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