CCFT report to the Senate for March 10
1. CCFT has sent a cease and desist demand to the District, requesting that it immediately remove the new, non-negotiated electronic student complaint form. This form deviates from the parties’ past practice of having student complaints follow a progressive process that begins with the faculty member. The District’s new, unilaterally imposed process would undermine the progressive complaint process, eliminates the ability of faculty and students to directly resolve student concerns, and fail to protect faculty members against potentially specious student allegations.
2. Concerns have been raised by some PT faculty that the continued expansion of Dual enrollment courses will reduce number of courses available to them. I suggested to Dr. Stork that he look at more opportunities for cooperative instruction by our instructors on high school campuses such as we have for Mission Prep and AG high school. If schools are going to contract with a third party to teach a class on their campus, then it should be with us and with our faculty.
3. The District’s Board of Trustees voted to deny tenure to two fourth year probationary faculty, one of whom who served for over a decade as a part-time faculty before obtaining a regular position. Although the details differ between the two cases, both decisions were unreasonable and violated the CCFT-SLOCCCD collective bargaining agreement. In one case the District’s JTRC overturned the reasoned recommendation of the faculty member’s evaluation committee, which gave her satisfactory evaluations and recommendations throughout her entire evaluation process. The Union is grieving both cases and looks forward to correcting these significant contract violations.
The first step in the process is conciliation before a State conciliator. The grievance, conciliation and arbitration process is outlined in Article 13 in the Contract. CCFT will be requesting additional information from the District to prepare for these cases, and to ensure that these decisions and all future tenure decisions are based on the negotiated evaluation criteria and not rumors, hearsay or unsubstantiated materials.
4. Yesterday was our first real bargaining session and we spent most of the time discussing Article 5, work hours, work year and workload. CCFT proposes to compensate PT faculty for preparation for courses that are canceled within a week of the start date. As it is, in many instances part-time faculty put in this work without any compensation whatsoever. We also propose language that guarantees faculty four full working days after the last final. The District seems amenable to this proposal, as long as Saturday is considered a “working day” for any such requirement.
So for example, if the last final is on a Friday, grades would be due on Wednesday COB.
5. CCFT also proposes revision to the part-time faculty re-employment process to increase re-employment rights for those “temporary” faculty that have served the District the longest. These faculty have demonstrated their effectiveness and commitment to our College and deserve a re-employment right reflective of that service. Our initial proposal is to create a new preference tier for faculty who have taught for eight out of 16 semesters. Faculty on the Seniority list would be assigned first and would be able to bump PT faculty not on the seniority list under very limited circumstances to preserve their historical load (highest of preceding four semesters).
The Union’s proposals also would guarantee that the District’s re-employment preference is complaint with Education Code sections 87482.3, implemented by SB 1379. Such compliance through this negotiated procedure would maintain the District’s eligibility for Student Success and Support Program funds.
6. The District opened with Article 7, but had no formal proposal. What they did, however, was give the Union our own fully vetted peer and Dean instructional evaluation forms, and asked that the Union expand the sections to speak to collegiality. The District is confusing collegiality with congeniality, and these new contract proposals appear to stem from the above-mentioned tenure cases and the District’s effort to blame the evaluation forms for their misinformed decisions. By seeking changes to the process, the District is also tacitly admitting that it failed to follow that process for these cases.
7. The District also claims that Deans and Division chairs are allowed to keep evaluations “on file” and add information during the period outside of formal evaluations to collect “longitudinal” information. This position violates the parties’ negotiated evaluation criteria. It also creates a very real risk of evaluations being determined by un-investigated and unsubstantiated complaints or documentation, increases the risk of biased decision making, and results in all of the above happening without the faculty member having any opportunity to respond or defend him or herself. The Union of course opposes this position, which is in clear violation of the CBA.