Monthly Archives: March 2025

Why do faculty need raises? 

A brief financial analysis of SMCCCD revenues and faculty compensation

By Rika Yonemura-Fabian (Sociology, Skyline College, AFT Co-President)

In the bargaining survey AFT conducted in November, 90% of all responses rated compensation as a “very important” negotiation item, with 9% rating it as “somewhat important.” Obviously money is the top priority for the majority of members because we deserve the reward for the hard work we do. In this article, I want to demonstrate to our members why we need significant raises, and the District owes that to us as faculty.

0

Our District has enjoyed steadily increasing revenues

Let’s start with the obvious! SMCCCD funds have increased very significantly in the past decade. In fact, SMCCCD unrestricted fund revenues increased by 88% between 2015 and 2024. The unrestricted fund is the pot that most of faculty salaries and benefits are drawn from. This determines our unique status as a basic aid (community funded)  District. The majority of the unrestricted fund is generated from the property tax revenue.

Chart 1: Data: CCC fiscal portal

A Decade Out of Compliance

SMCCCD has been out of compliance with the 50% law for the 10 years, resulting in an $88,326,227 spending deficit to instructional salaries and benefits.

The 50% law in the California Ed Code requires that “each district spend at least half of its current expense of education each fiscal year for salaries and benefits of classroom instructors.”1 Despite promises to find a solution, our District  has remained shamefully out of compliance with this law since the 2014-2015 fiscal year. In 2024, we were at 41%. In the year 2022-2023 alone, SMCCCD failed to  spend $18,450,778 that should have gone to faculty salaries and benefits. Cumulatively, SMCCCD has a spending deficit of $88,326,227. They  claim they are trying many “strategies” to meet the compliance, but without much success.2

Giving faculty raises, increasing faculty benefit contributions, and increasing part-time pay parity would all bring our District closer to achieving the 50% allocation expectations.

Faculty have also heard the narrative from our administrators or our Board that the 50% law is not realistic for a Basic Aid District or it is “outdated.”3 Let’s remind ourselves that other Basic Aid Districts are abiding by this law. For example, the San-Jose Evergreen District is currently at 50.4% while West Valley-Mission was at 51.4% in 2023-24. In fact, SMCCCD’s rate of compliance is the lowest among all 73 Community College Districts in California. The charts below detail our district’s annual spending deficiencies. And 50% is the floor, not the ceiling.

The Struggles of our faculty living in an area with the highest average median income

What does it mean for faculty livelihoods when we work in the county with the nation’s highest Area Average Income (AMI)?4 In 2024, San Mateo County’s average income was $149,300 (based on the household of 2).5 While the low-income threshold, determined as 80% of AMI, was $125,350. Most faculty in our District earn less than this. Clearly, faculty are not getting what we deserve for the work we do to make our institution function.

0

Part-time faculty: pay parity rate still lags behind many Bay 10 college Districts

Two contracts ago, AFT  finally convinced the District to agree to a pay parity goal of 85%. “Parity” refers to equity in pay for part-time faculty members, meaning they are paid comparably to similarly educated and experienced full-time faculty for the same work. Parity was also codified in our contract making clear that it’s not an abstract concept, but rather a concrete goal. The District refused to settle on a timeline for parity fulfillment; therefore, six years later at 80.5%, we still have a ways to go to achieve parity.

0

Parity in the Bay 10:
How do we compare?

Marin: 95%
Peralta: 87.5%
San Francisco: 86%
Foothill-De Anza: 85%
West Valley-Mission: 82%
San Mateo: 80.5%
Contra Costa: 80%
San Jose-Evergreen: 75%
Chabot-Las Positas: 72%
Ohlone: 54 – 70% (64% avg)

What can be done?

Increasing part-time parity to already contractually agreed upon goals, paying out compensation and benefits at the levels other comparable districts enjoy, and meeting the 50% law are things that the District can and should do if they put their priorities in the right place, to improve the support faculty deserve so we can serve our students better. Making improvements to our contract through strong negotiations and member participation and continuing to call out the Board of Trustees on their failures to meet state legal obligations can make a difference. However, our union cannot do this without our members.

0

Notes

  1. Chancellors Office: Fifty Percent Law
  2. FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 ADOPTION BUDGET REPORT 
  3. See this report published by the League of California Community College
  4. Report: San Mateo County has country’s highest low-income threshold
  5. 2024 San Mateo County Income Limits 

Don’t forget: You can join AFT’s negotiations by signing up here! You can participate in AFT’s public actions at Wednesday evening Board meetings and even make public comments. Reach out to your chapter chairs on each campus to learn more about getting involved with AFT1493!

Letter to the Editor: We need a fair, expedient accommodation process for faculty.

March 1, 2025

Dear Editor,

Lori Slicton and Friend

As we speak our union is fighting for faculty with disabilities and the need for a fair, expedient accommodation process that is codified in our contract. I am writing to share an excerpt of my recent comments to our Board of Trustees on February 26 with my union colleagues.

“The Coldest Winter”:

Good evening and thank you for this opportunity. I am Lori Slicton, AFT Rep, and I’m in my 32nd year of teaching Anthropology at Skyline. I’ve the very best job and the most amazing students! They deserve everything that I can provide for them and more!

However, this is the coldest winter in memory—I’m not referring to my thermostat but to our national political climate. It’s frigid.

Presidential campaign promises to purge federal support for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Access are being kept and reified. Offices for DEIA are being closed and their employees fired or placed on leave.

Longstanding, bold federal laws, Sections 504/508 of the Rehabilitation Act 1973 and the ADA, signed into law in 1990 with bipartisan support are now at risk of “evisceration” according to the Disability Rights Education Defense Fund (DRDF). 

In 2023, 22.5 percent of people with a disability were employed–the highest recorded ratio since comparable data were first collected in 2008. Employment is the heartbeat of Diversity Inclusion, Equity and Access.

There are no “third rails”—nothing off limits in this political climate and faculty with disabilities are extremely vulnerable. I am one of those faculty members and yet, I am hopeful. 

I am hopeful because AFT made progress [on faculty accommodations] in our last round of contract negotiations. But now we need to shore up—build on the support for disabled faculty. The SMCCD can be an oasis of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Access. Yet, faculty continue to experience excessive wait times of weeks, months and years—yes, years for appropriate and practical accommodations.

Once an employee has requested an accommodation, a response from HR and or our supervisors must be timely. Likewise, once reasonable accommodations have been identified, they need to be put into place as  expeditiously as possible.

For example, students are promised by the Disabled Resource Centers a “10 working day” response time. Faculty are not provided this clear and discrete amount of time. It’s very challenging and at times impossible and even painful to work without accommodations. I have experienced it….

Last summer, our SMCCD Board of Trustees posted a thoughtful draft for a new Board Policy, BP 3725, which states:

“As it relates to equally effective alternative access to instructional materials and ICT, timely manner means that the individual with a disability receives access to the instructional materials or ICT at the same time as an individual without a disability.” 

Why has this wonderful Board Policy not been implemented? Is this what you intended? How soon can we expect it to be in place? [See editor’s note below.]

Please, let’s collaborate and create an effective, and strong contract for our disabled faculty to thrive and serve our students.  

Thank you!

Lori Slicton

 

Editor’s Note: The District Participatory Governance Council (DPGC) is slated to review BP 3725 in the next academic year.

 

Letter to the Editor: Faculty Deserve Fair Compensation (3/10/25)

Jesse Raskin

March 10, 2025

Dear Editor,

As an instructor with over a decade of experience, I am deeply concerned about the ongoing contract negotiations. California community colleges are economic engines, yet the educators who power them remain significantly underpaid. Now, trustees are using an $11 million reduction in revenue from California’s free college program as an excuse to suppress faculty salaries further. They frame our fight for fair pay as selfish, ignoring the reality that competitive compensation strengthens educational quality, supports student success, and ensures the District can continue to provide both low-cost and high-quality education.

Every day, I see how faculty drive our local economy. From biotech and law to finance and manufacturing, we teach the cutting-edge skills that will power tomorrow’s industries. Yet when private-sector employers offer far more competitive salaries, our District struggles to recruit, hire, and retain top instructors—undermining the programs students rely on for career advancement.

Community college faculty do more than train the next generation of skilled professionals. We prepare students for essential front-line roles—healthcare, firefighters, law enforcement, and tradespeople—who keep our communities running. We also play a critical role in strengthening democracy by teaching students to evaluate information critically, a skill vital to national security and social cohesion. Unlike university faculty, we teach heavy course loads without teaching assistants, managing all aspects of grading, advising, and curriculum development ourselves.

The situation is even worse for part-time and contingent faculty, who make up the majority of our teaching force. Many live in economic precarity, piecing together classes at multiple colleges, commuting long distances, and lacking job security or benefits. In high-cost areas like San Mateo County, some adjunct professors even qualify for public assistance—an unacceptable reality for professionals responsible for training America’s essential workforce. Meanwhile, some folks suggest replacing human instructors with artificial intelligence, a move that would undermine the mentoring and hands-on training that make community college education so effective.

The private sector understands that competitive pay attracts and retains top talent. The same principle applies to our community colleges. If we don’t compensate faculty fairly, we will continue losing experienced instructors, degrading program quality, widening skills gaps, and ultimately driving jobs overseas. The solution is clear: the Board of Trustees must recognize that investing in faculty is an investment in America’s workforce, economic independence, and future prosperity. The Board must look beyond short-term thinking and commit to competitive faculty salaries—before we lose even more talented educators to economic insecurity or misguided cost-cutting measures. To make this happen, we must come together as a community to support our colleagues in the fight for fair pay. Let’s do this!

Sincerely,

Jesse Raskin, Professor, Skyline College

 

Negotiations Report #6

    See All Negotiations Updates   

 

 

March 25, 2025

Some brief takeaways from our fifth negotiation session on March 21st:

  • The District didn’t accept our last proposal on Ground Rules.  After spending an excessive amount of negotiation time on unnecessary ground rules, we continue to operate under our established past practice, including the presence of observers.
  • Most of the proposals we have brought so far are non-monetary items that do not impose a financial impact to the District.  Despite that, there has been little movement from the District on any of these topics (specifically with regard to Dual Enrollment, Grievance Procedure, and Reasonable Accommodations), as you can read more about, below.

Reminder: Sign up to join us at a future negotiation session!  Our next negotiation is March 28th, 1:30 pm-5:30pm.  You can also:

Current Bargaining Report

AFT Negotiation Team: Monica Malamud, Chet Lexvold, Althea Kippes, Jennifer Van Sijill, Gil Perez, Luis Zuñiga.  Also in attendance from AFT were Co-Presidents Tamara Perkins and Rika Yonemura-Fabian, and Observers Lori Slicton, Jessica Silver-Sharp, and Kalon Behravesh.

From the District: Ellen Wu, Julie Johnson, Richard Storti, Melissa Moreno, Joe Morello, Aaron McVean, David Feune, Gerardo Ramirez

Because the District had emailed proposals on Article 11 (Leaves) and Article 25 (Reasonable Accommodation) at the end of the previous session and we had questions about those, we asked the District to present those proposals first.

Note: There were lengthy conversations during this session regarding the colors and formatting each party should use when exchanging proposals that I will not bore you with.

Leaves (Article 11)

The District did not accept AFT’s proposal for 1-month paid parental leave.  The District largely accepted AFT’s proposals on other aspects of Leaves, which include:

  • 5 days of paid Bereavement Leave for the death of relatives and domestic partners (previously was 3 days for in-state, 5 days out-of-state)
  • 10 days of Personal Necessity Leave (an increase from 7 days), which allows employees to use sick leave for other personal necessities. Of the 10 Personal Necessity Leave days, 5 (up from 2) can be used without pre-approval or documentation.

We presented a counteroffer that included 1-month paid parental leave.

Reasonable Accommodation (Article 25)

The District did not accept AFT’s proposed language, which would have required the District to identify a person / position, with contact information, whom faculty could contact regarding accommodation requests, and would have required the District to notify the faculty member within 10 working days of the status of the request.  The District proposed language keeping the status quo.

We presented a counteroffer, bringing back the language requiring the District to have a designated person / position for accommodation requests, and to update the employee on the status of the request within 10 working days.

Class Assignment for Full Time Faculty (Article 26)

Since the District made the identical counter proposal as their previous one, we appear stuck on this one, and we said we’ll set it to the side/ put it in the “parking lot” for now.

Article 19 (Part-Time Employment)

We presented our first proposal on Article 19, and included language requiring the District to publish seniority lists on the District’s HR website (instead of current contract language that requires faculty to request such lists).  Similarly, should the District not follow seniority, or if the District assigns a reduced load, we proposed language requiring the District to put that in writing to the faculty member.  We also proposed language that would require the District to, when available, assign PT faculty the “highest load ever assigned” to that PT faculty member (as opposed to current “same or similar” language).  Finally, we proposed that PT faculty be notified of proposed assignments 5 working days prior to the publication of the class schedule.

Grievance Procedure (Article 17)

The District presented a counter proposal that included 5 grievance levels, instead of the current 4, and instead of the 3 proposed by AFT in its latest proposal.  This proposal, however, proposed making Level III Mediation.  This proposal went back to current contract language for Level I (taking the grievance to the College President).  The District again proposed a takeback on arbitration, proposing that it reverts to “advisory” arbitration (currently, there is a mandatory binding arbitration pilot program in the contract, and AFT’s proposals include making this pilot program permanent).  The District again struck out AFT’s proposed language which would have resulted in the grievance being resolved in favor of the grievant if the District failed to issue timely decisions in the process.

We asked why the District is refusing binding arbitration when the pilot program has worked – the District had expressed fears of high costs, but there’s only been one arbitration in the three-year pilot.  The District admitted they are opposed to binding arbitration because it takes the power of final decision-making away from the Board of Trustees, and after good questioning by our chief negotiator (Monica Malamud), the District acknowledged that the Board of Trustees can overturn an “advisory” arbitration decision.  Monica also pointed out that binding arbitration is the only available path to have an objective, neutral person decide a grievance.

Dual Enrollment (New Article)

The District presented its second counter to AFT’s counteroffer.  Overall, the District struck out much of AFT’s language, including:

  • Making the language applicable to all Off-Campus assignments;
  • Giving SMCCCD faculty priority for dual enrollment assignments;
  • Requiring that instructors must have valid teaching credentials for the college course – the District instead proposed vaguer language requiring it must comply with “Education Code and Title 5 laws and regulations;”
  • Requiring that high school teachers be evaluated according to SMCCCD adjunct faculty evaluation procedures;
  • Not requiring faculty to perform any duties not included in Appendix D or to work on days outside the SMCCCD Academic Calendar; and
  • Reimbursement / payment / provision for / of alternative forms of transportation for faculty who do not drive or own a vehicle.

 

In Solidarity,
Chet Lexvold
Executive Director, AFT 1493
lexvold@aft1493.org

 

Letter to the Editor: Thank you for our health insurance (1/23/25)

Jan. 23, 2025

Dear Editor,

For almost 30-years I have been an adjunct faculty member in the CA community college system. I have, at times, had another full-time job that paid benefits, but for most of this time (21-years) I was married and received my health insurance through my spouse’s benefits.

In December 2024 I was divorced. For the year or two leading up to this I was stressed about so many different things – all very real. How would I be able to afford to stay in my home? How can I survive this heartache? How can I protect my daughter? How will I keep health insurance? These all loomed large.  Would I need to quit all my contracting jobs and look for full time teaching? Would I even want to teach full time?

As the divorce got closer, the Union continued to fight for part time health benefits. The month before I was divorced, I was able to get myself onto the CSM Kaiser plan. This has been life-changing for me, as I know it has been for so many others.

Thank you for your advocacy, and please pass along my heartfelt gratitude to all those others at the Union who made this happen.

Donna McCabe

Assistant Professor, Digital Media, College of San Mateo