Newsletter
Home Page    Benefits    Forms Committees
CoM News
Contract    By-Laws    UPM Jobs Salary Sch.
CFT Constitution
CoM Weather    Calender    Campus Events
e-mail Faculty
2001 Newsletters: Jan Feb. March Aug Oct Nov
2002 Newsletters: Feb. June Jiuly Sept
Sept. 2002 Newsletter
C

O

N

T

E

N

T

S

Instructor’s Pay Illegally Withheld

Ponderings of the President

UPM Seeks Representative on the Labor Council

Grievance Officers' Report

Evaluation Information, Suggestions and Pitfalls

View the old contract from this link. 1999-2000 Contract

Real-Time CoM Weather

CoM in the News

Campus Events

 e-mail CoM Faculty

College Forms on-line

Back to Home Page

Ponderings of the President

by Ira Lansing

Ponderings of the President
by Ira Lansing

Is it just me or did this semester start very quickly and it’s already the eleventh week?

Anyhow, this past week a major event occurred that, if it continues, will change dramatically what we all do, forever (no, you are not all of a sudden going to have an infant come live with you; at least not that I know of). The event in question actually received front page coverage in the Marin Independent Journal, but given the readership base of that publication, you may have missed it. Specifically, the College of Marin Board of Trustees considered five options for the future of the physical facilities in the District and narrowed their choices down to three.

Here are the five that were under consideration:

1. Keep both campuses after "right-sizing" and defer repair projects until needed.
What exactly "right-sizing" may involve is not clear, but it may be synonymous with "downsizing."

2. Keep both campuses after "right-sizing" and fully restore existing buildings at both campuses.
There’s that "right-sizing" again.

3. Sell or lease part of one campus (most likely IVC) to a partner and use income to strategically restore remaining space on both campuses.
The "most likely IVC" is their statement, not my editorial comment.

4. Sell or lease all of one campus (most likely IVC) and use income to strategically modernize the other campus including some new or replacement construction.

5. Sell both sites and acquire/construct a new modernized campus.

At the September meeting the trustees approved removing #1 and #2 as options. I don’t know about you guys, but to me that means new office, new classrooms and hot and cold water out of faucets.

Let’s overlook the money aspects of the remaining three options for the moment. I envision the discussion centering around sentimentality and centrality. How attached are any of us to the physical location of our campus, whichever one it is? I may be the wrong person to ask since I started teaching at Indian Valley Colleges the day it opened and did so for 10 years, until defective lumber closed it. I then came to Kentfield. Just give me a board; I bring my own chalk and pens. Wouldn’t you just love to get into fights with your colleagues over something meaningful, like who gets to pick which new office, with which view? None of this squabbling over programs and workload anymore! The change would do us all good. It would certainly go a long way towards developing a fresh new image in the county; who could ignore such a major construction project? And there could be opening celebrations for years. Every building, every floor could have its own unveiling. Once again the College of Marin would be the focal point of Marin County, indeed of the North Bay, no, the entire Bay area!

Does this sound too farfetched? I don’t think so. Is it necessary? I think so. The glorious 75-year tradition of the College of Marin has exhausted itself. Our image is virtually nonexistent. The current trustees have hired a marketing company to tell them when you ask people to name a college in the county, Dominican is the one on most people’s lips. We are not the institution of choice for our high school seniors. What have we got to lose? Yes, all my statements and arguments are simplistic, but again, what is the downside? No one will come to the College of Marin? We will have poured tens of millions of dollars into a facility (at least it will work)?

So be prepared, but if you are going to argue, it should be based on sentimentality and centrality. Oh yes, and on the best office view. Anything else doesn’t count. Hang in there and have a good semester.

Needed:
UPM Seeks Representative on the Labor Council

Now this is a true opportunity. The United Professors of Marin’s key position for a representative on the North Bay Labor Council is still vacant. Faculty who have been the UPM’s rep to the NBLC in the past have reported that the experience has been interesting and that they have had a good time with a good group of people. The UPM is hoping to fill the position soon, so don’t wait to apply.

The NBLC meetings will be held the third Thursday for October and November (10/17 and 11/21). The group meets on those occasions at 6:45 PM at the SCIU Headquarters, located at 613 4th Street, Room 204, in Santa Rosa, on the corner of 4th and Mendocino at the Courthouse Square. This location, however, is temporary and will change in the future.

After the meeting in November, the days and dates of meetings may also change.

If you’d like to inquire about the Labor Council, you can direct you questions to the NBLC by calling 707-545-6970.. Their office is open Monday through Thursday from 1:00PM to 5:00 PM. And if you want to take on the job of UPM’s representative, don’t hesitate; call the office.

 Part-Timer Faces Harsh Treatment
Instructor’s Pay Illegally Withheld

The District administration has ordered a part-time instructor to repay thousands of dollars for medical insurance coverage and has withheld both the retroactive pay increase negotiated by UPM and part of last month’s salary. The District contends that this instructor did not teach all of an assigned load and thus must pay back not only the cost of insurance for that time but also the difference in pay. However, in order to recoup the money, the administration decided not to wait for court approval and has simply declined to pay part of the instructor’s salary.

The District alleges that while contracted to work 6 teaching units during one semester of last year, the instructor covered only 5.5 units. This charge is being actively contested by the instructor and the UPM. The clear evidence shows that the District’s allegation is false, and that fact will come out in time. In the meantime, however, the part-timer is facing a significant loss of current income and the threat of having to come up with thousands more.

The District wants the instructor to repay medical insurance costs as well as part of the salary earned during the semester in which the alleged shortfall occurred. In its pursuit of the money, the District has denied the instructor pay, and the UPM contends that is illegal. The hold on the retroactive pay was placed before the instructor was made aware of the situation, and on September 15th, the part-timer discovered that a huge chunk of regular pay for the current semester was absent from the paycheck. All this action has taken place without benefit of a required court order.

Managers have had experience with the process of withholding faculty pay and should know that without the instructor’s consent to withhold, a court order is required. In this case, however, neither the instructor’s consent nor the court action was sought.

The UPM is considering several options on behalf of the instructor, and we are confident that the case will be satisfactorily settled through grievance or lawsuit. In the meantime, unfortunately, the instructor is having to do without, and that’s just wrong.

Grievance Officer’s Report
by Arthur Lutz
Going it alone may be hazardous to your wealth!

Our Contract gives our unit members the right to have a UPM representative advise, accompany and/or represent them at all stages of the grievance process. This right of representation also includes the right to have a UPM advisor present at your evaluations and throughout the student complaint procedure. And if you are called to a meeting that you believe might lead to disciplinary action, you have the legal right to consult with, and be accompanied by UPM representative. (NLRB V. Weingarten 420 U.S. 251)

Unfortunately, not all of our members are aware of or take advantage of these rights. Because of privacy or embarrassment concerns, some members prefer to go it alone in their dealings with District administrators. And while you do have the prerogative of representing yourself, we believe that sometimes this can be a mistake.

Disciplinary interviews and meetings with administrators can sometimes be contentious and potentially quarrelsome, and it is often helpful to have a union representative accompany you to act as a witness or as your spokesperson. A Grievance Officer is frequently able to de-escalate an emotionally charged situation and help achieve an informal resolution of the dispute.

Moreover, many disputes with the District require a thorough knowledge of our Collective Bargaining Agreement and the State Education Code including an acquaintance with past practices, and it is difficult without experience or specialized training to understand these issues. UPM has a history of working with these matters, and has access to professional legal services if needed.

In addition, contractually mandated time-lines are critical in defending oneself against disciplinary action by the District. A missed deadline or improper mail delivery can nullify your defense and lead to adverse consequences. UPM is attentive to these important details and carefully monitors all grievance time-lines.

For all these reasons, we recommend that you consult with a UPM Grievance Officer without delay if you have a work related problem or if you are called to a meeting which you believe might lead to disciplinary action. You have the right to request and the right to know the subject of any meeting to which you are called, and the District must allow your Union representative to accompany you.

Your UPM Grievance representatives are Arthur Lutz at extension 8518, and Bernadene Allen at extension 8229. You will receive timely and knowledgeable advice and/or representation, with strict confidentiality.

This service is available to you whether or not you are an actual member of UPM. Untied Professors of Marin represents all unit members, regardless of UPM membership status.

Remember - Going it alone may be hazardous to your wealth!

Evaluation Information, Suggestions
and Pitfalls
Bernadene Allen, UPM Grievance Officer

During fall semester faculty evaluations begin, a process that all faculty experience in a contractually regulated sequence. For some it is a routine of little consequence, for others it may be time consuming and stressful, for a very few it is a nightmare.

The general purpose of faculty evaluations is to provide suggestions for improvement, if any. Nonetheless, under specific circumstances, [unprofessional conduct, unsatisfactory performance, unfitness for service, insubordination, etc.], the administration has attempted to use evaluations to move to dismiss permanent faculty, or in the case of probationary or part-time faculty to terminate employment.
Union Advisors
All credit faculty are assigned a Union Advisor by UPM, whose major tasks are to ascertain that the evaluation process meets the contractual guidelines, to sign the final report, and to act as your advocate. Without the signature of a Union Advisor, the evaluation is invalid. For the name of your Union Advisor, phone Teresa at the Union office, 459-1524.
Peer Evaluators
Peer Evaluators are involved in all faculty evaluations except that of part-time non-credit faculty. As Peer Evaluators are familiar with our diverse student population, have community college teaching experience and are usually knowledgeable about our discipline and subject matter, their participation is essential. The manager evaluating you may be unfamiliar with your discipline, and/or possess little or no prior teaching experience with our diverse student population, hence your peer evaluator is all the more important.
Be Informed, Be Aware.

A new revised District/UPM Contract is in the process of being printed and distributed to faculty, which may include different Article numbers than presented here, but for now all we have is the 2001 edition to which I refer.

Specific information on evaluations is contained in our Contract under Article 7. It would be helpful to read the section that describes your position: permanent, part-time, probationary, etc.

Become familiar with the evaluation observation forms at the back of the Contract [F 7.0 (a to d)] stipulating areas to be observed and checked off by the manager and/or peer evaluator, [e.g., did teacher use examples, AV Aids, class discussion, compare/contrast concepts, etc.]

Other useful forms at back of Contract: Student evaluation forms [F 7. 0 (e to g)]; Professional Evaluation Criteria [F 7. 0 ( h)]; Professional Objectives [F 7.0 (I)].

Faculty can be required to serve as peer evaluators on no more than 2 evaluation processes per academic year/work year.

When evaluated by your manager and/or peer evaluator, be prepared, organized and on time.

Tenured Faculty
Every three years tenured faculty are evaluated either by a peer or by self-evaluation, and by the student evaluation form. See Contract Article 7.3, pages 7-6 to 7-10. Whereas your peer evaluator is essential to the process, your Union Advisor reviews the final written summary, reviews any recommendations for improvement and may attach a separate statement to the final evaluation. If management recommends individual improvement, including a plan of professional improvement, it is advisable to contact UPM immediately, [Article 7.3.6]. Also, be aware that failure of the peer evaluator to carry out the contractual responsibilities will result in imposition of penalties on the peer evaluator [Article 7.3.7]. There are separate procedures for non-teaching faculty.

Probationary faculty
Probationary faculty are evaluated each year during the four-year probationary period, a process that includes both a yearly self-evaluation and an observation by a manager, a peer and the Union Advisor. This process may be arduous and time consuming. The Union Advisor is critical to the process as he/she is involved in each step, and has the option of attaching a separate statement to the Manager’s final report. See Contract Article 7.2, pages 7-2 to 7-6. Managerial recommendations for improvement must include explicitly defined expectations and a time line for improvement. If the manager requests a second evaluation that year, we urge you to contact UPM immediately.

Part-time Credit Faculty
Part-time Credit Faculty are evaluated the first semester of employment, and at least once every six semesters thereafter by a manager, plus participation by a peer evaluator and a Union Advisor [Article 7.6.]. The procedure is similar to that for probationary faculty, except for frequency and the elimination of a self-evaluation. The peer evaluator and Union Advisor may serve as witnesses to the teaching demonstration. The Union Advisor may submit a statement on behalf of the evaluee to be included in the final evaluation. Last year a part-time ETCUM, with six years of seniority and two prior satisfactory evaluations, was not rehired based primarily on the evaluation by management. Unfortunately, the teacher did not ask for a peer evaluator nor contact his Union Advisor during the evaluation. UPM may have been able to prevent his termination had there been a faculty witness during the evaluation.

Part-time Non-Credit Faculty
Part-time Non-Credit Faculty are evaluated during the first year of employment by a manager and by student evaluations, and once a year thereafter through student evaluations only.

If you desire further information about evaluations, feel free to contact me as I have other suggestions for making faculty evaluations a successful process. Phone me at 8229 or contact me through the Union office.

Web Page graphics & design by Mike Godsey, windfind@sonic.nett

 Forms
Forms
  1. AFFIDAVIT FOR ENROLLMENT OF DOMESTIC PARTNERS FORM
  2. APPLICATION FOR SABBATICAL LEAVE FORM
  3. GUIDELINES FOR SABBATICAL APPLICATIONS
  4. "SLIDING SCALE" FOR EVALUATING SABBATICAL LEAVE PROPOSALS
  5. REQUEST FOR UNPAID LEAVE
  6. VOLUNTARY TRANSFER AGREEMENT
  7. INVOLUNTARY TRANSFER AGREEMENT Form
  8. ASSIGNED HOURS AND SUBSTITUTE ARRANGEMENTS FORM
  9. ASSIGNMENTS
  10. DISTRICT DIRECTED ASSIGNMENTS
  11. INSTRUCTIONAL PERFORMANCE OBSERVATION FORM
  12. HEALTH CENTER NURSE PERFORMANCE OBSERVATION FORM