Negotiations Report #13

    See All Negotiations Updates   

 

May 20, 2025

Some brief takeaways from our twelfth negotiation session on May 16th:

We were hopeful the District would make proposals on economic issues and show some willingness to move.  The opposite occurred.  The District made the exact same proposal on compensation that they previously made: a 1.5% annual raise for full-time faculty and non-instructional adjuncts, and 2% annually for instructional adjuncts. They also continued to reject load-based pay for instructional adjuncts. Further, the District has yet to make counter proposals on other economic proposals we presented on April 18th, namely, Workload (Article 6 and Appendix D); Benefits (Article 9); and Load (Lab/Lecture parity, Appendix F).

The District keeps reminding us during negotiations that economic issues are part of an “overall economic package,” so if they offer more in one area (compensation, for example), they may offer less in another (benefits, as an example).  However, until the District makes counters on the important economic proposals outlined above, we are unable to negotiate on economic issues because we have yet to see the “overall economic package!”

We currently have two negotiation sessions scheduled on Thursdays in June: June 12th and June 26th from 12-4pm.

⇒ Sign up to join us at a future negotiation session!  Our next negotiation is Thursday, June 12th, 12:00 pm-4:00pm.

 

Current Bargaining Report

AFT Negotiation Team: Monica Malamud (Chief Negotiator), Chet Lexvold, Gil Perez, Luis Zuñiga, and Althea Kippes.  Also in attendance from AFT were President Rika Yonemura-Fabian and Observers Jessica Silver-Sharp, Kolo Wamba, Elinor Westfold, Helena Almassy, Michael Hoffman, Julia Johnson, Camille Kaslan, Teeka James, and Nathan Jones.

From the District: Ellen Wu (Co-Chief Negotiator), Richard Storti (Co-Chief Negotiator), David Feune, Joe Morello, Gerardo Ramirez, Julie Johnson, Aaron McVean.

 

Academic Freedom (New Article)

We presented our final “first proposal,” proposing a new contract article enshrining the right to Academic Freedom in our contract.  Monica first presented a resolution and a white paper from the Academic Senate for the California Community Colleges (ASCCC) in support of academic freedom and its inclusion in faculty contracts, and then the SMCCCD Academic Senate resolution in support of enshrining academic freedom in the AFT 1493 contract with the District.  Monica further pointed out that all of our neighboring districts in the area have academic freedom in their contracts, along with a majority of community college districts across the state.

View our Academic Freedom proposal here.

 

Part-Time Employment (Article 19)

We presented our third counter on this article, the District presented their fourth, and we presented our fourth.

  • In the case of retirement, the District proposed moving these folks to the bottom of seniority lists after a six-month separation, and we countered with a twelve-month separation.
  • The District re-proposed “sustained complaint” language (for harassment and/or discrimination) as a reason to remove faculty from the seniority list.  We mostly accepted this language but struck out their language exempting findings of a sustained complaint from our grievance process.
  • The District continues to reject our proposal that experience and qualifications “for a particular assignment” should be the language in 19.2.1, citing “management’s right to assignment,” and we keep re-proposing it.
  • On 19.2.4 – Load assignment – the District insists on status quo “same or similar” language, and we keep making efforts to make this more defined, proposing “same load as offered in the previous term,” and after that was rejected, “at least 97% of the load last offered.”

 

Compensation (Article 8)

As outlined in the introduction, the District essentially made the same offer as they previously made on this article.  Some minor notes on the District’s counter:

  • On PT pay for canceled classes, we had proposed that part-timers be paid for canceled classes, and the District countered with the bare minimum required by the law, which is that the District “should” pay part-timers “whenever possible” in these instances.
  • They don’t want to change “class” to “column” on 8.4 because “class” is defined in the contract and referenced in other parts of the contract.
  • They continue to reject an almost word-for-word proposal we had made referencing CA Labor Code 221 about the District’s ability to claw back money in the case of an overpayment.
  • They rejected our addition of “non-instructional” to 8.6, but when pressed by Monica, they essentially said yes, that phrase belongs, but “maybe it should go at the top” (in the heading).
  • The District made a bunch of excuses as to why they want a study group on moving to pay-by-load before making this change, including a preposterous accusation that we were engaging in regressive bargaining by proposing to strike something agreed to in a previous contract cycle.
  • On 8.12, the District struck out our proposal to add “professional duties” as duties paid for part-time counselors in this section.

 

Professional Development “Leave” Program (Article 13)

The District presented their fourth counter.

  • The District countered with status-quo 1% funding again, and this is the last sticking point on this article, as we had proposed 1.25% previously, and Monica pointed out that we can’t move on this point because we have yet to see the full economic package the District keeps alluding to.

 

Retirement (Article 10)

The District presented their second counter and so did we.  Later, the District told us that their third counter would be identical to their second one, but they did not pass it across the table.  The District is sticking with $450 as the reimbursement amount in 10.1.3, which has been that same amount since at least 2006.  We proposed $1,000 which would just be in line with inflation.

  • The District did clarify that to the extent that $450 is over what it costs to cover the retiree, then yes, a spouse/domestic partner can be covered up to that $450/month. But dependents are covered at the retiree’s own expense, which they cited as “district practice.”
  • We proposed changing this district practice so the district contribution could be used to cover dependents, as well, and the District rejected that again.

 

Summer Employment (Article 18)

Since the District insists on listing specific sections instead of articles, we explained that we cannot present a counter on this article because it would reference sections that are currently being negotiated, so we’re setting it aside for now.

 

Safety Conditions of Employment (Article 16)

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

 

Part-Time Healthcare MOU (Memorandum of Understanding)

The District did not present a counter on this topic.

 

Benefits (Article 9)

We did not present a counter on Benefits.

 

Dual Enrollment (New Article)

We did not present a counter on this article.

 

Hours of Employment (Article 7)

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

 

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.

 

Leaves (Article 11)

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

 

Reasonable Accommodation (Article 25)

We’ve reached a tentative agreement on this article!

 

Grievance Procedure (Article 17)

We’ve reached a tentative agreement on this article!

 

Informal Complaints and Formal Misconduct Investigations (Article 23)

We’ve reached a tentative agreement on this article!

 

In solidarity,

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