The

Union Press

Newsletter for the Faculty of the Marin Community College District
American Federation of Teachers, Local 1610

College Forms on-line | Back to Home Page

1997 Newsletters: Jan. Feb. March April May June/July Sept Oct Nov Dec.

C O N T N T S

January 1998 Headlines Ponderings of the President Bargaining Issues Emerge General Meeting Bargaining Questionnaire Committees & Officers 1997-98 Academic Calendar 1997-1999 Catalog Benefits of Membership Real-Time Weather From CoM CoM in the News Campus Events e-mail CoM Faculty

in the past unions have focused on winning better salaries, benefits and working conditions for their members... this narrow, traditional agenda remains important, it is utterly inadequate to the needs of the future.   Articles Ponderings Bargaining Meeting Questionnaire Committees Academic Benefits

Ponderings of the President by Ira Lansing It is probably because I teach mathematics that the coming change of the millennium holds such interest for me. Must have something to do with the numbers associated with the start of the new century (when it starts is controversial but clear from a mathematical standpoint; perhaps some other column for that topic). What do you call the double-zero decade? The San Francisco Chronicle has had a series of letters to the editor proposing names: the "aughts" (as in 0); the MM's (as in Roman numerals, where M is 1000). Actually, if someone checked to see what people did about one hundred years ago, we might have a pretty good name. The beginning of any erabe it a semester or a millenniumal ways generates words of reflection and change. Teaching and labor unions are no exception. The winter '97-'98 issue of American Educator (a publication of the American Federation of Teachers) contains an article by Bob Chase, president of the National Education Association (the national organization for the CTA). This in itself is interesting. The NEA president writing in an AFT magazine? But as Sandra Feldman, the AFT president, explains in a preface to the article, the two organizations are contemplating a merger and she "thought AFT members would be interested in knowing about some of the discussions and changes taking place within the NEA." Hence, they printed "The New NEA: Reinventing Teachers Unions for a New Era." The essence of the article is that in the past unions have focused on winning better salaries, benefits and working conditions for their members. But, as Bob Chase goes on to say, "that while this narrow, traditional agenda remains important, it is utterly inadequate to the needs of the future. It will not serve our members' interest in greater professionalism." Lucky you. The timing of these sentiments could not be better. Wethe United Professors of Marinare just about to enter into new contract negotiations. This is a full contract period, not just reopeners. So tell us what you want to assist you in establishing a greater professionalism. No matter how far fetched it might seem, we need to hear it. A computer in your officetell us. A technologically wired classroomsay so. Your name on a reserved parking space (my personal preference)if you don't ask, it can't happen. I am sure many of you would settle just for all the fluorescent bulbs to work in the classroom and the ventilation to function in your office. However, get with the new era and let us look ahead. I plan on being around then and I know what I would like, but there should be many more good ideas out there. Tell us. Last month's edition of this newsletter contained a form on which you could submit your ideas. If you don't have it, any respectable sized piece of paper will do. Let's all work together to make UPM and CoM a driving force for the next decade, whatever it may be called. Welcome back, and I look forward to hearing from you.

The real danger in shortening the regular academic year (by counting Saturdays) is that virtually all the curriculum would have to be fundamentally changed (same hours in fewer days)                       The real danger in shortening the regular academic year (by counting Saturdays) is that virtually all the curriculum would have to be fundamentally changed (same hours in fewer days). Is it possible for all the curriculum to be changed so that it can be fit into 14 1/2 weeks instead of 17 1/2 weeks?       Articles Ponderings Bargaining Meeting Questionnaire Committees Academic Benefits   The District for some time has also been rather eager to address the student grievance procedure, hoping to make the procedure easier for students to participate in.   Articles Ponderings Bargaining Meeting Questionnaire Committees Academic Benefits

Bargaining Issues Emerge The preliminaries of negotiating a new Contract between the faculty and the District are underway. During the winter break, UPM members received in their mailed newsletters a questionnaire asking faculty to identify those areas of the current Contract that should be changed or added. Although at this writing not all of those questionnaires have been returned (the due date has not yet passed), the responses received by the UPM reveal some interesting and important topics of concern. Those issues, coupled with the UPM's understanding of some ideas proffered by the District, may well help focus negotiations that are to begin later in the spring. The issues that have emerged from faculty suggestions include the improvement of wages and benefits, the maintenance of calculating wage increases on the basis of the average of the top three Bay-10 schedules, the elimination of class size minimums for some courses, the notion of retirement for part-time faculty, and other key matters. For its part, the District will probably look for changes in the student grievance procedures, changes in full- and part-time faculty evaluation procedures, and changes in the academic calendar that would increase the length of summer intersession. None of these issues has yet to be adopted as part of either side's opening proposals, but until ideas firm up (there's still time to submit your thoughts!), a review of the ideas and their implications may prove useful. First comes the matter of salary. The State of California's revenue coffers are full, and there is a likelihood of a cost of living increase coming our way. However, last year, a lot of State funding for community colleges was linked to enrollment growth. Districts showing growth were able to tap into available funds. Our District, on the other hand, is having a harder time showing enrollment growth. We were up in numbers in the fall, compared with those of the previous fall, but this semester we may be even. That leaves the summer session for a show of increase. At present, it's hard to tell how the State's largesse will affect our District. And we note that our District has been hard pressed to devise effective measures for increasing enrollments. In the most recent agreement with the District, the UPM secured an additional 4 steps on the salary schedule, allowing most faculty members the opportunity to advance beyond step 16 and thereby gain approximately 2.5% in salary for each step each year. Although this part of the agreement did not constitute a salary "raise," per se, it guaranteed a standard step increase. So the idea of bargaining for a real salary raise is key to many on the faculty and it is still open for consideration. While the concept and process of calculating new raises by averaging the top three Bay-Ten salaries is central to the faculty's position, it is difficult to tell as yet just what such a calculation might yield. On another front, an interesting idea has emerged regarding minimum class size. As we all know so well, the administration is prone to react rather negatively to class sizes below 20, which they say is already below a "break-even point." But traditionally in academic life, some courses, particularly advanced or specialized courses, are simply small by nature and yet essential to the curriculum and to a sense of complete educational opportunity. The idea has been raised to negotiate a reduction in minimum class sizes thereby allowing faculty and students to plan on a complete curriculum without fear or pressure to cancel classes at the last moment. Whether this idea would lead to an elimination of class minimums altogether or to a reduction in class size for some courses or to a curb on administration's pressure to cancel some identified classes remains to be seen. Of course, the administration already exercises reason by avoiding course cancellations due to a number of factors, including an attempt to nurture course offerings at IVC, to offer small classes in some advanced fields, and to allow full-time faculty who cannot transfer to other courses or who have no part-timer to bump a chance to teach even a low-enrolled course. But throughout all of that exercise of reason is the potential of course cancellation, and that kind of "hammer" is uncomfortable, to say the least. Negotiations for a new Contract may address yet another notion, one concerning retirement for part-time faculty. It is likely that few people in the District know that a part-timer has, ipso facto, no ability to retire from the faculty. And yet we have with us a number of long-term part-timers who have become vested in STRS but who cannot access this benefit unless they retire! A classic catch-22. How is it possible to enable vested long-term part-timers to retire from the District in a way that would be satisfactory to the law? This is an interesting issue to contemplate. Possible Issues from the District For many weeks, it has been apparent although not certain that the District will pursue several sticky issues in negotiations. First among these is the desire of administrators to become involved in faculty evaluations, an involvement that was essentially eliminated in past agreements. For quite some time, faculty have been subject to a non-punitive peer and student evaluation process that has not included the intervention of administrators. Now, however, the District is talking about having managers become involved when a "significant problem" arises in an evaluation. Just what a "significant problem" would be is so far uncertain, but this general notion should give everyone great pause. How would a "significant problem" be recognized? From student evaluations? From hearsay? Rumor? Clearly this is radical stuff. And just how would any kind of problem be addressed effectively by managers who by their background and position are not competent to evaluate an instructor, given all the disciplines within a manager's purview? The UPM also reminds everyone interested in this matter that significant concessions were made in order to secure a non-punitive evaluation process that does not involve managers. Article 24 of the Contract, the one spelling out specific faculty penalties for violations of particular Contract agreements, was the quid pro quo. Certainly, if any new evaluation procedure that included managers was devised, the entirety of Article 24 would have to be open for fundamental change. The District for some time has also been rather eager to address the student grievance procedure, hoping to make the procedure easier for students to participate in. At present, our student grievance procedure provides safeguards for students in the areas of safety and grading. Other parts of the Contract address harassment, violations of the law, discrimination, and other potential problems faced by students. But the District thinks that the actual procedure undertaken by students should be made more simple, easier to do. The UPM always seeks a reasonable standard in the area of student protections, and it seems that we've been following a procedure that ensures reasonable standards. Just what would be the nature of making the procedure "easier"? Easier for what? The District is also testing the waters in the area of the academic calendar. Dona Boatright has begun talking about a change in the calendar that would effectively expand the time during summer intersession available for summer classes. Her idea might allow two full summer sessions. By law, we have to schedule 175 days in every academic year. Recently, we've been expanding our course offerings to include Saturdays, but Saturdays have not been counted in the 175 required days. If they were counted, we'd meet the requirements earlier and thus be able to expand our summer intersession to two full sessions of classes. The potential benefit of such an idea has to do with enrollment and cost. With an expanded summer session, we might be able to increase enrollments significantly. In addition, since summer courses are not considered part of an instructor's normal load for the year, faculty are paid at 80% pro rata, saving the District a great deal of cost. The real danger in shortening the regular academic year (by counting Saturdays) is that virtually all the curriculum would have to be fundamentally changed (same hours in fewer days). Is it possible for all the curriculum to be changed so that it can be fit into 14 1/2 weeks instead of 17 1/2 weeks? That's a tough one. Each class meeting would have to be increased in length, for example. Such an idea would demand very careful scrutiny. These are, of course, not the only issues that may emerge for consideration during Contract negotiations, and some of these may never see the light of day. Right now, both sides are considering their options, so now is the time to submit ideas to the UPM Executive Council. Soon, we'll have to formulate a tight proposal to begin bargaining. We'll keep you informed.

Articles Ponderings Bargaining Meeting Questionnaire Committees Academic Benefits                               Articles Ponderings Bargaining Meeting Questionnaire Committees Academic Benefits                     Articles Ponderings Bargaining Meeting Questionnaire Committees Academic Benefits

Don't Miss It! UPM's General Meeting of the Members Feb. 23 at 4:00 Bargaining Questionnaire The Collective Bargaining Team needs your input and direction for bargaining the new contract. The first step in the process of preparing for negotiations is to pinpoint issues of concern shared by faculty. After this step has been taken, the Bargaining Team may seek from you more detailed responses about your ideas and concerns. The list below identifies the articles of the Contract. Mark those articles that you would like to see modified or amended. Then, in the space provided, describe what you would like changed or amended and why. If you need more room for your recommendations, please attach another sheet and specify the Article you refer to. Finally, remove this page from the newsletter and return it to the UPM office via intercampus mail. The survey must be received by the Bargaining Team no later than February 2, 1998.   Check Article Recommended Modifications Article I: RECOGNITION (Unit positions; distribution of Reassigned Time) Article II: PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS (Authorization for deductions) Article III: WAGES (Formulas, placement, management teaching salaries, etc.) Article IV: FRINGE BENEFITS Article V: LEAVES (Reporting Absences, Sick Leaves, Substitution, Personal Necessity, Unpaid, Bereavement, Military, Accident, Disability, Honorary, Assault Leaves, and Unit Banking) Article VI: TRANSFERS AND ASSIGNMENTS (Transfers, District-directed, Relocation, RETCUM & ETCUM status) Article VII: EVALUATION (Criteria, Procedures, Regular and Temporary Unit Members, Personnel Files) Article VIII: WORKLOAD (Workload Credit, Reassigned Time, Overload, Stipends, Office Hours, Department Chairs, Reduced Load, Management Employees, Intersession Article IX: CALENDAR (Staff Development, Flex Time) Article X: CLASS SIZE (Minimum Class Size, Maximum Class Size, Class Cancellation) Article XI: SAFETY (Safety Committee, Procedures, Training) Article XII: GRIEVANCE (Definitions, Grievance Filing, Time Limits, Appeal Process) Article XIII: BOARD/AGENCY RELATIONS (Communications) Article XIV: DISTRICT RIGHTS Article XV: REDUCTION IN FORCE (Bumping Rights, Re-employment Rights, Competency Criteria, Faculty Service Area) Article XVI: UPGRADING OF PART-TIME FACULTY (Part-time/Full-time Ratio, Ranking of Disciplines) Article XVII: ACADEMIC FREEDOM Article XVIII: NON-DISCRIMINATION Article XIX: SEVERABILITY Article XX: CONCERTED ACTIVITIES (No-strike Clause) Article XXI: REPRESENTATION/SERVICE FEE (Employee Rights, Re-employment Rights, Competency Criteria, Faculty Service Areas)

President Ira Lansing (x7531) Treasurer Theo Fung (x7389) Newspaper Editor Larry Tjernel (x8228) Budget Monitor Jeff Kamler (x7654) Executive Secretary Edie Yachechak (x7754) Grievance Officer Bernadine Allen (x8229) Committees: Bay Faculty Association (Bay 10) Tom Menendez Collective Bargaining Team (CB) Paul Christensen (Chief Negotiator) Jeff Kamler x7654 Hank Fearnley x7602 Don Foss x7523

Health and Safety Don Foss (x7523) Walter Lager Marin Labor Council Arthur Lutz PROFESSIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE Carl Cox x7423 Hank Fearnley x7602 Professional Standards (PSC) Barbara Cancilla Paul Christensen (x7635) Sabbatical Leave Barbara Bonander x7351 Ted Bright x7512 Barbara Cancilla x7327 Steve Jabloner Staff Development Alice Rocky (x7586) Norm Pacula x7497 Workload (UDWC) Jamie Deneris Don Foss (x7523)   WEB MASTER Mike Godsey x7402 Updated Jan. 21, 1998

Articles Ponderings Bargaining Meeting Questionnaire Committees Academic Benefits

Academic Calendar Summer Session, 1998 June 15 July 24 (Only classes which are scheduled for Fridays will meet on July 24) See paper version of newletter for rest of calender.

Articles

Benefits of Membership Last month, we announced a new benefit for members of the UPM: discounts on entertainment activities through an organization called the Recreation Connection. At that time, we understood that faculty members interested in taking advantage of the discounts would only have to submit orders at the organizations Web page, but we were wrong. Several people on the faculty tried submitting orders but found that they had to fax or mail an order form to an address that we had not listed. So here is what we hope is the complete procedure for ordering discounted tickets and the like: To order by mail or by fax, you must first secure an order form. You can get an order form from the UPM Office on the Kentfield campus, you can request a form by calling (818) 386-1046, or you can print out the form from the organizations Web page, found at this address: www.recreationconnection.com Once you have the form, you can mail it to: Recreation Connection P.O. Box 260854 Encino, CA 91426 Or you can fax the form to: (818) 386-9702 The Recreation Connection offices are in southern California where they have established walk-up order counters, but so far, no such facility exists in our area. For information, call (818) 386-1046. Gift Certificates Sees Candies $8.30/lb Movie Tickets Pacific $4.75 United Artists $4.75 Entertainment 98 Marin/Norh Bay $25.00 Monterey Bay The Aquarium $12.25 Pier 39 Value Pass for discounts at Underwater World, Blue & Gold Fleet, Pier 39 Garage San Diego Zoo Deluxe pkg. $16.75

Web Page graphics & design by Mike Godsey, windfind@metro.net

Forms

Forms AFFIDAVIT FOR ENROLLMENT OF DOMESTIC PARTNERS FORM APPLICATION FOR SABBATICAL LEAVE FORM GUIDELINES FOR SABBATICAL APPLICATIONS "SLIDING SCALE" OF VALUES FOR EVALUATING SABBATICAL LEAVE PROPOSALS REQUEST FOR UNPAID LEAVE VOLUNTARY TRANSFER AGREEMENT INVOLUNTARY TRANSFER AGREEMENT Form ASSIGNED HOURS AND SUBSTITUTE ARRANGEMENTS FORM ASSIGNMENTS DISTRICT DIRECTED ASSIGNMENTS INSTRUCTIONAL PERFORMANCE OBSERVATION FORM HEALTH CENTER NURSE PERFORMANCE OBSERVATION FORM