|
|
|
||
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
Home Page | |
|
Benefits | |
|
Forms | |
|
Committees | |
|
|
|
|---|
|
Contract | |
|
By-Laws | |
|
UPM Jobs | |
|
Salary Sch. | |
|
|
|
|---|
|
CoM Weather | |
|
Calender | |
|
Campus Events | |
|
|
|
|
|
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
C
O N T E N T S |
View the contract from this link. 1999-2000 Contract |
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ponderings of the President
by Ira Lansing I suspect that most of us were not so fortunate to be hired full-time the first time we applied for a community college teaching job. I can remember blanketing the state with job applications (well, almost the state; I did not want to live in Bakersfield or Modesto, no offense), and receiving in kind a snow storm of rejections ("...unfortunately you do not fit into the complex mosaic of our institution." Really!). This put me on the path of most part-timers, working pieces in many places. At one time I can recall having to go to two of three different jobs (one at IVC, one at Skyline College) in the same day, necessitating that I cross three Bay bridges to go to work and return home (pop quiz: which direction is the cheapest to circle the Bay, clockwise or counterclockwise? Bonus: which way do you think I had to travel?). Those were days of rushing and hoping whatever you needed was with you, because you could not go back for it. |
90-Day Notice Case Hearings Reveal District's Refusal to Investigate Charges In early October, arbitration hearings began in the 90-day notice case, and the opportunity to set the record straight has finally arrived. It has been a year of nearly constant pressure and dismay for Jeannie Langinger, the instructor facing possible dismissal fomented from exaggerated, anonymous, unsubstantiated, and - perhaps worst of all - uninvestigated charges. But with the arbitration hearings begun, perhaps we soon will see justice finally served. Formal arbitration began on October 4, 2001, and continued on the 5th  and 9th of the month, but the hearings have not yet concluded. Representing the District in this case is attorney Larry Frierson, Maggie Rumford, and Roz Hartman. Representing Langinger and, really, the rights of the entire faculty are UPM attorney Bob Bezemek, president Ira Lansing, and grievance officer Bernadene Allen. Both CoM president Middleton and nursing director Hartman have already spent several hours testifying in response to Bezemek's questions. The arbitrator hearing the case is Mr. Tom Angelo from the American Arbitration Association.From the testimony so far rendered, one issue stands out starkly. In the three months between June 29, 2000, when the allegations were first registered and October 6th when Langinger was handed the 90-day notice, the District did absolutely nothing to determine the legitimacy of the allegations and never provided Langinger with an opportunity to respond. Instead, the District spent the time investigating the means to revoke her tenure, to dismiss her, and to deal with that process. In those three months, the District spoke with 29 people, most of whom were outside the college, and devised a means solely to dismiss her. It seems that not a minute was spent trying to find out whether the original allegations were even valid. Of the very many startling revelations that have emerged during the past year and specifically during the hearings, this is perhaps the most remarkable. What could have been the cause of such behavior on the part of the District? In the past, it almost seems as if the District has eagerly notified an instructor of some complaint or other and quickly mounted an  investigation. Why not in this case? How could so much time and effort and so many resources be mustered in mounting an attack on an instructor without once checking a source or tracking down anonymous or third-hand allegations?All of this has amounted to a total disregard for due process in general and for the Contract in particular. So far in the arbitration hearings, the UPM has introduced 85 documents into evidence, including letters and memos documenting the seemingly never-ending list of complaints against the District's actions over the past year. Some of these documents are responses to continued attacks from management against Langinger. The entire case is complex and complicated, but luckily, Langinger, UPM representatives, and Bezemek have kept close track of all the twists and turns. Perhaps now that we have our "day in court," all of this will come to light, and justice will be served at last. While the ordeal of the past year has focused on one individual, many other members of the faculty have had to cope with the emotional upheaval and inconvenience attending to such a difficult process. Students, too, have not gone unscathed. In its defense of the one, UPM serves to protect the rights of all the faculty, and the UPM would like to express deep appreciation to those others whose lives have been affected by this long and often rancorous case. The hearings have not concluded, however. They are scheduled to resume in early January, 2002, with more presentation by the UPM followed by that of the District. So it's not over yet, but at least the end has finally begun District Rescinds 90-Day Notice In a letter dated October 1, 2001, the Board of Trustees notified Jeannie Langinger, the instructor facing dismissal from her teaching position, that the 90-day notice had been rescinded. The letter reached Langinger and the UPM just two days before the first hearing in the arbitration had convened (see related story). The hearings have nevertheless continued despite repeated claims from the District's attorney that there was no longer need to progress with arbitration since the letter had ended the  matter. The UPM maintains that the letter does not take care of it, however.The Trustees have directed CoM president Middleton to "rescind the Notice of Unsatisfactory Performance ..." and to "remove from the faculty member's personnel file any documents which relate to the Notice ..." and other related directives. These actions were decided in a closed session of the Board of Trustees held on October 1 and were listed in the letter, also dated October 1, from Middleton to Langinger. It seems that the letter may have been devised as a means of avoiding full accounting of the issues in arbitration. The UPM sees the letter as a very positive step along the path to restore Langinger to a pre-90-day-notice condition. Clearly the District now understands that there is no case, that there never was a case to begin with. But as positive and encouraging as this action is, the UPM also knows that we must press further in the interests of faculty rights. From the very beginning, one year ago, and throughout the intervening months, the District has repeatedly violated several key articles of the Contract. These violations cannot be ignored if we are to ensure that such behavior won't happen to someone else. In addition, the UPM is concerned about the possibility that Langinger herself may not see an end to the harassment she has been experiencing. Nothing in the letter necessarily closes that door. That the District must finally recognize that the uninvestigated and unsubstantiated charges against Langinger had no merit is some consolation, but it is scary to think that our managers could go this far, propelled by third-party allegations, anonymous charges, and quite possibly mere personal animosity against a member of the faculty. Middleton Approves His First Grievance. Shows Problems in Student Complaint Process In his entire tenure as president of the college, James Middleton has never approved a grievance brought before him by any member of the faculty, until now. On October 4, 2001, Middleton signed an approval letter for a grievance filed in the aftermath of a complaint proceeding. Because the Student Complaint Procedure is controversial and because Middleton's record for grievance approvals was so steady, the UPM was surprised by the significant turn of events. The approval by the president is important, but the entire issue only serves to spotlight the intolerable nature of the Student Complaint Procedure as wielded by managers. In this case, the grievance specified that the District had ignored the Contract not only by setting up a special and secret file of investigation materials on the instructor but also by refusing to allow the instructor and the UPM review those materials. After some wrangling, the District provided an opportunity to inspect the instructor's personnel file and student complaint file, but it was immediately clear that most of the investigative information generated by "Compliance Analyst" Virginia Reigel was not present in either file. UPM Grievance Officer Bernadene Allen discovered that Reigel withheld information in a third file, unavailable to the UPM. The UPM then alleged that the District had thereby violated several sections of the Contract, including Article 24.13.7, and at least two sections of Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations. In the grievance, the UPM demanded that the instructor be given immediate access to all files; that the District must maintain only a personnel file and, if pertinent, a student complaint file; that the District either put all extra materials into the complaint file or destroy the extra materials; and that the District cease its violation of the Contract and Title 5. Imagine This Happening to You In earlier editions, we have reported the manner in which student complaints have been handled, and we have detailed the treatment of the accused faculty members subjected to an extraordinary "investigations" by Reigel. The case in hand illustrates many of the problems inherent in the process. Consider this: The original formal complaint was not filed by a student; rather, upon hearing about an "informal" complaint dealing with gender and age discrimination, managers launched a full investigation of a faculty member. This investigation, including who knows how many student and colleague interviews, took five months to complete. In the end, the instructor was completely exonerated of any wrongdoing. By that time, a large body of notes and "work products" had been generated, yet none of that information was made available to the instructor who, except for support from the UPM, had to labor under the shadow of accumulating - possibly spurious and irrelevant - information that might be used at some future date. The second-hand complaint was without any merit, but just how many people have been alerted to the issue? None of them was contacted to say that the complaint was false in the first place. Can you imagine this happening to you? Since it happened to one of us, it did happen to you. In the approval of the grievance, Middleton further revealed a point of view that the UPM finds somewhat amusing if not disturbing. While saying that the collected materials would be made available to the instructor and the UPM and would be placed into the student grievance file instead of a third file, Middleton said that the "third file" idea was really all in the interests of faculty, a benefit to the accused faculty member. The District seems to think that secret materials gathered during a secret investigation that involved interviews and notifications made to many people, all kept from review by the accused - even exonerated - faculty member, would somehow be a benefit to that instructor. The District's refusal at the bargaining table to negotiate the Student Complaint Procedure is further evidence that managers simply do not detect any problems inherent in the way the procedure is being executed. Maybe if one of them were to be subject to such a procedure, the picture would be clearer. Membership Matters The following article comes to us from the AFT's news website: High Court to Review Voucher Case The U.S. Supreme Court announced Sept. 25 that it will consider the  constitutionality of a voucher program in Cleveland, Ohio, that uses taxpayer money to pay for students' tuition at private and parochial schools. The state-funded "scholarship" program in the city began in 1996 and provides vouchers of up to $2,500 to each of more than 3,500 students in Cleveland now attending 56 private schools. More than 90 percent of those children using publicly funded vouchers are attending religious schools; in December 2000, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the voucher program violates the constitutional separation of church and state. "Our public schools are the bedrock of our democracy-open and accessible to all children," said AFT president Sandra Feldman in a statement. "It is terrible public policy for public dollars to go to schools that exclude any student, as voucher schools do."Treasurer's Report:
|
Web Page graphics & design by Mike Godsey, windfind@sonic.nett
90-Day Notice Case
and issued Doc a notice to shape up or ship out. Clean up your act or you're fired. Poor Doc, of course, denied that any of this ever happened. In fact, he did not even know people were talking about him having done any of these things until he was given the notice. By the time I graduated Doc was still there, so maybe it all got resolved or was still getting straightened out. I never heard any more about the matter.
faculty that the neighbors would complain of the uproar. But then, it would never happen here, would it? Think again. Three days of hearings so far, another four or more scheduled in January, all for scenarios very similar to Doc H.'s trauma. The time spent checking and investigating by anyone, according to the testimony given, seems to total less than 60 seconds. Last month, in an effort to look for some brighter subject matter, I pondered that hopefully this month something ludicrous and laughable would occur. Guess what folks-it did!