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
2000 Newsletters: Jan. Feb. March May July Aug Sept.Oct
C

O

N

T

E

N

T

S

Bargaining Update

Ponderings of the President

No Impasse in Bargaining

The PE Issue

UPM Welcomes Member Derek Wilson

AFT Recovery Fund will Aid Victims

View the 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

Vol. XXI, No. 5 August 2001 Newsletter
Ponderings of the President

by Ira Lansing

Regular readers of this column are well aware that my subject matter has ranged from Honus Wagner baseball cards to words that rhyme with orange. Regardless of where my writings have wandered, they always return to a common theme-what does this mean to me as a faculty member, what does this mean to me as a Union member. Today as I write this month's column, it is barely a week since the New York bombings of September 11, 2001 and no other topics seem to be present, not in the newspapers, not on the broadcast shows.

It seems that everyone is finding this particular event to have some impact on their lives, on their thoughts. Seemingly disparate professions are able to relate to the tragedy. Travel agents will forever be impacted by the resulting emotional and physical limitations imposed on their clients. Even football players have recognized that their metaphoric references to bombs, fighting in the trenches and war are truly meaningless when viewed in the light of terrorist attacks on domestic cities. The media have nothing else to discuss at this time. The morning paper seems to encompass one and only one subject. 500 channels of cable, and only one thing on (better than nothing on?). So what is the relevance, beyond the obvious subject matter relationships, to us as members of UPM? Why has this senseless act of destruction and killing taken on so much more in the minds of Americans?

Those of you who are the same age now that I was when I began my career at the College of Marin do not directly know of the Vietnam war. That undeclared war killed as many Americans as all of the occupants of the towers of the World Trade Center. Is the horror different? The toll from Vietnam is still being tallied; will there be a final count in New York? All of us saw the missiles flying directly from the targeting plane into the Iraqi bunkers during the Persian Gulf (undeclared) war. You cannot get much more "up close" than that; was New York any closer?

All of those events-Vietnam, Persian Gulf and the World Trade Towers/Pentagon bombings-have left me with the same feeling of "what the hell for?" This most recent action of the three was not some random act by disenfranchised crazies. It was focused, well-organized and executed by mobilized crazies. Why? Is the United States perceived as the source of all injustices in the world? This cannot be as simple as U.S. support for Israel. I do not have the answer to the why, but as a faculty member, as a member of a labor organization that fights for collective rights, I do see issues that need confrontation. It is a sin that citizens of this country believe Finland is the small country between France and Spain (that was an answer given by one of the better contestants on the TV game show "Weakest Link"). I cringe when I see my students misspell basic English words (judgment has only one "e" unless you also spell "color" with a "u") or tell me that 5 times 7 is 30. If we do not want to be seen as the source of injustice, we must know what other people perceive as such (not to mention where they live). We are educators. Who better than we to insist and instruct. We are Union members. Who better than we to insist and demand for all.

Everyone will deal with this complex issue in his or her own way. I only remind you of your chosen profession and your chosen membership. Should you wish to see how other colleagues view this tragedy, and what you might do, visit the Union Community Fund at www.unioncommunityfund.org, or contact the New York City Central Labor Council Disaster Fund at 386 Park Ave. South, New York, NY 10016. I don't mean to get preachy here, and by no means am I telling you what to do (I'm not sure I even know), but at the very least if we can fight to diminish ignorance, we will all be the better for it.

Let us all hope that however the tragedy has affected us and possibly changed our lives, that next month's column will have something ludicrous and laughable upon which to comment.

 Bargaining Update: What Does Management Want?

New-Contract bargaining has been officially in progress for several months, and over those months, the District's position on a wide range of issues has been slowly emerging. Although initial positions tend to change during the course of focused negotiations, those now held by the District together suggest a vague overall pattern. This pattern, while not now alarming perhaps, certainly raises a few eyebrows. Just what does the District want in a new Contract?

We now know many of the pieces of the District's position, including those dealing with evaluations, unassigned hours, faculty behavior, and layoffs. But what larger pattern, if any, do these pieces form? Let's take a look:

First, college management is seeking a significant change in the faculty evaluation process by increasing requirements and imposing multiple evaluations. Most significantly, the District is seeking to convert our current evaluation system into a punitive system, one that leads to suspensions and even dismissals.

Next, managers have their eyes on faculty unassigned time, hoping to use it, in fact, for specific assignments such as committee work, community service, and the like. "Unassigned" time, as you know, is the difference between weekly paid hours and, for example, an instructor's teaching and office hour total. These hours, different for different faculty assignments, have traditionally been used for research, preparation, and myriad other professional requirements. Now the District wants many of those hours to be spent on specifically assigned duties. In addition, managers want new language to be added to Article 24 to allow them the ability to sanction faculty members who do not carry out those new assigned duties.

A third piece of the pattern has to do with faculty behavior. Managers want to include in Article 24 language that would give them authority to sanction faculty for being rude, impolite, or difficult with students, colleagues, and staff. District negotiators have assured the UPM that any complaints against an instructor for such behavior would be thoroughly investigated before any sanctions would be imposed. Such assurance hardly gives comfort, however, when you consider the manner student complaints are now being "investigated."

The District's desire to modify Article 15, dealing with layoffs, is another piece of the pattern. Managers hope to effect two key changes here. The first is to eliminate the requirement to announce layoff plans two years ahead of the actual layoff. The second is to pay laid-off credit faculty who bump into the non-credit program the hourly rate on the non-credit schedule.

Also, managers want a change in Article 16, affording them more "wildcards" in the hiring procedure thereby giving them greater discretion in determining what disciplines will get new full-time faculty. The system currently in place spells out essentially by formula a system of filling instructional positions in areas most in need.

Finally, at least in the summary so far, the District is seeking to increase the number of days an instructor can work before becoming a member of the faculty "unit" and thus deserving the protections of being a member of the unit. Now, someone working more than 9 days automatically becomes a unit member, but District representatives want that number increased.

So what do we have here? It may be too early in the bargaining process to tell, but a pattern may be emerging. We see a lot in the areas of curbing faculty behavior and activities, sanctions, layoffs and non-credit pay, and district hiring outside the current unit. What does all this amount to?

The rarely tranquil waters of Contract bargaining are all the more muddy now that we have nearly come to impasse on the "reopener" issues of student complaints and the use of P4E money. And sailing becomes even more unsteady when the prospects of basic aid funding for the District is considered. Just what does the District want in a new Contract?

No Impasse in Bargaining for Reopeners

The District has chosen not to go to impasse in bargaining over the two key issues of P4E funds and the student complaint procedure. These two contentious issues have been the subject of "reopener" negotiations since early this year. The District claims that neither the UPM's nor the District's positions have been "sunshined" (made public), so impasse is impossible at this point.

The use of P4E funds and the student complaint procedure were two topics that the UPM had identified as "reopeners," topics for negotiations that are separate from but parallel to regular Contract negotiations. Talks were going nowhere fast, and the UPM fully expected that the Board would vote to declare impasse, leading to factfinding and arbitration. It is likely that the District felt no eagerness to enter a factfinding stage. Now, the District must make both sides of the matters public, and perhaps negotiations can progress toward resolution.

The PE Issue
Of the two items up for continued talks, the P4E matter is perhaps the more unfamiliar to faculty. It is important to note that at the beginning, the UPM wanted to negotiate the use of P4E funds that were not earmarked by faculty projects. The money allocated to a set of faculty-inspired projects was at issue only if project activities affected workload, salary, or working conditions, in which case the joint governance system (e.g., Union/District Workload Committee) would be called into routine function.
However, when the UPM accused the District of a failure to negotiate P4E, managers opened their bargaining by placing the project descriptions on the table, effectively unifying all P4E funds in the talks. Even now, UPM wants to fasttrack the projects and to focus on the unspent P4E carryover that, when added to this year's allocation, amounts to about $1.6 million.

The UPM's aim is to have the District use about 50% of the P4E funds for important faculty matters, including an increase in sabbatical leave benefits, an increase in IR&D support, an increase in conference leave compensation, additional coordinator units, and the like.

The District has chosen not to go to impasse on this matter and on the student complaint issue, so the way is clear to resolve our differences at the bargaining table. We'll keep you informed.

United Professors of Marin Welcomes UPM Member
Derek Wilson

One of CoM's new members of the faculty, Derek Wilson teaches full time in the Multimedia Studies discipline on the Indian Valley Campus. In addition to launching his full load of classes, he's already at work contributing to the department's efforts to expand and develop the Print Media, Networking, and Multimedia Internship Program for students. Having been involved in his union local in Hayward, Derek is now a full-time UPM member.

Welcome to CoM and to the UPM, Derek!

News from Beyond Marin
The following item has been sent to us from the American Federation of Teachers, our national affiliate, via their online news service, "Inside AFT."

How You Can Help: AFT Recovery Fund will Aid Victims, Families
The Sept. 11 attack on our nation and our values has taken a terrible toll on all Americans and on AFT members throughout the country. Because of the need for immediate help, the AFT has created the AFT Recovery Fund to provide assistance.

Contributions to the emergency fund will go directly to victims, their families, loved ones and others who have been harmed by the terrorist attack, as well as organized assistance efforts responding to the terrorist attacks.

Contributions are welcome from individuals as well as AFT locals and state federations. Checks should be made payable to the AFT Recovery Fund and sent to AFT Recovery Fund, 555 New Jersey Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20001.

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