Instructors Association

Newsletter

Newsletter by and for the faculty of the Santa Barbara Community College District

Vol. 15  No. 2

March  2005

PresidentÕ Letter

Peter Naylor, President

                Your Instructors Association remains active, through the AFT challenge period, the Christmas break, and into the spring semester, in order to meet your expectations for aggressive representation in contract negotiations of salaries, benefits, and working conditions, and in the protection of  faculty prerogatives.

                With IA cooperation, the Faculty Senate has initiated a very promising three phase revision of faculty job descriptions, faculty training and professional development, and faculty evaluation procedures. The attorneys who advise the Instructors Association have been retained to advise the Senate sub-committee on faculty job descriptions in order to identify those aspects of our employment, which may be required under law. The IA will bear the expense. Also, we have asked the Senate to consider faculty training and development in its broadest sense, as well as assuring that quality training in those tasks required by our job description is available. Finally, we have urged an evaluation procedure, which meets the needs of faculty and administration, and protects both evaluators and evaluatees through objective performance standards.

                Another initiative has led to the appointment of a joint Faculty Senate & Instructors Association team to propose to the Senate a fair and expeditious grievance procedure. Your IA representatives are Homer Arrington, Tom Garey, and Jan Ford. Basic principles of representation, evidence, and presumption of innocence must be respected.

                The Committee on Non-teaching Compensation will renew its efforts in March. Tom Garey and Kathy O'onnor continue to represent the IA, while Karolyn Hanna and Gary Carroll represent the Senate. Ed Inks has volunteered to participate this spring as a trainee.

                Late this spring, The IA Executive Board will forward six names to Pres. Romo, from which he will choose three faculty to serve on the College Benefits Committee. Ed Inks, Lynn Stark, and Ignacio Alarcon have served with distinction. We are pleased to report that we are very close to an attractive agreement that will permit part-time faculty to participate in health care benefits for the first time. If there are other faculty who would like to be considered for the Òhort listÓ please let me know who you are and what you can contribute to the committee.

                We also have elections for our IA Executive Board. Three full-time, one part-time, and two At-Large representatives are needed. The terms of Cornelia Alsheimer, Tom Garey, Ed Inks, and Peter Naylor will be ending. Please express your interest in being a candidate to the IA secretary, Bob Cummings.

                We have asked Bob Bartosh, a prominent Ventura attorney who has advised us in the past and who often represents CTA faculty in actions against Districts, to write an article explaining Binding Arbitration, including its advantages and disadvantages. We intend this to be the foundation for a dialogue among faculty on whether we should pursue Binding Arbitration in future negotiations.

                The College Planning Process, the new block schedule, and the initiation of discussion of a six week winter term, remind us of the importance of being engaged in shared governance. Peter Haslund and I have had lengthy discussions with President Romo on how shared governance should work and believe we have a common vision. Making it work requires more than a restructuring of committees. It requires serious attention from all of us. We cannot be stampeded into changes in scheduling which may harm student learning, and we must negotiate delicate matters of compensation and workload.

                The College Planning Forums, which were organized by the Administration, were disappointing. David Viar from CCLC was pessimistic about the state budget for community colleges, and unenthusiastic about ÒqualizationÓ which is so important to SBCC. Steven Velasco gave us welcome news about the success of our students at UCSB, but UC still Òalls the shotsÓon transfer curriculum, which hampers our ability to serve the general  SBCC student. Carol Johansen confirmed our fears of smaller cohorts working their way through K12 locally. We may have three more years of growth, but we better have another Òusiness modelÓin place by then. Local economic conditions do suggest that there is room for growth by catering to vocational, skills maintenance, and reentry students. Working with local employers, trade associations, and community groups will be time consuming and risky but necessary and appropriate to our mission.

                President Romo will present a third forum on the state of the college in early March, after the state Ò1Óbudget document is issued. This will help us to understand the District strategy and also accelerate contract negotiations.

                Negotiations have been frank but slow. The District and other negotiating groups appear sincere in their interest in developing a cluster of contracts which are in the best long-term interest of SBCC. At last, personnel issues have the primacy which they deserve. Nevertheless, the complexity of restructuring the 82% of expenditures represented by salaries and benefits to redress accumulated unfairness, meet legitimate needs for general increases, and maintain the fiscal integrity of SBCC requires time and patience. The state budget remains a source of anxiety, too. We are asking you to complete a questionnaire on the five most costly contract proposals, so we can be sure to act within your preferences. We will also be holding a plenary session on Friday, March 18th in order to have a dialogue with our membership.  Please be sure to attend and to prepare by keeping abreast of college issues during this coming month.

Help us to understand your priorities

                We are in contract negotiations; the discussions have been candid and open.  The state budget is a handicap.  {The second stage of ÒqualizationÓfunding is not in the Governor budget proposal.}  The District is eager to change the state formula for funding, and we will work with them to achieve those changes.  In the meantime, we remain on the growth treadmill, and we are running down our equipment and construction reserves.  All parties {The District, the CSEA, the Management meet & conferce Group, and your Instructors Association} share a vision of addressing the fairness and general salary increases within the financial resources available, and through the College Planning Process and lobbying state government, maximizing the resources available.

The District has proposed COLA as an opener.  We are far apart.  Under the circumstances, a three year contract would be a mistake, but what about this year?  If compromise becomes necessary, we need to know your priorities.  We ask that you focus on what is best for the entire faculty and will set a sound precedent for the CSEA and Management contracts.  Below are some questions for you to consider.  We will follow up with a survey in your mailboxes by which you can inform us of your priorities.

Below you will find the big five proposals, the most expensive items.  In the survey, the same questions will be asked so that you can express your priorities by ranking these proposals from #a highest to #e lowest.  {You may assign priorities as you wish (anything from all top priorities ÒÓto all low priorities ÒÓ}  Please also plan to attend our Plenary Session on Friday, March 18th to discuss these issues.

Proposal #1 Salary Restructuring; First Year changes                   Cost Estimate $1,560,000

Schedule A would look like this:                {Costs for full-time $960,000; adjunct & overload $600,000}

                 Class I     Class II    Class III   Class IV   Class V
Step1   46,800     49,300     51,800      54,300     56,800
Step2   48,600     51,100     53,600      56,100     58,600
Step3   50,400     52,900     55,400      57,900     60,400
Step4   52,200     54,700     57,200      59,700     62,200
Step5   54,000     56,500     59,000      61,500     64,000
Step6   55,800     58,300     60,800      63,300     65,800
Step7   57,600     60,100     62,600      65,100     67,600
Step8   59,400     61,900     64,400      66,900     69,400
Step9   61,200     63,700     66,200      68,700     71,200
Step10 63,000     65,500     68,000      70,500     73,000
Step11 64,800     67,300     69,800      72,300     74,800
Step12 66,600     69,100     71,600      74,100     76,600
Step13                70,900     73,400      75,900     78,400
Step14                               75,200      77,700     80,200
Step15                                               79,500     82,000


This proposal would add $1,800 per step, $2,500 per class, and add one new step in classes I-IV. The PhD

bonus would be $2,340.  We also suggest a new MFA bonus of $1,170.  Finally, we suggest an anniversary

increment of $300 for every year after achieving your class maximum.

You will mark your scantron line 1:                                  

ÒÓhighest priority    ÒÓsecond     ÒÓthird     ÒÓfourth     ÒÓfifth priority

                                                                                                     

#2 Laboratory & Lecture Equalization                               Cost Estimate $750,000

We suggest that SBCC recognize two categories of laboratory instruction.  One would be the Lecture/Lab

which requires the complete attention of the instructor, including hours of preparation and assessment. This

would be compensated at the full lecture rate.  The second type of Lab is a more relaxed, drop in, tutorial

lab.  For this Lab the current arrangement (1.5 hours of lab equivalent to 1 hour of lecture) may be

acceptable.  The Curriculum Committee would classify the Labs, when requested by each department.

You will mark your scantron line 2:

nbsp;ÒÓhighest priority    ÒÓsecond     ÒÓthird     ÒÓfourth     ÒÓfifth priority

 

#3 Part-time & Overload Compensation                            Cost Estimate $300,000

First year: We suggest an immediate increase from 64% to 67% of full-time salary.

Old vs. new hourly rates with differential for preparation & office hours, only:

    Step 1     Step 2       Step 3       Step 4       Step 5     Step 6      Step 7     Step 8

Old rate    49.66       52.01        54.34        56.69        59.02      61.37       63.82      66.37

New rate  70.80       73.40        75.90        78.50         81.10      83.70       89.90     92.50  

You will mark your scantron line 3:                                                                  

 ÒÓhighest priority    ÒÓsecond     ÒÓthird     ÒÓfourth     ÒÓfifth priority

#4 Leadership Stipends                                                                      Cost Estimate $625,000

Stipends for duties such as Department Chairs to be approximately doubled, {increased from $153.32 to $300.00 multiplied by the load factor for each position as determined by the Committee on Non-Teaching Compensation.}

You will mark your scantron line 4:

 ÒÓhighest priority    ÒÓsecond     ÒÓthird     ÒÓfourth     ÒÓfifth priority

#5 Health & Welfare Benefits                              Cost Estimate not completed; probably similar

Our principle remains, Òull cost of the least costly of the two most popular programsÓfor individuals,

couples, and families.  Part-time will receive Òuy-inÓrights to benefits.  The District would pay 10% of

benefits costs for part time faculty who elect to participate, or 5% in addition to any targeted funding

received from the state for this purpose, whichever is larger.

You will mark your scantron line 5:

 ÒÓhighest priority    ÒÓsecond     ÒÓthird     ÒÓfourth     ÒÓfifth priority

Other IA Issues:

#6 How important is progress in the Full-time/ Part-Time faculty obligation?

We have learned that only 57% of our classes are taught by full-time faculty under their regular load.  To achieve the 75:25 ratio, SBCC would need to add 57 full-time faculty positions.  This situation is very disappointing for a number of reasons.  {For examples, the burden on the full-time faculty and the lack of opportunities for loyal adjuncts who would be interested in full-time employment.}  We have been discussing the concept of a mutual agreement with the District to add five full-time positions every year, in addition to those required to meet the ChancellorÕ requirements under AB 1725 for maintenance and progress toward a ratio of 75% regular and 25% adjunct instruction.  The cost would be another $150,000 - $180,000 per year, every year.  Would this be money well spent, even if it comes at the expense of more generous salaries and benefits increases?

You will mark your scantron line 6:                      ÒÓyes, its important     ÒÓno, I canÕ support it

The actual survey will follow separately. This information is provided to stimulate your thinking.

Looking Backward, Moving Forward: Strengthening Our Union

            As respective leaders of the InstructorsÕAssociation and the AFT Organizing Committee, both of us would like to thank all those who participated and voted in the election process that determined which bargaining agencyÑhe IA or the AFTÑould represent faculty.  We ask that you continue your interest in faculty issues by measuring what has been learned and how faculty can benefit from this knowledge.

            During the election process, we engaged in a discussion of ideas that, ultimately, we believe was healthy and productive.  Most of us will agree that each of us learned something new about unions, about process, about SBCC, and about any number of ideas that relate to our working conditions.  This was not a bad thing; this was not a waste of time.  This was healthy.

            The support for the AFT derived from three sources, and many, even most, IA supporters share these views:
(1)  An underlying malaise regarding susceptibility to forces outside our control. (cost of living in Santa Barbara, state budget woes, geo-political anxieties, retirement & health care fears, ignorance of how to manage all of the above.)
(2)  Fear that the administration develops makes decisions and then informs the faculty. That individual faculty are not aware until its too late.  Faculty Senate and Instructors' Association don't represent faculty effectively.  The Senate/IA acquiesce to administration initiatives, or intervene too late & ineffectively.  A conviction that SBCC policies are unfair; some faculty are more equal than others. That there exists an influential group of faculty who get special deals for themselves or their programs, but the rest are left out.
(3)  A paradox that faculty feel administrative duties distract them from their mission to teach and advise, but that they must have a say in policies.  Also, faculty driven initiatives to improve student success in the traditional ways of excellent teaching are not acknowledged.  In sum, a general feeling of powerlessness and anomie.
(4) Can we make Shared Governance work?
Over his 20 years, the MacDougall system became one of consultation, not participation. The administration, generally Jack Friedlander and Peter MacDougall, would identify a management problem, work on a solution, and present both the problem and the solution to the Senate and CPC for minor adjustments and anticipated acceptance.  The Senate would react, but the agenda, controlled by JF/PM and generally, determined the outcome.  Over time, faculty became passive and disaffected.  Particularly damaging, the most innovative and creative faculty became discouraged.  A better system:  Whichever segment (faculty, administration, classified, trustees) uncovers a problem presents it to one committee.  (For college-wide issues, that may be CPC.) The members should follow proven problem solving techniques:

            (a) reach a consensus on the definition of the problem

            (b) collect information

            (c) identify alternative solutions
            (d) evaluate & rank the solutions

            (e) implement the best solution, and

            (f) evaluate & modify the solution.
    

            The various committees must understand that they are not political or merely "consultative" bodies, but management committees that must act decisively and promptly. The members must consult their peers and articulate the concerns of their work group, but then work together for the best solution for the college as a whole. Clerical support for committees must be provided.  The best way to identify issues and build a shared vision is  systematic long-range planning, especially with respect to vision, mission, and goals.  This will provide a context in which all issues can be evaluated.
            Where and how will this occur?  Peter Haslund has some ideas. The Senate ad hoc committees on job descriptions, ethics, and senate committee organization have begun the process of improving the "shared governance" policy side.  The IA needs to reform its organization and methods.

            These are just a few of the many ideas that were presented in one form or another during the election process, but ideas that were presented in the heat of a campaign, where ideas donÕ always have the chance to flourish.  Now that the election is over, these ideas should not be presented in the past tense; these same ideas still need much discussion.

            The strength of any union is twofold: strong leadership and a strong membership.  How we continue this dialogue of ideas between leaders and members will be crucial in strengthening the union. ItÕ not difficult.  The IA will continue to publish its newsletter on a regular basis.  You are encouraged to respond to these communiquŽs and communicate your ideas to IA board members (e-mail addresses and phone extensions are listed in every newsletter).  The IA will continue to hold open meetings (now twice monthly), which you, as dues-paying members are always invited to attend.  (It should be encouraging to all that the first two IA meetings of this semester have been well attended by members.)  The IA will continue to hold plenary sessions, usually once a semester, which you are encouraged again to attend and voice your opinions and ideas in an open forum.  As faculty members, we are accomplished in communicating ideas to our students. We should be able to do the same when it comes to voicing our concerns to the union, which in turn communicates these ideas to the administration.

            These are still the best of times.  We now have the opportunity to use the energy that we saw in the fall translate into a stronger union in the future.

            Peter Naylor,                                                                            Homer Arrington,

            President, InstructorsÕAssociation                                          AFT Organizing Committee

                                                                                                 and InstructorsÕAssociation Officer

The Sixty Percent Law

and its Implications for Faculty, Students, and Community Colleges

            California Education Code 87482.5 mandates that adjunct faculty may not teach more than 60% of a full-time load in one college district.  Over the years this regulation, which dates back to November 1967(!!), has proven to have several negative impacts on teachers, students, and the general community college system.

            Teachers are hurt, because it creates Òreeway flyersÓwho have to work on several different campuses in order to patch together a full-time teaching load and thus spend valuable time commuting instead of working with their students or preparing their classes.  Additionally, they have to deal with different procedures, deadlines, and forms for each college.  This increases the pressure on the individual teacher.

            Students are hurt because the 60%-time teachers have to rush to teach in another district and may not be available for office hours or after-class discussions with their students.

            The general community college system is hurt, because freeway-flyers will not be able to commit to one school, which limits their contributions to one school.  Each year in the California community college system there is a 20% turnover rate for part-time teachers.  A higher turnover of part-time teachers equates to less consistency for students, department chairs and the college administration.  As is true with any other business model, a high turnover rate among employees is an expensive route to take.  Additionally, class scheduling is hindered because these adjuncts have to balance different teaching commitments at different schools.

            If the Sixty Percent Law were abandoned, adjunct faculty would have the possibility of teaching a full 100% load at one school; those who want to teach less than a full load would still have that option, of course.

            The proposal to eliminate the Sixty Percent Law has been pushed by adjunct advocates for years and has recently sparked a renewed statewide discussion.  The proposal still has not been translated into legislation, but it would be a win-win-win situation.  A win for students, because they would have valuable access to their instructors and would more often be able to find continuity by taking more classes with the same instructor.  A win for adjunct faculty, who would feel respected and refreshed because they teach at only one campus.  And a win for college administrators, who would enjoy a greater flexibility and loyalty from their adjunct faculty, as well as saving money by lowering the turnover rate.

            I would like to add that repealing the Sixty Percent Law cannot work without a strict adherence to the AB 1725 requirement which mandates that no more than 25% of a districtÕ classes can be taught by part-time instructors (no matter what percentage of a full-time load these adjuncts teach).  Currently the ratio at SBCC is 57-43, which is extremely disappointing.  The SBCC administration should make every effort to change this over-reliance on part-time faculty and to meet the legislative requirement.

                                                                                    --Cornelia Alsheimer, Adjunct Representative

From the Negotiating Table:

Hopeful News on Healthcare for Adjunct Faculty

            After a decade of unsuccessful efforts, the InstructorsÕAssociation has finally made the first breakthrough toward medical benefits for our adjunct faculty. SBCC is a member of SISC (Self-Insured Schools of California). SISC is a group of 290 school districts that have banded together to purchase healthcare. SISC is a powerful alliance. It gives their members greater leverage in negotiating rates with the healthcare providers. For years SISC has refused to cover adjunct faculty. The reason is simple. Unlike contract faculty, part-time faculty would not be required to join the health plan. This would result in what insurance companies call "adverse selection" - a greater likelihood that enrolled members would have serious health problems. This, in turn,  would increase the rates for everyone.  In past negotiations, the district has tried to avoid this problem by offering part-timers a separate insurance plan. Unfortunately the plans we were offered had no real catastrophic coverage. Their limits of liability were set so low as to be useless. The IA refused these offerings and continued to press for adjunct participation in the same plans available to contract faculty.

            This year the climate was different. The IA was firm but most important, we had the support of the administration. SISC finally relented and agreed to work with us on this difficult problem. They have presented a plan which they will make available to eligible adjunct faculty. It is a Blue Cross PPO plan, similar to the coverage for contract faculty but with a higher annual deductible ($1200 - $2000). This would bring down the monthly premiums.

Many details remain to be worked out. Chief among them is the question of eligibility. To minimize the problem of "adverse selection," the IA is negotiating with the district to set criteria for participation in the plan. Most likely the requirements will be similar to those currently in place for adjunct participation in Tax Sheltered Annuities: a 50% load and four continuous semesters at SBCC. The IA is pushing to lower the requirement to a 40% load. Another unknown is the district contribution to the premium. It is unclear at this moment what funds will be available from Sacramento. Last year they funded less than 5% of the cost of adjunct health care. The IA has proposed that the district pay 10% of the premium, or the amount reimbursed by Sacramento (whichever is higher).  Certainly there is much left to be decided but the major hurdle has been crossed. For the first time ever at SBCC, our long-term adjunct faculty will have access to real health insurance.

- Lynne Elisabeth Stark / IA Representative for Adjunct Faculty

E  l  e  c  t  i  o  n

Call for Candidates for IA Executive Board

--Election in May--

Three full-time faculty, one adjunct faculty, and two At-Large

Representatives will be elected for two-year terms, 2005-2007

Current IA Board members, Cornelia Alsheimer, Tom Garey,

Ed Inks, and Peter Naylor are up for re-election

Please let me know if you would consider running for the IA Board

Bob Cummings

IA Secretary

I. A. Executive Board

Spring 2005

Peter Naylor (Õ3-Õ5)                                         Voice: Ext. 2350

                                                  President/Budget Analyst                               E-mail:  naylor@sbcc.edu

                                                Ed Inks  (Õ3-Õ5)                                                 Voice: Ext. 2411

                                                  Vice President                                                   E-mail:  inks@sbcc.edu

                                                Tom Garey (Õ3-Õ5)                                            Voice: Ext. 2218

                                                  CCCI Representative                                       E-mail:  garey@sbcc.edu

                                                Bob Cummings    (Õ4-Õ6)                                 Voice: Ext. 2515

                                                  Secretary/ Newsletter Editor                          E-mail:  cummings@sbcc.edu

Homer Arrington (Õ4-Õ6)                                Voice: Ext. 3061

  CCCI Representative                                       E-mail:  arringto@sbcc.edu

Lynne Stark (Õ4-Õ6)                                         Voice: Ext. 3827

                                                  Treasurer/Adjunct Rep.                                  E-mail: stark@sbcc.edu

Cornelia Alsheimer  (Õ4-Õ5)                          

                                                   Adjunct Rep.                                                    E-mail: alsheime@sbcc.edu