|
Players’ Roles Sorted Out
Nearing Agreement on Partnership for Excellence Procedures
|
Agreement on the means of distributing Partnership for Excellence (PEE) funds seems to be emerging from the swirl of statements, open letters, and memos of understanding that have been exchanged among the United Professors, the Academic Senate, and the District in the past few months. Nearing completion is a procedure for sparking ideas and implementing projects funded through PEE to benefit students at the college. Interestingly and perhaps uncharacteristically, the Union and the District have already agreed on the proposed procedures, and the whole venture now awaits the Senate.
Players’ Roles Sorted Out
Nearing Agreement on Partnership for Excellence ProceduresThe role of the Union in the determination of procedures is really quite narrow and specific. Whenever a new endeavor has the chance of affecting working conditions, salary, benefits, and other contractual matters, the UPM strives to ensure that a fair and open system is set up to protect the rights of its members, the faculty. The UPM has practiced this role when, for example, State funding was accepted by the District for the Tech Prep/School-to-Career Project. The Workload Committee, composed of representatives of the faculty and the District, looking for someone to coordinate the project, made sure that everyone on the faculty had equal access to information about the job and that anyone could apply. Similarly, Partnership for Excellence supports new and possibly innovative projects, duties, and responsibilities that may well affect salary or benefits or working conditions, and the UPM has the duty to represent the interests of all faculty in all Contract matters.
Certainly, the UPM does not want to challenge or contravene the separate roles of the District or the Senate in determining PEE procedures. In its recent memo of understanding, the UPM observes that the Senate has, in fact, a legal right to set up committees and such to advise the District on academic matters such as budgeting, planning, establishing standards, developing curriculum, etc. relating to the District’s policies and procedures that are outside the scope of collective bargaining. The District, of course, is the agent that funds projects and promotes their development. But when a project has impact on "unit" members such as a future assignment of a faculty member, the UPM would become involved.
 At this point, the District acknowledges the essential role of the UPM and agrees with its few requirements. Because the PEE program raises contract issues that have been addressed in other realms, this opportunity presents nothing very new or controversial. Thus, in some vaguely ironic way, the first major "partners" seem to be the District and the Union.
For its part, the Senate, through the Partnership for Excellence Group (PEG), seems comfortable with its role as advisor to the District for identifying projects and for setting up procedures. And the UPM has of course agreed to having the PEG provide advise to them as well when the Union plays its role.
So everyone’s roles seem clear. Now all that’s left is for all the actors to come on stage together.
| President
Treasurer
Newspaper Editor
Budget Monitor
Executive Secretary
Grievance Officer
Committees:
Bay Faculty Association (Bay 10)
CCC REPRESENTATIVE
Collective Bargaining Team (CB)
- Paul Christensen (Chief Negotiator)
- Theo Fung x7389
- Jeff Kamler x7654
- Hank Fearnley x7602
- Don Foss x7523
|
Health and Safety
- Don Foss x7523
- George Adams
Marin Labor Council
PROFESSIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
- Don Foss x7523
- Alice Rocky x7586
Professional Standards (PSC)
- Paul Christensen x7635
- Paul DeSilva x7542
Sabbatical Leave
- Jeff Kamler, Chair (x7654)
- Robin Lavin
- Janet Macintosh x7359
- Rinetta Early
Staff Development
Workload (UDWC)
- Jamie Deneris
- Hank Fearnley x7602
Web Master
Updated Friday, July 7, 2000
|
To the Executive Council
I stated that the nominating period was extended "to enable incumbent Cox to get himself re-nominated" and you said that this is "totally untrue."
But isn’t it true that, at the March 13th Executive Council meeting, Carl Cox initiated the discussion by complaining that he was not properly notified of the nominations because he is on sabbatical? And isn’t it true that he admonished the Exec for not notifying him at home (even though he had attended nearly all Exec meetings this semester, i.e., he was on campus much of the time and would have found his nominating ballot in his mailbox if he’d taken a moment to look there)?
Isn’t it true that Carl himself proposed the resolution to extend the nominating period to everyone on sabbatical — he could hardly have proposed a resolution extending the nominating period only for himself! — and isn’t it true that after a bitter debate and narrow passage, the Executive Council found it politically imperative to supersede that resolution with one extending the nominating period for everyone?
Am I missing something? Did anyone other than Carl complain about not receiving a nominating form? If they did, why didn’t they bother to use the 3-week extension to get themselves nominated? Other than Carl, the only person nominated during the extended period was Jamie Deneris, but her belated nomination had nothing to do with not receiving a nominating form.
You can put whatever ‘spin’ you want on the events of March 13th — it is true that neither of the resolutions passed that day says that the extension is for the exclusive benefit of Carl — but I think an objective reader would agree that the reason for the 3-week extension was the re-nomination of Carl Cox, and no other.
Sincerely yours,
(s) Steve Jabloner
|
Ponderings of the President
by Ira Lansing
|
The following e-mail was received by all members of the CFT/CCC (Community College Council of the California Federation of Teachers, of which I am a member). The letter was sent by the CCC president Tom Tyner and is from the CCC Part-time coordinator, and Tom was soliciting feedback.
It is with great trepidation that I am sending this message to the CCC/CFT Part-Time Committee members and the Part-Time Council representatives.
As you know, I have been a consistent supporter of CCC/CFT, an organization which has historically demonstrated a strong commitment to democratic decision making, and is clearly the leader among faculty organizations in pushing for part-time faculty rights. However, no organization is perfect, and recent questionable developments within the Council should be of great concern to the PT Committee and the elected PT Council reps.
While I am not privy to the exact details, it is clear that the following has occurred: Last month CCC President Tom Tyner sent a "confidential" message to members of the Council calling for a closed meeting on June 3 to consider a personnel matter related to the Part-Time Coordinator, specifically mentioning alleged improprieties with regard to my advocacy of civil disobedience in the aftermath of the Governor’s axing of the Human Resources Infrastructure fund in his May revise budget proposal. This meeting was then canceled because of predictable logistical problems at this crucial period for community college faculty, but will presumably be rescheduled for a later date prior to the beginning of Fall semester, since a decision needs to be made with regard to what is going to be done with the PT Coordinator position for the next academic year.
 Before proceeding, allow me to note that as PT Coordinator I have come into conflict with CCC/CFT fters/staff over issues related to pt equity on numerous occasions. One might reasonably expect that a union representing academic professionals would treat its hired staff in a more positive manner than a corporation or a government bureaucracy, but unfortunately this has proven to be a naive expectation on my part. As a part-time/temporary employee, I have been reminded of my lowly status on numerous occasions and told clearly that paid staff are expected to adhere to a rigid CFT party line. On the other hand, the PT Coordinator job description clearly stipulates various functions that are directly and indirectly related to promoting equity and justice for pt faculty, a goal that is and has always been my sole motivation. Unfortunately, it is sometimes debatable whether the dictates of the CCC/CFT leadership are convergent with the most effective methods for achieving pt equity-the leadership of this or any other organization is certainly not omniscient.
Those of you who subscribe to a corporate/bureaucratic model of decision-making may see this matter as a clear-cut case of employers having the right to control the behavior and speech of their employees. However, many of us reject this hierarchical power/control decision-making model in favor of grass roots democratic processes-underrepresented/exploited constituencies should be consulted and deferred to in matters affecting their interests. Moreover, it is ironic that an organization that has fought so hard to achieve academic freedom for faculty in the public employment sector consistently demonstrates the opposite in the implementation of its own employer/employee relations.
As a result of the recent Constitutional amendment, the CCC/CFT PT Committee now has official status as an advisory standing committee of the Council. Given this basic fact, it is inappropriate and insulting for the Council to make decisions in closed session with regard to the PT Coordinator position without first seeking input from the PT Committee.
Let me be perfectly clear about my motivations in bringing this matter to your attention. This is NOT about the present PT Coordinator trying to preserve his job for another academic year. To the contrary, the humongous workload and constant aggravation insure that no sane person would continue in this position solely for the stipulated economic compensation.
What we are talking about here is an unacceptable abrogation of democratic grass roots processes and a lack of respect for this union’s weakest and most exploited members. Equity and justice for part-timers will never be achieved without mass empowerment, and empowerment is not facilitated by decisions made in an essentially hierarchical and patronizing manner, no matter how well intended.
I have long argued that part-timers need to be collectively in control of all decisions affecting their interests. In the present situation, this means that the PT Committee and Council reps should determine how the PT staff position(s) is (are) structured, how the available funds are apportioned, and who will be employed in that (those) position(s). It is bad enough that CCC fters are in control of who the PT Com reps and PT Council reps will be-they now presume to dictate to their chosen pters the parameters of paid staff support.
Unfortunately, the Council will proceed with these matters as they see fit-we all know CCC pters are too powerless and disorganized to override the fter leadership. However, if this matter proceeds without any kind of effective protest, it will be a dark day for pter progress within this organization. If the fter leadership is going to transact Council business related to pters while blatantly disregarding the standing pt advisory committee they have just constitutionally created, then they should have to pay a steep price.
In discussing these matters with a core group of pt leaders, opinions have diverged on a couple of significant issues. First, it is argued that the PT Coordinator should be responsible for not only advocating pt rights, but also working collaboratively with CCC/CFT fters/staff. On the other hand, some argue the reverse-that fters/staff should be courting pters, and if the PT Coordinator has widespread support among the constituency being coordinated, then the responsibility for any failures in intraorganizational collaborative/collegial relations should rest squarely on the shoulders of CCC/CFT fters/staff.
A second matter of concern among the PT core leadership is hand wringing by some over the potential negative consequences of conflict between CCC/CFT pters and the fter leadership. Others, experiencing the world in terms of a different paradigm, see this situation as a healthy development, and argue that internal organizational conflict is inevitable for progress to occur.
I now leave these vexing matters in your collective hands.
In deepest solidarity,
Scott Suneson, Lame Duck CCC/CFT PT Coordinator
So how do I respond to this? There are two components to the response. The first is purely local. We of the United Professors of Marin do not have the same issues where part-timers are concerned that many other locals may have. I will not claim that our temporary employees have a perfect situation, but they are the only ones in the state that have 80% pro-rata pay (CFT is still fighting to get other locals up to 75%), medical benefits, paid office hours, "seniority" rights and equal voting rights to name a few. In addition, many of these benefits extend to non-credit part-timers, a group that the above discussion does not even seem to be addressing. So to some extent, let everyone else haggle over the issues; they do not concern us here at UPM. But you know it cannot stop with this perspective. The second component of the response, however, addresses the more philosophical aspects raised by the above letter, and these do concern us.
My response is based on the fact that I have worked on and owned a Macintosh™ computer since 1984. You may recall that was the year Apple Computer broadcast the award winning commercial during the Super Bowl. The first time I saw a mouse and menus I was hooked. So what if the rest of the world was typing DOS commands; this was the way to go. I even wrote and had published a book (Microsoft Macinations, Microsoft Press, 1986), along with numerous Mac-related articles in trade publications. And then there were the Macintosh computer shows. They were like Woodstock festivals for computers. Small time entrepreneurs set up tables to hock their specialties (print onto coffee mugs from your printer. Heck, get cheaper ribbons (!) for your printer). And all of this was alongside the big guys (even then it was Adobe and Microsoft). It was thrilling, it was invigorating and it was exciting to be a part of all of that.
But it did not last. Competition heated up, MS Windows rolled around, Apple had some lean years and the boys who started it all in their garage on the Peninsula were no longer involved. To some extent the thrill was gone. But I stayed with the platform (this article is still being written on a new model Mac). I endured Apple becoming a corporation, a business, instead of a cause. Throughout the ups and downs, the final product was an innovative, quality item that met my needs.
The same is true with the CFT. Never the biggest (see the CTA for that title), but they were the ones doing something different, getting out there with the crowd, having fun, paying attention to the small-time entrepreneurs, looking out for community college faculty. But it did not last. Competition heated up, collective bargaining laws came into being and CFT had some lean years and the boys who started it all were no longer involved. To some extent the thrill was gone. But I stayed with this affiliation. I endured CFT becoming more of a business and not just a cause. Throughout the ups and downs, the final product was a quality item that met my needs and the needs of my colleagues, even though some of the processes changed along the way.
Yes, it would be nice to have Woodstock like it used to be. But "the times they are a changin’," and fortunately both Apple and the CFT have changed too. Neither would be here today, with the impact they have today, if they did not adapt and transform. These changes do not make CFT any less democratic or less responsive to its members. It just means you may not be able to print onto your coffee mugs from your printer. But you know what, that’s OK. The printers are better. And if coffee mugs or civil disobedience are still important to you, you can have still have them. You just may have to change platforms. Have a restful and healthy summer.
|
Professional Affairs Committee:
by Carl Cox
|
The PAC funds for this fiscal year have been exhausted but we have about $2500.00 in TTIP funds for technology and internet related workshops. Submit the request to PAC via the Personnel Office.
PAC will be meeting during the summer. If you have request for next year – July1, 2000 to June 30, 2001 – you can submit it now. Part-timers need to have a signed contract for the fall semester before submitting requests for next year’s monies.
Next semester, the PAC members will be Alice Rocky (7583) and Don Foss(7523).
We are looking into the idea of having TTIP funds rolled over into next year’s budget.
Professional Standards Committee Report
|
The pace of negotiations over the issue of applying Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards to the conditions of faculty can be measured in the number of Contracts that have come and gone (2) and the number of involved District lawyers who have come and gone (3) since discussions began. Clearly, snails move faster.
The issue is a rather simple one. We must determine how to apply ADA standards for our faculty and to apply them equally to all faculty who may require them.
The District has claimed its desire to set procedures that will protect the privacy of individuals by making up ADA remedies – even those affecting collective bargaining issues – on an individual basis. The UPM, however, is striving for equal and open application of ADA procedures to avoid any special treatment for one that could be of benefit to others.
For example, reducing a teaching load by using sick leave for one person while not extending the same remedy to another is unfair. Progress may be made next month, but don’t bet on it.
Retirement Alert!
STRS Benefit Improvements Are Likely
|
The CFT reports that the current legislative session will likely bring increases in benefits to STRS recipients. Thus, members planning to retire this year should defer drawing STRS until after January 1, 2001, if it’s at all possible. Such faculty need not change retirement plans, but they need to indicate that they want to start collecting benefits after the turn of the year.
More details will appear in next month’s Press.
Temporary Instructors Unemployment Insurance as Intersession Benefit
by
Tom Menendez
UPM’s CCC Representative
|
Doing a good job teaching is a significant reward in a field as important as education; however, there are few advantages to being a perpetual temporary. There are many fewer benefits and less pay for doing the same work as a full-time colleague with the same education and experience. A tenure track position remains elusive for most temporaries and their careers end most often in retirement without STRS benefits, death or a job in another field.
One benefit available to temporary instructors during intercessions is unemployment insurance payments. Most temporary instructors are already aware of their eligibility for unemployment benefits when they have no job and no income. If you are not sure of your rights to unemployment benefits you should read on.
In spite of the fact that after 1989 part-time faculty members with no work between terms are eligible for unemployment benefits, we continue to see denials of their claims by the Employment Development Department (EDD). We can see in the written details provided by the EDD that someone in the District office suggests to the claims examiner that the temporary who is applying for benefits has a reasonable assurance of returning to work in the next term - in spite of having a tentative assignment to teach classes subject to cancellation for low enrollment or lack of funding. Their classes could-and still can-be reassigned to full-time faculty.
The precedent-setting Cervisi decision, which the First Appellate District Court issued in 1989 held that "an assignment that is contingent on enrollment, funding or program changes is not a reasonable assurance of employment." This means that college administrators can not any longer use their typical argument for denying coverage to faculty hired temporarily.
Whenever you apply for unemployment insurance benefits between semesters be sure to indicate your eligibility, particularly if you are denied benefits and need to appeal the decision, according to the Cervisi decision. By stating that the Cervisi decision is controlling in your case you are offering a tenable defense of your rights to benefits. If you are denied benefits contact the Union immediately so that we can help you defend your rights to receive benefits and represent you in an appeals hearing, if necessary. You will benefit from the UI money and the Union will benefit in further securing long-deserved fair compensation and benefits for our hard working part-time temporary instructors.
 UPM Treasurer Theo Fung has submitted a cash flow report for our local.
|
