding an AFT/Senate summit in Spring 2009. The Senate is interested in discussing the faculty evaluation process; in particular, the Senate would like to talk about the possibility of doing student evaluations of faculty every semester. The EC voted (9 “yes” and 1 “no”) to agree to a summit.

* In connection to the issue of faculty evaluations, two EC members suggested that at a closed session in the spring we have a lengthy discussion about the faculty evaluation process and how it relates to grievances. Chip repeated an earlier suggestion that, to help strengthen the grievance process and make it more efficient, we create training videos for both the evaluation and grievance processes.

SLO’s: What should the Local (and CFT) do?

Tabled until January, 2009 EC meeting.

Political Activity disagreement

There is some concern that the District is making an effort to revise its Rules & Regulations without going through DSGC.

February EC catch-up meeting?

The EC voted unanimously to hold a February catch-up meeting.

Open discussion/meeting critique

We agreed that we need a time-keeper at our meetings.

Next facilitator:    Victoria

Next time-keeper:    Yaping

Meeting adjourned: 4:45.

 

Minutes of
General Membership/Executive Committee Meeting

January 21, 2009, Cañada College

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

Guests: David Clay, Patty Dilko, Anu Pattanayak, Leslie Sachs

Meeting began at 2:25

Facilitator: Sandi Raeber

Welcome and Introductions

Minutes of the December 10, 2008 EC meeting: approved unanimously with corrections.

* Minutes of the November 12, 2008: approved unanimously

Statements from AFT members on Non-Agenda Items:

A)        Dan reminded everyone about the AFT National Higher Education Issues Conference in Miami, March 6 – 8, 2009.

B)        Anyone who would like hard copy of  Reversing Course: The Troubled State of Academic Staffing and a Path Forward can get one from Dan.

C)        Yaping announced that on the last day of final exams (December 2009), she received a rather frantic phone call from an art instructor at CSM whose course was cancelled due to low enrollment, which the instructor suspected was due to an error in the class schedule. The instructor explained that he had found it difficult to schedule a meeting with his Dean to discuss the situation.

Dan did talk with the instructor later and advised him about steps he could take; he did not hear from the instructor again.

Yaping will try to follow up with the instructor.

D)        Some classrooms at CSM are now larger as a result of building renovations. Five faculty have contacted Dan about their class sizes having been increased by their Deans. Such unilateral increases constitute unfair labor practice; class size increases must instead be negotiated. Let Dan know if you hear of any other such cases.

Grievances

On January 26 – 28 AFT will go to arbitration on an existing grievance regarding denial of tenure to a probationary faculty member.

District Shared Governance Council Report

A)        Barbara Christensen and others are reviewing the District’s current Rules & Regulations and are considering adding language restricting the circumstances under which faculty and staff can and cannot identify their association with the District. Exact language about the new rules – including any consequences for those who violate them – has not been released yet. It is difficult to know how to respond without seeing the actual language, but the sentiment among the EC is that this is a free speech issue and that faculty and staff have the right to make clear their association with the District in their social and political lives. Teeka will send us the language when it is available.

Dan told of a past incident in which a faculty member wrote letters to the editor of a local newspaper, in which he identified his affiliation with the District, and was threatened with reprimand.

Patty Dilko reported that this review is in response to the accreditation process; the District needs to show good faith in considering revisions and updates to all of its Rules & Regulations. She also said that the Community College League is advising the District.

* On a related issue, Barbara Christensen reported that according to County Counsel, it is a violation of California Ed. Code to post political signs in, or around, faculty and staff offices. AFT’s attorney continues to disagree with this interpretation of the Ed. Code. We are currently waiting for some discussion and/or action between our attorney and the District’s

B)        The three campus Senates are currently working on District Rules and Regulations, Article 6, looking at AAUP materials. Patty would like to form a task force with AFT representation.

Trust Committee release time issue

After the District rejected the EC’s request for reassigned time for faculty to work on the Trust Committee, Teeka and Anne met with CSM’s VPI, Susan Estes, at the end of November to discuss alternative strategies for ensuring that the faculty evaluation processes across the District are evaluated and revised. Some of Susan’s ideas included paying faculty a stipend to do some, or most, of the work during summer, or having an administrator/administrators do the bulk of the initial work. After some follow-up discussion, Teeka and Anne proposed at today’s meeting that rather than sending a small group of EC members to meet with Chancellor to reiterate our initial request, we propose a smaller Trust Committee, perhaps consisting of 4 AFT representatives and 1 Senate representative, all of whom would get reassigned time. The EC maintains its position that faculty need time, rather than stipends, to do this work properly. We also recognized that with a smaller committee, it will be especially important to consult with faculty in specialized areas such as Distance Education, the Library, counseling, etc.

Program Improvement Viability discussion

Four programs at CSM (German, Library Studies, Welding & Machine Tool Technology, & Media Group [Film Production, Graphics, Journalism, Multimedia]) are currently undergoing the PIV process, which has the potential for benefits as well as the potential for the termination of programs and faculty lay offs. At CSM, the Senate took the leadership role in the process. (For details of the issues involved and the status of the four programs, refer to the December 16, 2008 CSM Academic Senate minutes.) Dan feels that the process worked well.

There was some discussion of putting CSM’s student newspaper, the San Matean, on hiatus, but this action was not approved; all of the PIV committees’ recommendations were approved by the Senate.

At this point no programs have been terminated, but they could be in the future.

SLO’s: What should the Local (and CFT) do?

Elizabeth gave an update on what she sees as the primary concerns about SLO’s and about Cañada’s stance toward them. The general approach at Cañada seems to have been to do the minimum necessary to meet accreditation requirements. The responses to the demand for SLO development and assessment have ranged from enthusiasm to outright rebellion. The primary concerns have to do with the amount of time faculty – especially P/T faculty – are spending on SLO’s, issues of academic freedom, standardization of curriculum and assessment, and their potential use in the faculty evaluation process. Elizabeth is interested in starting an educational campaign and finding out what other colleges (and K-12) are doing to resist the pressure to develop and assess SLO’s.

Anne and Teeka stated that they, and many members of CSM’s English Department, see value in articulating SLO’s, and working to help students achieve them, but find that their assessment is burdensome and, without devoting far more time to the process, generally fruitless.

Yaping reminded us that SLO assessment results will be used in Program Review to justify position and equipment requests.

Dan pointed out that the State Academic Senate’s position on SLO’s has fluctuated some. Initially it expressed strong opposition, then took the position that colleges should try to meet at least the minimum requirements for accreditation, and now has returned to a position of greater opposition. He believes that after numerous communications back and forth between CFT and ACCJC about the legality of the SLO requirements placed on colleges (by ACCJC), CFT may soon decide it has no choice other than to file a lawsuit. WASC has essentially ignored new language in the reauthorized Higher Education Act stating that SLO’s cannot be used as a component in the evaluation of faculty.

EC approval of Harriet Tucker’s and Mark Mantelle’s 2009-2010 contracts

The EC voted unanimously to approve their contracts. Harriet works approximately 15 – 20 hours per week (mostly bookkeeping); Mark works approximately 15 – 20 hours per week (maintaining AFT 1493’s data base).

Date for February EC catch-up meeting?

We agreed that we do not need an additional meeting in February, but we did schedule a special closed session meeting for 1:45 on April 17, at CSM to discuss the faculty evaluation process, particularly in terms of how it relates to the grievance process.

GASB 43/45?

New Federal legislation was passed several years ago, initially implemented in K-12, but now also in colleges, regulating how the money for faculty health benefits is invested. The District must decide on an investment strategy for the $30 million we have to invest, and choose from among five potential brokers competing for our business. The choice of both the strategy and the broker will be made by a group of individuals including Dan Kaplan, Harry Joel, David Fuene, Kathy Blackwood, and a paid consultant. The consultant believes that the economy has reached bottom and that the District should choose a fairly aggressive investment strategy. Dan feels he may be the only member of the group advocating a more conservative strategy. Though he wanted to know the EC’s feelings, there was not consensus, and there are unanswered questions about whether we simply need to maintain the current $30 million or whether that amount needs to grow.

Open discussion/meeting critique

Meeting adjourned:   4:50

Next facilitator: to be determined.