Negotiations Report #14

    See All Negotiations Updates   

 

June 18, 2025

Some brief takeaways from our thirteenth negotiation session on June 12th:

We received a counter on Workload (Article 6 and Appendix D) from the District, but not on Benefits (Article 9) or lab/composition Load (Appendix F).  Thus, we are still in a bit of a holding position because until the District makes counters on all the important economic proposals we have made, we are unable to negotiate on economic issues because the District views them all as part of an “overall economic package.”

⇒  Sign up to join us at a future negotiation session!  Our next negotiation is Thursday, June 26th, 12:00 pm-4:00pm.  We are working on scheduling negotiation dates for July, and for the Fall semester.

 

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 Jing Folsom and Johnny Leon.

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

 

Workload (Article 6 and Appendix D)

The District presented their first counter to our proposals on Article 6 (Workload) and Appendix D (Duties and Responsibilities).

Article 6:

  • On 6.1, the District struck a sentence that defines FLCs required for FT faculty we had moved from Appendix F, saying that the District will be making a separate proposal on Appendix F regarding this language.  The District proposed language that any change in FLCs in the Lab Assignment schedule would be prospective (forward-looking), and wouldn’t be effective until one calendar year after this contract is finalized/approved.
    0
  • The District proposed a new section 6.2 regarding “part-time status,” proposing a 6.2.1 stating that only assignments that are loaded for full-time faculty shall count toward the 67% load limitation for part-time faculty.  Monica sought clarification on this proposal, asking if this means that assignments loaded for FT faculty cannot count as ancillary work.  This was important to clarify because the District also proposed duties in Appendix D4 that would be included as ancillary for PTers, but are loaded for FTers.  The District then added a caveat “except as specified in Appendix D-4” to their proposed 6.2.1.
    0
    • The District proposed language in a new section 6.2.2 regarding what would count as ancillary work, which must be read in conjunction with new Appendix D4, addressed further below.
      0
  • The District struck out our proposal of 3 maximum preparations per semester, alleging this is a violation of “management right of assignment.”
    0
  • The District rejected our proposal that ancillary duties would count towards service credit for CalSTRS and for benefits eligibility, stating it’s not within the District’s power to determine what counts towards CalSTRS.

 

Appendix D:

The District rejected our Appendix “D2-A2” we had proposed specifically for personal counselors, who have different duties than academic counselors.  When Monica asked why, Joe Morello said they ran this by counseling deans who felt it was covered under “program coordination” in section 7.6.2.

  • In D2-A3, we had proposed that counselors could perform their professional duties “at a time and place appropriate for the activity,” mirroring the language in the current contract applicable to instructional faculty.  The District rejected that language and replaced it with “on campus unless an alternative location is assigned and approved.”
    0
  • The District also struck out “Attend division and departmental meetings” from the list of professional duties for counselors, and brought that language back under B, “Additional professional responsibilities not subject to additional compensation for counselors on regular academic year.”

In D3 for librarians, the District largely accepted our changes except for the following:

  • Brought back language that librarians are responsible to:
    0
    • “take appropriate precautions against the theft, deterioration, or destruction of library facilities, equipment, and materials”
      0
    • “develop instructional materials on the use of the library and its resources for groups and individuals”
      0
    • assist in the formulation and maintenance of necessary and reasonable rules for library users
      0
  • The District struck out our proposed language that librarians “assist in the development and maintenance of library workflows, procedures, and policies” stating that these are tasks to be performed by the management.
    0
  • In response to our proposal of a new “D4 – Ancillary Work,” the District kept D4, but changed the list of ancillary work from a non-exhaustive (“includes, but is not limited to”) to a specific, exhaustive list (“Ancillary work is defined as the following”).

 

Hours of Employment (Article 7)

The District presented their first counter to our proposal on this article, and we presented our counter during this session, as well.

  • The District proposed inserting the word “minimum” in 7.6.1, such that FT counselors would work a minimum of 22 hours for counseling duties and a minimum of 8 hours for professional duties.  We deleted that word in our counter.
    0
  • Mirroring their proposal on Art. 6 and Appendix D, they proposed the “default to on campus” language for counselors performing professional duties, which we changed in our counter to “will be carried out at a time and place appropriate for the activity” to mirror the language for professional duties for instructional faculty in our current contract.
    0
  • On 7.7 for FT librarians, the District deleted our proposed language that any credit bearing classes taught by FT librarians would be considered overload, and we brought that language back in our counter because there are no teaching requirements listed under the duties of librarians in Appendix D3.
    0
  • On 7.11 regarding Flex Days, the District proposed increasing the “required” flex days from 2 to 4, and in our counter we rejected that and proposed current contract language. The District also proposed that these mandatory flex days require in person attendance.
    0

    • We had some areas agreement on 7.11.2 regarding flex days for PTers, but changed their proposed “student contact hours” language to “work assignment” to be more inclusive of non-instructional faculty.  We also struck out their “college approved” proposed language and instead added a reference to the Academic Senate Flex Memo and California Code of Regulations section that list the activities that qualify as flex activities.
      0
    • They struck out our proposed language about faculty on dual enrollment assignments being able to take alternative flex days, and we brought that back on our counter.

 

Academic Freedom (New Article)

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.

 

Compensation (Article 8)

Because we don’t have a view of the “full economic package” being offered by the District, we didn’t make a counter on this article.

 

Professional Development “Leave” Program (Article 13)

We’re “stuck” on this one for now due to lack of view of the “full economic package.”  Last offers were the District countering with status-quo 1% funding after we had proposed 1.25%.

 

Retirement (Article 10)

We’re “stuck” on this one for now due to lack of view of the “full economic package.”  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.

 

Summer Employment (Article 18)

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 and told the District since there has been so little movement on it by either party, we are setting it aside for now.

 

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