Monthly Archives: April 2025

Negotiations Report #10

    See All Negotiations Updates   

 

April 30, 2025

Some brief takeaways from our ninth negotiation session on April 25th:

The District countered our compensation proposal by offering measly 1.5% raises annually over the next 3 years – this comes after the Board voted to give themselves a 5% raise in February.  Let them know how you feel tonight!

You can also:

Current Bargaining Report

AFT Negotiation Team: Monica Malamud, Chet Lexvold, Jennifer Van Sijill, Gil Perez, Luis Zuñiga, Althea Kippes.  Also in attendance from AFT were Co-Presidents Tamara Perkins and Rika Yonemura-Fabian, and Observers Camille Kaslan, Lori Slicton, Mine Kocak, Teeka James, Jessica Silver-Sharp, and Adriana Lugo.

 

From the District: Ellen Wu, Julie Johnson, Richard Storti, David Feune, Aaron McVean, Gerardo Ramirez, Joe Morello, Peter Fitzsimmons.

Compensation (Article 8)

The District started by having Peter Fitzsimmons, Chief Financial Officer, give a budget presentation.  The presentation included a chart about property tax revenue, which showed that the increase in property tax revenue in San Mateo County over the past decade has averaged around 7%, but because there is a “downward trend” in the first months of 2025, the District is worried about “market volatility,” even though Peter projects the increase in property tax revenue will end up around 5% in 2025.  Peter also  said that District operating expenses are increasing around 4% every year because everything is getting more expensive.

The District’s Chief Negotiator then presented the District’s counter on Article 8, which is the 1.5% annual raise for full-time faculty, and 2% annually for instructional adjuncts.  The District rejected all of our other proposals on Article 8 (see last week’s report for all the details), including our proposal that the District pay part-time faculty by load instead of hourly, which would result in real pay equity between FT and PT faculty.  The District said they are willing to look at pay-by-load, but said they don’t know how much work it is, time it will take, they need to look at IT changes, etc.  Note: we are in the minority amongst Bay Area Community Colleges – most others pay PT faculty by load.

Benefits (Article 9)

The District essentially rejected all of our proposals on this Article except for some minor changes regarding the definition of domestic partners, and countered that children of domestic partners can be covered if they meet eligibility requirements of the various medical, dental, and vision plans available.

Part-Time Employment (Article 19)

The District mostly accepted our proposal on providing seniority lists to AFT by first census, but did not accept our proposal that the District update AFT on new hires added during the semester once before the semester ends.

On 19.1.3, the District moved their proposed “sustained complaint” language to 19.2.4 as a reason to deny an adjunct faculty load expectations, accepted our deletion of removing PT faculty from the seniority list for failing to turn in grades, but re-proposed removal from seniority lists for declining assignments in two consecutive semesters and for retirement. The current contract allows three semesters of break in service so this would be a takeback  The District brought back “status quo” language on 19.2, 19.2.4 (“same or similar load”), 19.2.6, and 19.2.7.

Dual Enrollment (New Article)

The District presented their second counteroffer, and Aaron McVean outlined their “guiding principles” on Dual Enrollment (“DE”):

  • They want this article to apply to DE only, not all off-campus assignments
  • District wants to maintain “Deans’ right of assignment”
  • They are not going to include non-bargaining unit members in contract processes, i.e., they are not agreeing to our proposal to have our evaluation procedures apply to high school teachers.  When asked, they explained that who and how high school teachers are evaluated is part of the CCAP agreement.

Overall, the District has not agreed to almost any meaningful parts of our proposal besides what they are legally obligated to do (for example, provide mileage reimbursement).

Grievance Procedure (Article 17)

We informed the District that because they (finally) agreed to binding arbitration for our grievance process, we are ready to reach a tentative agreement on this article!

Reasonable Accommodation (Article 25)

We inquired about the legal protections for members seeking accommodations, and are close to a tentative agreement on this article after securing language requiring the District to respond within ten days after a faculty member requests and inquires about an accommodation.

Hours of Employment (Article 7)

We presented our first proposal on Article 7.  For counselors, we proposed updated language to refer to the appropriate parts of our recently-proposed Appendix D, and proposed language matching that of instructional faculty and librarians regarding having the autonomy to decide the appropriate time and place to perform their required 8 hours of professional duties.  We proposed similar “matching” language in 7.6.3 so counselors can provide schedule preferences.

On 7.7 for FT Librarians, we proposed that any credit-bearing classes taught by FT librarians would be considered overload.

For 7.11 on Flex Day obligations, we proposed rewording to reflect the current reality, and to clarify what adjuncts can do and get paid for with regard to Flex Day activities.  We added references to the “Senate Flex Memo” and Cal Code Regs. Tit. 5, 55724, and added language to provide for flex day rights when a dual enrollment assignment conflicts, and for faculty who teach online.

Professional Development “Leave” Program (Article 13)

(We initially proposed changing the title to “Leaves” from “Development”)

We presented our first counter to the District’s counter, proposing retaining 3 types of “leaves:” short-term, long-term, and what we are calling “semester-release” projects (formerly “extended leave”).  We countered their 1% funding with 1.5%, and changed “academic year” language to “two consecutive semesters” so a leave could encompass spring and fall semesters.  We also countered their language which excluded first- and second-year tenure-track faculty from participating in short-term project leaves.

Summer Employment (Article 18)

We presented our first proposal on Article 18, proposing adding Articles 7, 8, 9, 11, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 25 as articles that apply to summer employment.  We also proposed a simplification of how summer office hours are paid, which would = “hours taught/3” instead of the complicated formula that is current contract language.

Workload (Article 6 and Appendix D)

The District did not present a counter to our proposal on this article.

Faculty Load Credit (FLC) Allocation (Appendix F )

The District did not present a counter to our proposal on this.

Informal Complaints and Formal Misconduct Investigations (Article 23)

The District did not present a counter to our proposal on this article.

Retirement (Article 10)

The District did not present a counter to our proposal on this article.

Leaves (Article 11)

The District did not present a counter to our proposal on this article.

Ground Rules

The District did not present a counter to our proposal on this topic.

 

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

Negotiations Report #9

    See All Negotiations Updates   

 

April 22, 2025

Some brief takeaways from our eighth negotiation session on April 18th:

The District accepted our proposal (with some conditions) for including binding arbitration in our grievance procedure, which is significant and will result in a more fair and just process for our faculty.

We presented multiple new and important proposals on Friday, including on Workload, Compensation, and Benefits.  It will be interesting to see the District’s counter proposals in the coming weeks on these issues, and you can see them first-hand by:

You can also:

 

Current Bargaining Report

AFT Negotiation Team: Monica Malamud, Chet Lexvold, Jennifer Van Sijill, Gil Perez, Luis Zuñiga, Althea Kippes.  Also in attendance from AFT were Co-Presidents Tamara Perkins and Rika Yonemura-Fabian, and Observers Rachel Cunningham, Jacquie Escobar, Jessica Silver-Sharp, Helena Almassy, Camille Kaslan, Kolo Wamba, Teeka James, Ritu Malhotra, Deborah Garfinkle, Sumathi Shankar, and Sara Dykes.

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

 

Workload (Article 6 and Appendix D)

We presented our first proposal on Article 6 and Appendix D.  We proposed adding a new “Appendix D4” for Ancillary Work, to account for paid work that adjunct faculty may perform outside of their regular duties, and proposed including that in Article 6 under Faculty Duties.  We proposed a new section 6.6 for Ancillary Duties for PT faculty, referencing CA Education Code providing adjunct faculty the right to perform professional ancillary duties without having units or hours counted toward their load, but said service would count toward eligibility for CalSTRS and benefits in Article 9.  We also proposed that when returning from ancillary work to primary duties, PT faculty would retain their seniority and load rights from the last semester before they took on said ancillary work.

For Appendices D2 and D3, we proposed adding and clarifying the duties of both Counselors and Librarians (after working directly with both Counselors and Librarians to make these edits).  For Counselors, we added an “A2” section for Personal Counselors specifically, and A3 now covers Professional Duties for counselors.  We also proposed the new D4 for Ancillary Work, creating a non-exhaustive list of duties that should be treated as ancillary work.

 

Compensation (Article 8)

We made our first proposal, asking for salary increases of 8% in year 1 of the new contract, 7% in year 2, and 5% in year 3.  Part of the justification for our salary increase ask is due to the District’s long-standing non-compliance with the 50% law- a status it has held for over a decade.  SMCCCD is the District with the highest deficit in 50% law compliance in the State, with over $80 million in cumulative underfunding of the cost of classroom instruction over the past 10 years.  These increases also aim to help faculty catch up with cost-of-living adjustments.

We proposed adding a reference to the law which bars the District from reclaiming overpayments without employee consent (if the District overpays you, they cannot just take that overpayment amount out of your next paycheck without your consent).

On section 8.8, we proposed renaming it to include part-time, summer, and FT overload pay under a new Schedule HC, aligning it with the regular salary schedule to accomplish the contractually agreed 85% parity goal between full- and part-time instructional faculty. This includes transitioning from hourly pay to load-based (FLC) pay to achieve equity for instructional part-time faculty.  We created a spreadsheet to reflect this new salary schedule and sent it to the District in addition to our proposal on Article 8.

Other changes include updating substitute PT pay rates based on the new FLC pay schedule, and changing outdated language regarding large class pay to a tiered compensation model based on student enrollment exceeding class caps (1 hour for 5-20 over cap, 2 hours for 21-40, and 3 hours for 41-60).  Additional proposals include 1.25 FLC for for multi-modal and multi-level classes, and compensation for PT faculty having a class canceled or bumped less than two weeks before the start of the semester (per Ed Code), and compensation for professional ancillary activities.

 

Faculty Load Credit (FLC) Allocation (Appendix F )

Through the union survey that collected a broad input on lab FLCs in various disciplines and faculty experts from the Workload Article Committee, we made our first proposal on Appendix F, much of which attempts to achieve Lab/Lecture parity.

Lab Assignment Schedule: for the Sciences, we proposed adding Engineering, Earth, and Social Sciences, plus Accounting, and making labs 1.0 FLC per hour.  We added Photography and Digital Media to the Art and Music lab line, and made these labs 1.0 FLC/hour.  For the Physical Education line, we proposed 1.0 FLC/hour.  For Cosmetology, .80 FLC/hour.  For “Allied Health” (currently the “Radiologic Technology” line), we proposed 1.0 FLC/hour for both Lab and Clinic.  For Automotive, .75 FLC/hour.

We also made a proposal to address the workload of the disciplines heavily impacted by AB1705. For the Lecture Assignment Schedule for each English Composition class, we proposed 26 student maximum at census, and 1.25 FLCs per hour, removing the four-composition class bundle in the current contract.  For Math (Calculus I and II), we proposed 26 student max at census, and 1.00 FLCs per hour.

 

Benefits (Article 9)

We made our first proposal on Article 9, and proposed that the District covers 100% of premiums for all CalPERS healthcare options.  We proposed increasing the max for dental coverage from $2,000 to $7,500.  We also essentially proposed incorporating our current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for part-time healthcare into this article so that all faculty benefits are in the same article and to make it a permanent feature of our contract.  We added language to specify that ancillary work shall count toward PT healthcare eligibility.

Informal Complaints and Formal Misconduct Investigations (Article 23)

We presented our first counter proposal on Article 23, and did not accept the District’s proposed addition of instances where an employee would automatically be placed on paid administrative leave (for allegations of harassment and/or discrimination).

 

Grievance Procedure (Article 17)

The District presented their fourth counter proposal.  The District largely accepted our proposal to have binding arbitration at Level IV, with conditions that mirror the binding arbitration pilot program in our current contract, namely, that binding arb is not available for the tenure review process or for topics under Article 19.2 (Assignment and Retention for part-time faculty), although advisory arbitration would be available for the latter.  The District’s proposal also mirrored the pilot program in that it would cap the number of binding arbitrations per fiscal year at three (we brought one grievance to arbitration during the entire three-year pilot program).

As we have explained in previous reports, binding arbitration in grievances is the standard for union contracts between faculty and community colleges in the Bay Area (and California broadly), as it is the only available path to have an objective, neutral person decide a grievance.

 

Reasonable Accommodation (Article 25)

The District’s fourth counter accepted our proposal that when an employee inquires about the status of their accommodation request, the District is required to respond within 10 working days.  The District did not accept our proposal that while waiting for an accommodation request to be resolved, an employee unable to perform their duties would not be required to use sick leave or be penalized (for example, in performance evaluations or rehire rights).

 

Professional Development “Leave” Program (Article 13)

(We initially proposed changing the title to “Leaves” from “Development.”)

The District presented their first counter to our first proposal on this article, and proposed adjusting our proposed name of “Professional Leaves” to the “Professional Development Leave Program.”  Our proposal and current contract language had three basic classifications of leaves: short-term, long-term, and extended.  The District proposed 2 classifications: short-term (less than a full semester) and long-term (a full semester up to an academic year).  The District did not accept our proposal to increase the level of funding from 1% to 2% of the District budget for tenured and third- and fourth-year tenure-track faculty.  For long-term leaves, the District proposed a requirement that faculty submit a report and present to the Board of Trustees on their long-term leave project.  The District proposed excluding first and second year tenure-track faculty from professional development funding eligibility in 13.10.3.

 

Dual Enrollment (New Article)

The District did not present a counter to our proposal on this article.

 

Retirement (Article 10)

The District did not present a counter to our proposal on this article.

 

Part-Time Employment (Article 19)

The District did not present a counter to our proposal on this article.

 

Leaves (Article 11)

The District did not present a counter to our proposal on this article.

 

Ground Rules

The District did not present a counter to our proposal on this article.

 

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

May Day in the Bay! Immigrant and Workers’ Rights: One Struggle, One Fight!

May Day Solidarity Social – 4/30/25

Negotiations Report #8

    See All Negotiations Updates   

 

April 15, 2025

Some brief takeaways from our seventh negotiation session on April 11th:

This was a shorter (3-hour negotiation) session, and we presented six counteroffers, while the District presented one new proposal.

We will present multiple new and important proposals in the next couple of negotiation sessions, so if you’ve been waiting to observe, I highly recommend that you:

You can also:

 

Current Bargaining Report

AFT Negotiation Team: Monica Malamud, Chet Lexvold, Jennifer Van Sijill, Gil Perez, Luis Zuñiga.  Also in attendance from AFT were Co-Presidents Tamara Perkins and Rika Yonemura-Fabian, and Observers Teeka James, Steven Lehigh, Donna McCabe, Jessica Silver-Sharp, Elsa Torres, Sara Dykes, and Nadia Biglari.

From the District: Ellen Wu, Julie Johnson, Richard Storti, Melissa Moreno, David Feune, Aaron McVean.

 

Leaves (Article 11)

In our March 25th Bargaining Report, we shared that the District had accepted our proposal for 10 days of Personal Necessity Leave (an increase from 7 days), which allows employees to use sick leave for other personal necessities.  However, the District subsequently claimed that was an “oversight,” and offered 8 days of Personal Necessity Leave on March 28th, which may be regressive bargaining that violates federal and state labor law.  “Regressive bargaining” is when a party makes a subsequent proposal which is less advantageous to the other party than the preceding proposal.

In the April 11th bargaining session, we again pointed out the District’s last proposal was regressive, and re-proposed 10 days of Personal Necessity Leave (including the ability to use 5 of 10 days without prior authorization).

We also proposed 20 paid workdays for Parental Leave after the District did not accept our proposal of one month paid Parental Leave last session.

Grievance Procedure (Article 17)

We presented our third counter proposal.  After pointing out that we have made multiple attempts to compromise on this article, Chief Negotiator Monica Malamud made the case for why binding arbitration at Level IV is not only important to our members, but is the logical next step after our successful three-year pilot program of binding arbitration in our current contract.  When negotiating the pilot program, the District had expressed fears that we would be going through many arbitrations, and that it would get costly.  However, there has only been one grievance brought to arbitration in the last three years, proving that those fears were unfounded.  So the pilot program has been a success, and after a successful pilot, the natural next step is to make binding arbitration a permanent feature of our grievance procedure.

Furthermore, binding arbitration in grievances is the standard for union contracts between faculty and community colleges in the Bay Area (and California broadly), as it is the only available path to have an objective, neutral person decide a grievance.

Article 19 (Part-Time Employment)

We presented our first counter on Article 19, Part-Time employment.  We proposed that HR will forward updated copies of seniority lists to AFT by the date of fall and spring first census (which we would then post on our website to share with you).

Regarding 19.2.4 – the assignment expectation of part-time faculty – we proposed that the District make reasonable efforts to assign the “highest load offered in the previous three terms.”  We also proposed that in 19.2.7, faculty be notified of a proposed assignment at least three working days prior to publication of the class schedule.

We rejected the District’s proposals that would substantially change the meaning of 19.1.3, as the District had proposed several additional sections that would cause removal from the seniority list, including: “sustained complaints” concerning harassment or discrimination; conduct under Education Code 87732; failure to turn in timely reports of attendance and grades; and/or declining assignments for two consecutive semesters.

We made a minor proposal for 19.2.1 that would require the District to consider a faculty member’s experience and qualifications be “for a particular assignment,” and struck out redundant language in 19.2.2 regarding qualifications because 19.2.2 is supposed to be about program need, not employee qualifications.

Reasonable Accommodation (Article 25)

The District had rejected our last proposal requiring the District to notify employees of the status of their accommodation request within 10 working days, reasoning that this affirmative duty to notify an employee every 10 days was unreasonable.  In response, we proposed that when an employee inquires about the status of their accommodation request, the District is required to respond within 10 working days.  We also proposed that while waiting for accommodation request to be resolved, an employee unable to perform their duties, shall not be required to use sick leave or be penalized (for example, in performance evaluations or rehire rights).

Ground Rules

We presented our fifth (yes, fifth) counter on Ground Rules, and it seems noteworthy that we have somehow managed to hold seven negotiation sessions without having any ground rules in place, let alone the elaborate set of ground rules the District insisted we negotiate at the outset.  We again proposed that SMCCCD employees can continue to attend as observers consistent with our established practice, and pointed out that at one point, the District had proposed that both employees and the Board of Trustees be allowed to attend negotiation sessions.  Therefore, we felt the District’s latest offer of not allowing any observers was a regressive proposal; the District did not agree, claiming that because they only offered to allow observers on a “non-precedential” basis, their latest proposal was not regressive.

Article 23, Informal Complaints and Formal Misconduct Investigations

The District presented their first offer on Article 23, and they added some examples of instances where an employee may be placed on paid administrative leave, in addition to some other changes we will fully analyze as we prepare our counter for this Friday.  Expect more details in next week’s bargaining report.

Dual Enrollment (New Article)

We presented our second counter on this subject.  We proposed language that would require the District to first offer DE assignments to adjunct faculty who request a DE assignment under 19.2.7, and then to full-time faculty per 26.1.1.  We re-proposed that high school teachers who teach DE courses be evaluated according to SMCCCD evaluation procedures.  We also re-proposed that faculty who don’t drive / don’t own a car be provided with either District-provided transportation or reimbursement for alternative transportation.  Finally, we proposed that faculty be paid for commuting time and mileage in excess of a faculty member’s normal home-to-primary-worksite commute.

Retirement (Article 10)

The District did not present a counter to our offer on this article.

Professional “Leaves” – (Article 13)

(We are proposing changing the title to “Leaves” from “Development”)

The District did not present a counter to our offer on this article.

 

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