October 12, 2011

San Mateo Community College Federation of Teachers, AFT 1493

Minutes of General Membership/Executive Committee Meeting

October 12, 2011 at Cañada College

EC Members Present:

Chip Chandler, Victoria Clinton, Nina Floro, Teeka James, Dan Kaplan, Yaping Li, Monica Malamud, Lisa Suguitan Melnick, Sandi Raeber Dorsett, Joaquin Rivera, Anne Stafford, Masao Suzuki, Elizabeth Terzakis, Lezlee Ware, Rebecca Webb

Other Attendees:

M. Ricardo Flores, Margaret Hanzimanolis, Michelle P. Kern, Emily Munson, Lucia Olson, Doug Sherman, Zev Kvitky, CFT Field Rep

Meeting begun: 2:30

Facilitator: Lezlee Ware


1. Welcome and Introductions

2. Statements from AFT (non-EC) Members on Non-Agenda Items

Doug Sherman, from Skyline, expressed his concern over what he sees as a movement toward the standardization of curriculum. He believes the FT faculty are divided over this issue. More than one person suggested that this is really a departmental and/or division issue, one that should be addressed through the course outlines.

3. Minutes of May 11, August 19, September 7, and September 14, 2011 AFT Meetings

Because some EC members did not receive their EC packets through campus mail, they had not been able to read all of the minutes. Dan asked that people read them later and that we do an e-vote to approve. He will make any necessary corrections before sending them to Eric for posting on the AFT 1493 website.

4. Parity Issue

Joaquin provided some history of the move toward PT parity/equity in our District. In academic year 2001/2002 the state provided $50 million to the community colleges to be used to bring PT faculty closer to parity with their FT colleagues. Our District originally tried to use the money to fund pay increases that PTs would have gotten anyway without the additional state funds; the state money was intended to supplement, not supplant, PT salaries. AFT 1493 went to mediation over this issue and eventually the District agreed to use the money appropriately. Unfortunately, the state stopped funding for PT parity after the first year.

Monica stressed the need to determine our specific parity goal – each district must decide this for itself.

SB 114, a bill that would create similar salary schedules for both FT and PT faculty, and would standardize the reporting of salaries for retirement purposes, is currently stalled in the state legislature; it may ultimately be split into two separate bills.

We talked about conducting a faculty survey to help determine how the duties of FT and PT faculty compare, in particular to try to determine how much FT faculty work time is spent on duties not directly related to classroom teaching, especially given that FT faculty have more administrative duties than they did ten years ago. Emily pointed out the vicious cycle PT faculty find themselves in: because they are not compensated for work outside their teaching duties, and because they often teach at multiple colleges, many PT faculty do not participate on committees or other department, college and district-wide projects. This lack of participation contributes to the argument that because they contribute less to the institution, 100% parity is not a reasonable goal.

Masao asked about the health benefits for PT faculty (only a small stipend), and suggested that we should find out whether the majority of PT faculty are more concerned about closing the pay gap or the benefits gap.

5. P/T Report

Lisa wanted to focus on two issues of particular concern to PTs:

  • Changing the description of pay for PTs from one based on FTE to one based on LOAD. Joaquin pointed out that this is a monetary issue.
  • Returning to the negotiating table with a request for a specific % of parity. The problem here is that it will take time to determine what percentage is fair. Since the state is no longer funding PT parity, we can certainly ask for differential pay increases for FT and PT as Masao suggested. This may be our best immediate strategy. Dan reminded everybody that before the community colleges received PT equity money from the state, our union had often won an additional 1% pay increase for PT faculty during contract negotiations.

It will be important to remind FT faculty that narrowing the pay gap is in their best          interest; when PTs are not seen as a bargain in the eyes of the administration, there will     be less incentive to rely on PT faculty and more incentive to hire FT. San Francisco City College has narrowed the pay gap and has consequently reduced its percentage of PT faculty.

Margaret pointed out that if we use different calculations than those used in the salary comparison chart in the September Advocate, PTs in our district rank between 8th and 9th place within the Bay 10, rather than 5th, 6th, or 7th.

6. Negotiations Strategy Discussion

The EC discussed our negotiations strategy.

Due to scheduling difficulties with the mediator, the next mediation session is scheduled for October 26. We go back to mediation because that is where we were before we reached the Tentative Agreement in August.

Margaret asked how faculty should forward ideas to the negotiating team; Joaquin suggested PT faculty work through the PT negotiators (Sandy and Victoria).

7. District Bond Discussion

The EC agreed not to take a position of either support for, or opposition to, the District’s proposed Bond measure (Measure H).

8. Number of EC Meetings per Month

Because the EC often struggles to get through its meeting agenda each month, and because the “between-meeting” group (comprised of the President, the Vice Presidents, the Chief Negotiators, and/or a Grievance Officer, with at least one representative from each campus) has met on multiple occasions this semester to address issues that cannot wait until the next regularly scheduled meeting, we again discussed whether we should consider meeting twice a month. Lezlee argued that it is irresponsible for the EC not to discuss in greater detail many of the issues we must address and reminded us that we make decisions that affect a lot of other people.

Some members are strongly opposed to meeting more often than once a month, some feel that meeting twice a month is essential, some suggested that we hold one meeting most months with two additional meetings scheduled each semester, and others suggested we schedule additional meetings as needed (this last option is essentially the one we have been using recently).

Because the time we had to discuss this agenda item today was limited, and because we no longer had a quorum (as some people had already left the meeting), we agreed to hold an e-vote.

9. Procedure for Filling Vacant EC Positions

Cañada currently has a vacant EC rep position, and Skyline currently has a vacant PT EC rep position – the faculty who had been serving in those positions resigned. Elizabeth had originally suggested that the EC simply fill the vacant positions with PT faculty who had recently expressed interest. A number of EC members felt that the positions should be announced to all eligible faculty on those two campuses. Monica also pointed out that she had not yet been notified officially that the two people serving as PT reps at Skyline and Cañada had resigned. Chapter Chairs agreed that would get the word out to their respective faculty.

10. Grievances

Nothing to report at this time.

11. Statements from EC Members on Non-Agenda Items

Monica announced that the District Academic Senate voted unanimously to pass a resolution demanding that the District not implement its revised deadline for Fall 2011 faculty grade submissions and suggested that AFT 1493 consider passing the same resolution. The change in deadline was made without faculty consultation and was not communicated clearly to faculty – many faculty are still unaware that a change was even made.


Meeting adjourned: 4:50