Regarding the Faculty-Management Study Group report:

Board motion (adopted):

Resolved:

The Executive Board of the SBCC Instructors’ Association accepts the report of the Faculty-Management Study Group with gratitude to all who worked in this endeavor: Peter Naylor, Cornelia Alsheimer, Jan Schultz, Homer Arrington, Jack Friedlander, Joe Sullivan and Sue Ehrlich. While the Executive Board is committed to the goals considered by the Study Group, there are significant reservations about some of the recommendations contained in the report. The Executive Board therefore commits itself to resolving those issues in future negotiations to the benefit of the SBCC faculty and the work of the College.

Analysis of the Issues and Options for Achieving Each of the Three Faculty Equity Goals Identified by the Faculty-Management Study Group

PREAMBLE

Included in the negotiated agreement between the District and the Instructors’ Association for 1/07-12/08 was the creation of a Faculty-Management Study Group. Article 2.27 was a creative step toward establishing a process for tackling several recurring, complex and as yet unresolved issues of mutual concern to faculty/management.

The three issues identified in Article 2.27 were:

  1. Achieving parity pay for adjunct faculty;

  1. Increasing the number of full-time teaching faculty to achieve the goal of having 75% of instruction provided by full-time faculty; and,

  1. Achieving lecture/lab parity.

A series of sessions with three faculty representatives and three management representatives (hereafter referred to as “Faculty” and “Management”) met through the summer and fall months. The three faculty representatives were Homer Arrington (Assistant Professor of English and President of the Instructors’ Association), who replaced Peter Naylor (Professor of Finance and IA representative) starting 10-18-07, Jan Schultz (Professor, Earth and Planetary Science and Academic Senate Representative) and Cornelia Alsheimer, (IA Board member and Adjunct Instructor, Accounting). The management representatives were Jack Friedlander, (Executive Vice President, Educational Programs); Joe Sullivan, (Vice President, Business Services) and Sue Ehrlich (Vice President, Human Resources and Legal Affairs).

The approach was collaborative rather than adversarial, with the objective of identifying the issues, challenges, and possible solutions to these three issues without the time constraints imposed by formal contract negotiations. We met to discuss perspectives, exchange and evaluate data, propose creative solutions, and mutually critique and modify options proposed in a very collegial process. Many suggestions were considered and rejected; others were found to be viable options and have been noted for further pursuit.

The detailed account which follows is a record of the progress made in identifying possible steps to the resolution of these issues. We indicate where there is mutual or unilateral interest in pursuing identified options, and we note identified impediments and contingencies. Budgetary constraints are an unknown at this point, but it is hoped that some of the options may provide financial or time savings that can be applied to addressing these issues.

Ideally, this document can serve as a starting point for the next contract negotiations between us on these three issues. Some of the items identified in this document should be further analyzed and discussed in more detail prior to those negotiations by our respective consultative constituencies. The work of the Study Group and the discussions this document may generate have hopefully increased the possibility that more holistic solutions to these challenging topics may be formalized in future negotiations.

Both sides want to emphasize that these options are advisory. Now that this document is public, we hope that it will serve as the beginning of an ongoing dialogue between faculty and management.

GOALS AND ANALYSIS

GOAL 1: Achieve parity in compensation for adjunct faculty. Parity has been contractually established at 75% of the pro-rata rate for full-time faculty.

Full-time and adjunct faculty members share the same responsibility to provide educational opportunities of the highest quality to our students. Since full-time and adjunct faculty have the same responsibilities to students, adjunct faculty members should have the same support services of adequate office space, choice of educational materials, and opportunities for professional development as their full-time colleagues. Section 2.17.1.1 of the agreement between the IA and the District defines adjunct parity currently “as 75% of the work commitment of full-time credit instructors.” This 75% goal includes “teaching, grading, student advising and preparing for classes.” The IA understands the 75% parity definition as 75% of all classes and steps of the contract instructors’ salary schedule (Schedule 10) in order to achieve parity. The District has not agreed to apply the 75% parity to all classes and steps of Schedule 10.

Challenges to achieving this goal

1. The salary schedule (class and steps) upon which to base the pro-rata compensation for adjunct faculty is subject to formal negotiations. Faculty proposes that all steps and classes of Schedule 10 be used to determine the 75% pro-rata compensation for adjunct faculty. Management prefers retaining the current salary structure.

2. Clarification is needed on the expectations of adjunct faculty for participation in out-of-class activities that pertain to teaching, grading and preparing for the classes they are assigned to teach, or in the case of Student Support Division adjunct faculty, the services they are responsible for providing. More specifically, Faculty proposes that no additional job responsibilities be added before the goal of 75% parity is achieved. Management proposes that additional responsibilities are added as part of adjunct job responsibilities once 70% parity is achieved. These additional responsibilities include: participation in essential department meetings and professional development activities that include discussions of the courses adjuncts are assigned to teach, pedagogical strategies, and/or topics that pertain to providing support services to their students.

When it is not possible for adjuncts to come to campus for these meetings and training sessions, arrangements would need to be made for adjunct faculty to participate in department discussions and training sessions in alternative formats (e.g., e-mail, conference calls, information posted on the Web). Adjunct faculty participation in these essential department meetings and workshops would be in addition to their Professional Development requirement. Any additional responsibilities adjunct faculty would be responsible for performing in exchange for being paid at or above the negotiated 75% parity need to be clearly defined and, if agreed upon by the IA and the District, included in the job description and in the evaluation criteria for adjunct faculty.

3. If it is determined that additional responsibilities for adjunct faculty are required, the question of when they would go into effect needs to be resolved. If additional responsibilities for adjunct faculty are required, Faculty proposes that additional compensation be provided. Management proposes phasing in the additional requirements be added to the adjunct job description when 70% parity is achieved.

4. Appropriate space needs to be provided for adjunct faculty to meet with students. This presents a challenge from now until 2015 because all of the modular buildings on campus are needed until then to relocate the classrooms, labs, offices, meeting and storage areas in the buildings that are scheduled to be modernized or, in the case of the SoMA building, constructed. During this time period, existing facilities will need to be used for adjunct faculty to meet with their students, such as sharing offices with full-time faculty and staff and use of public spaces in the Library, Campus Center and possibly the FRC.

5. A two-tier salary schedule has been suggested that would grant an increase equivalent to one step for adjunct faculty who satisfactorily complete the required courses/workshops/seminars described below in Section 1A.

Options for Achieving the Goal of Adjunct Faculty Parity

1. Granting an increase equivalent to one step for adjunct faculty who satisfactorily complete the required courses/workshops/seminars described in section 1A.

1A. Complete three required courses/workshops/seminars on teaching at a community college in general and at SBCC in particular. These courses/workshops/seminars, each of which would take an average of 8 hours to complete, would be offered in both face-to-face and online formats. Adjunct faculty would need to complete these courses just once to be eligible to be placed at the higher step that would be added to the adjunct faculty salary schedule.

In order to continue being paid at the higher step, adjunct faculty would need to complete 10 hours of required courses/workshops/seminars every five years. These courses would provide faculty with practical information and methods that would be of much benefit to their students, themselves, the department in which they will teach, and the college. Adjunct faculty who possess the knowledge and skills that are covered in these professional development courses would be offered alternative instruction/training on topics that would enhance their abilities to perform their teaching responsibilities at the college. Where appropriate, the types of training activities that would substitute for the required courses/workshops/seminars would be customized to insure that the training provided would be of much value to the participants.

1B. Once the goal of parity pay at the negotiated class and step levels is achieved, adjunct faculty would be responsible for participating in essential department meetings and professional development activities that include discussions of the courses they are assigned to teach, pedagogical strategies, and/or student support services topics. Faculty proposes that no additional job responsibilities be added before the goal of 75% parity is achieved. Management proposes that additional responsibilities be added as part of adjunct job responsibilities once 70% parity is achieved.

1C. The additional responsibilities of full engagement in department and professional development activities as noted in 1B will be added to the job description and the evaluation criteria for adjunct faculty.

1D. Deans and department chairs would be responsible for developing a plan to provide appropriate space for adjunct faculty to meet with students. This plan could include asking full-time faculty to allow adjunct faculty to share their office at times when they do not need to be in the office.

1E. Adjunct faculty who complete these professional responsibilities in the prior term will be eligible to receive:

· the higher rate of compensation for the following term;

· higher priority in re-hire rights as negotiated; and,

· earlier eligibility to receive health benefits.

Recommendations

1. The option to grant an increase described in section 1A will be referred to the IA.

2. The proposed added responsibilities that will be required for adjunct faculty as part of their job description and evaluation criteria will be referred to the Academic Senate for continued discussion and recommendation.

GOAL 2: Have 75% of the instruction and educational program support services offered by full-time faculty.

Method for calculating the number of new full-time faculty that would need to be hired to achieve the 75/25% full-time to adjunct faculty ratio.

In Fall 2006, 64.4% of all TLUs were taught by full-time faculty. This percentage includes overloads. Achieving the 75/25% ratio would require hiring 56 additional faculty members. If overloads are excluded, the percentage of TLUs taught by full-time faculty was 49.4% in Fall 2006, which would require hiring 92 additional full-time faculty members.

Challenges to achieving this goal

1. Additional office space may not be available until approximately 2015 to accommodate additional full-time faculty. Therefore, full-time faculty hired in the next seven or eight years need to be located in existing office space. Once the portable buildings are no longer needed for “swing space,” they can be converted to office space.

2. The cost of creating additional office space (see Cost Estimates below).

The ongoing costs for adding each full-time faculty member would be $38,995 for salary and benefits, $300 of which would support travel and conference/supplies and other related expenses. Once existing portable buildings are available to be used by full-time faculty, it will cost approximately $10,000 per office to convert the space in these structures into offices. Thus, the first year cost to locate an additional new full-time faculty member in an office would be an additional $15,000, including the purchase of a computer and furniture ($5K). Although the $10,000 to convert a portable building into an office may not be incurred until the modernization projects are completed, money needs to be set aside to pay for the construction of the offices.

3. The cost of converting adjunct positions to full time faculty positions (salary and benefits, see Cost Estimates below).

Option for achieving the goal of having 75% of instruction provided by full-time faculty.

As progress is made toward achieving the goal of having 75% of the TLUs offered by full-time faculty, contract faculty responsibilities should be expanded to include serving as advisors to students, student clubs, and/or discipline-related organizations/activities; and/or participating in student outreach/orientation activities/events.

Once there is an agreed upon plan for achieving the goal of having 75% of the TLUs (including overloads) offered by contract faculty, contract faculty in those departments in which 70% or more of the TLUs are offered by full-time faculty would be expected to either serve as advisors to students or participate in non-teaching leadership activities that provide direct services to students, such as serving as a sponsor for a student club, discipline-related organization, special events/activities and/or participating in student outreach activities/events. This expectation would remain in effect until the percentage of TLUs offered by full-time faculty in a department drops below 70% for more than two consecutive academic years. Faculty who elect to serve as student advisors would be required to complete a training course on their role as advisors and would be expected to establish ongoing communication with members of the counseling and other appropriate support program staff regarding their student advisees who need their assistance. Contract faculty who elect to serve as student advisors to a student club/ organizations, major activity or event would be required to work with the Office of Student Life in planning and conducting these activities.

Faculty would be assigned to one or more of these contractual responsibilities based on the needs of students as determined by their departments in consultation with the area dean, as well as their strengths and interests. The amount of time contract faculty would be required to devote to performing these responsibilities would be tied to the progress made in adding faculty positions and in streamlining the governance process and the amount of time faculty would need to devote to these responsibilities. This will enable faculty to focus on core instructional and student support services responsibilities and spend less time on shared governance committees without compromising the college’s commitment to shared governance, because there would be more full-time faculty available.

Steps for implementing this option

1. Criteria need to be established to address the following:

· when contract faculty in a department would be required to perform these additional job responsibilities (Management has suggested this occur when a department reaches 70% TLUs taught by full-time faculty),

· the method for evaluating whether the additional responsibilities are being performed in a satisfactory manner, and

· the number of hours faculty would be expected to spend performing these additional responsibilities needs to be determined.

2. Faculty contracts and evaluation criteria need to be modified accordingly.

Recommendation

The strategies for achieving the 75/25% full-time/adjunct ratio and approaches to address the challenges to achieving this goal will be referred to the Academic Senate and the IA for continued discussion and, if needed, refinement prior to the start of the next contract negotiations.

GOAL 3: Achieve lecture/lab parity. More specifically, the TLU and compensation rate ratio for a lab hour would be equal to those for a lecture hour.

Challenge to Achievement of this Goal

Increasing the TLU value for a lab hour would make it even more difficult to staff lab classes with adjunct and contract faculty. Adjunct faculty will reach the 60% limit sooner which, in many cases, would reduce the number of sections they could teach. Similarly, the increased load value would place a large percentage of contract faculty members above the 21 TLU limit which would restrict the number of lab sections departments could offer.

In an effort to help alleviate this problem, Management’s proposal calls for allocating negotiated funds to achieve parity with respect to lab rate compensation first, followed by making progress in achieving parity in TLU value. This proposed approach would allow time for the college to hire additional new full-time faculty needed to offer needed lecture/lab sections. Management is requesting that the increase in the TLU value be phased in to correspond to benchmarks achieved in hiring a greater percentage of full-time faculty members. Faculty is asking that the proposed increases in the TLU and compensation value for lab hours be phased in proportionally until parity is achieved. Faculty consider the hiring of full-time faculty toward meeting 75/25% as a separate issue/goal, and do not agree that progress on reaching lab/lecture parity should be linked to meeting 75/25% goals.

Option for Achieving the Goal of Lecture/Lab Parity

In recognition of the scheduling challenges that increasing the TLU rate imposes, the faculty and the management representatives find the following compromise acceptable:

3A. First priority should be to raise both TLU and lab hourly rates to the equivalent of 2.50 TLUs per 3-hour lab (84.34%). This would greatly increase the full-time faculty’s ability to craft a full load that includes multiple lab classes, while minimally affecting adjunct load beyond the already established impact for those adjuncts teaching labs under the existing contract.

3B. After the 2.50 TLU per 3-hour benchmark is reached, priority should be focused on bringing the lab hourly rate up to 91.67%, before bringing the TLUs up to this level (2.75 TLUs/ 3-hour lab).

3C. Once the 2.75 TLU/3-hour lab goal is reached, both TLUs and the lab rate should be moved together to parity.

Recommendation

The strategies for achieving lab/lecture parity and approaches to address the challenges to achieving this goal will be referred to the Academic Senate and the IA for continued discussion and, if needed, refinement prior to the start of negotiation of the next IA contract.

ESTIMATED COSTS FOR ACHIEVING THE THREE EQUITY GOALS, ASSUMPTIONS UPON WHICH THEY ARE BASED, AND POTENTIAL OPTIONS FOR FUNDING

The estimated costs for achieving each of the three equity goals, the assumptions upon which they are based, and potential options for funding are detailed below.

Cost Estimates

The cost estimates are based on an analysis of the current pay schedules and do not take into account future increases from contract negotiations. The interlocking aspect of the different parity issues makes it difficult to evaluate the actual cost of implementing all of the parity issues simultaneously.

Summary

Adjunct Parity

$1,264,193

Lab/Lecture TLU Parity

$695,928

Lab/Lecture Pay rate Parity

$707,193

Lab/Lecture Pay rate Parity to Class III-V

$237,303

Adjunct to Class III-V

$769,075

Subtotal for Parity Issues

$3,673,692

Cost to Add Full Time Instructor

Salary & Benefits for First Year

$38,695

Cost of Office Space per Faculty Person

Convert Temp Building to Offices

$10,000

New Temp Building

$50,000

New Building

$120,000

Computer and Furniture

$5,000

Cost for First Year

Total w/ Converted Temp

$53,695

Total w/ New Temp

$93,695

Total w/New

$163,695

Cost Assumptions

· Cost Estimate is accurate: a comprehensive evaluation can be completed after the 2007/08 fiscal year to determine the accuracy of the estimates put into the current contract.

· A Capital bond will cover the cost of District contributions to Capital Projects.

· The parity issues will be negotiated for each contract period individually with the IA establishing priorities.

· New faculty for the near future will be housed in existing temporary buildings.

· Does not use one-time funding for ongoing costs.

· Does not use growth funding.

Potential Options for Funding of IA Parity Issues

1. All savings from the items identified in the “Outcomes of the Faculty-Management Study Group” will be applied toward parity issues.

2. Use IA portion of any ongoing “new funding”, e.g. community College Initiative.

3. Use a percentage of IA’s share of COLA based on prior fiscal year before application of COLA to schedule 10 and other compensation issues.

Progress toward implementing parity priorities within a given year should be suspended if one of the following conditions exists:

· Ongoing revenues are less than ongoing expenditures for the prior fiscal year; or,

· Unrestricted ending balances are less than 5% of budgeted expense for the current fiscal year; or,

· Budgeted salaries and benefits for the instructors would exceed 52.5% of the previous year’s expenditures (50% law plus 2.5%); or,

· COLA for the current fiscal year is less than a negotiated threshold; or,

· The deficit factor for the prior fiscal year was greater than 1%.

Ideas discussed by the Faculty/Management Study Group to help offset costs of achieving the three equity issues in advance of next negotiations

In addition to discussing the approaches to achieving the three equity goals, the Faculty/Management Study Group identified the following proposals that they believe should be given consideration, to be included in the negotiations for the next contract with the District. It is recommended that each of the following proposals be referred to a workgroup comprised of representatives of the Academic Senate, IA, and management for further discussion and possible inclusion in the negotiation for the next contract.

1. Method for compensating faculty teaching large face-to-face classes.

1A. The IA and the District would identify an estimated amount of faculty time required to work with each additional student over the established course size limit as of Census. At present, there is no sound basis for the large class TLU compensation formula which includes allocation of funds to pay for additional reader assistance.

1B. An agreed upon formula would be used to calculate stipends for teaching large classes. This formula would take into account both the additional workload associated with each student that is over the CAC approved enrollment limit for the course and the amount of assistance that is provided to the faculty member by readers.

1C. Readers would not automatically be assigned to large size classes. However, faculty teaching large size classes would be able to use their stipend that is based upon the negotiated formula for these courses to hire readers.

2. Method for compensating faculty teaching online classes.

2A. The faculty and the District would identify an estimated amount of time required to teach online and hybrid classes, with the objective of establishing appropriate class size limits. This analysis would take into account additional online instructional aid support provided to faculty and the number of students enrolled at Census and at the end of the term.

2B. The faculty and the District would identify an estimated amount of faculty time required to work with each additional student over the established course size limit for online and hybrid classes as of Census. At present, there is no consistent basis for the large class TLU compensation formula for online and hybrid classes which currently includes allocation of funds to pay for the online instructional aid assistance.

2C. An agreed upon formula would be used to calculate stipends for teaching large online and hybrid classes. This formula would take into consideration both the additional workload associated with each student that is over the CAC approved enrollment limit for the course and the amount of assistance that is provided to the faculty member by online instructional aides.

2D. Online instructional aides would not automatically be assigned to online or hybrid classes. However, faculty teaching these classes would be able to use their stipend that is based on the negotiated formula for these classes to hire online instructional aides.

3. Clarification of the expectations of the faculty members.

There is ambiguity as to what faculty members are expected to do as part of their responsibilities and the types of activities that merit additional compensation within the contract year. This proposal calls for a faculty- management study group to identify the criteria for determining the types of activities faculty should be expected to engage in as part of their responsibilities and those for which additional compensation would be warranted. A good place to begin this process is to create a list of activities that faculty have requested additional compensation to perform and then determine it the activities are covered in the existing contract faculty job description. The work group would identify proposed changes to the faculty job description that would more clearly define the expectations for which they are responsible.

4. Method for funding faculty compensation for non-teaching responsibilities.

Board Policy 1913 (Attachment) details the process for requesting, evaluating and recommending requests for new and augmentations of faculty compensation for non-teaching responsibilities. Policy 1913 does not specify the source of additional dollars to pay for the recommended increases in compensation for new and/or expanded non-teaching responsibilities.

Proposed addition to Board Policy 1913 – Process for Funding Increased Compensation for Non-Teaching Responsibilities

Recommendations for increased funding for faculty compensation for non-teaching responsibilities made by the Committee on Non-Teaching Compensation would be submitted to the IA for its review and determination as to which one or ones it would request additional money to support in its contract negotiations with the District. The negotiated amount of additional money that is agreed to by the District/IA would be the amount made available to support the recommendations from the Committee on Non-Teaching Compensation for increased faculty compensation for faculty non-teaching responsibilities.

The source of augmenting stipends for non-teaching compensation needs to be resolved. Two options under consideration are: (1) the IA requests an augmentation for non-teaching faculty compensation as part its proposal to be negotiated with the District; or (2) requests for augmenting stipends would be submitted to CPC through the college’s ranking process for new resource requests.

5. Formation of faculty/management study group to identify strategies to increase the efficiency in performing shared governance responsibilities without compromising the principles of shared governance.

5A. The goal of the study group would be to reduce the amount of time faculty spend on governing committees as well as in other tasks that take away from time they can spend on those activities they are uniquely qualified to perform (e.g., teaching, advising students, curriculum development, professional development, peer evaluation). If achieved, this would result in a reduction in the amount of time faculty would have to spend on college governance processes without compromising the principles of shared governance.

5B. A web-based accountability reporting system should be developed to track faculty’s fulfillment of their college responsibilities.

6. Expand definition of faculty office hours.

The faculty office hour obligation is based on 1 hour for every 3 TLUs. Where appropriate, faculty members could meet their office hour requirement by working in one of the college’s tutoring/supplemental instruction labs or settings.

If approved, the expectations described above would be added to the contract evaluation faculty job description and to the evaluation criteria used to evaluate contract faculty. In addition, contract faculty would be required to document on an annual basis the non-teaching student support activities in which they were engaged.