[CORRECTION: The change in reassigned time that I reported earlier was incorrect. The RT per college went from 24 LHE to 36, not 36 to 48. Dang! That means that our colleges are still not in line with other local colleges.Sorry for the confusion.]
I’m sure that many of you have heard by now that, yesterday, Chancellor Mathur relented and granted a substantial increase in “reassigned time” for the senates. The Academic Senate of each college has gone from receiving a meager 24 LHE (lecture hour equivalents) to 36 LHE. However, to be in line with other local colleges, the number of hours must be increased by about 10.
(See Monday's board meeting for some of Bob Cosgrove’s informative graphics.)
Some background: the faculty in each of our colleges is represented by two bodies: (1) the Faculty Association (union)—in the case of contractual issues and (2) the Academic Senates—in the case of academic issues.
In recent years, these groups (along with other governance groups) have joined forces in an organized effort to oppose the damaging and unfortunate policies and practices of the SOCCCD Chancellor and Board. The two Academic Senates have worked especially closely.
As you know, this coalition has met with some success, as in the case of the OC Superior Court’s nullification of the Chancellor’s odious and illegally developed full-time faculty hiring policy. (See How rude are you!.)
Back in 1996, the Faculty Association, then controlled by a corrupt clique, employed outrageous tactics (see The infamous "same-sex" flier) to secure the victory of trustee candidates Frogue, Williams, and Fortune. The tactics were successful. The era of the Board Majority or Board Four commenced in December of ’96. (Teddi Lorch was the fourth FA-affiliated trustee.)
Naturally, the union “Old Guard” had the ear of the four. That's how it was possible for the manifestly incompetent and unsavory Raghu Mathur to snag an administrative position in 1997. (See 1994: Mathur censured for lying.)
One of trustee Fortune’s hobby horse’s was the elimination of “reassigned time” (RT), the device of releasing an instructor from teaching (in lecture hours [LHE]) for other important duties, such as chairing an academic department or a committee (Curriculum, etc.).
Anyone who is familiar with higher education is aware that RT (sometimes called “release time”) is utterly routine and viewed as essential in colleges and universities throughout the country.
Owing largely to Dot Fortune, and with the full support of the union Old Guard (see Hypocrisy unmatched), RT was abolished for all except union officers! From that point on, instructors who agreed to chair a department or committee (etc.) were compelled to do so on top of a full load of teaching. Obviously, in the case of some particularly demanding leadership roles, this undercut their effectiveness. The Academic Senates depended on RT to maintain a robust presence in “shared governance” or “collegial consultation.”
Over the years, various exceptions to the ban were granted on an ad hoc basis, but the board maintained a mindset such that the Academic Senates would never receive the level of support in RT that is routine throughout the community college system.
As a long-time IVC Academic Senate observer, I know that a series of IVC’s senate presidents have requested increases in RT, but to no avail.
Recently, in view of the important and taxing work that the senates were being asked to do, both college presidents recommended significant increases in senate RT. Predictably, the Chancellor refused to accept those recommendations.
A few months ago, spanking new SC senate president Bob Cosgrove started to pursue this problem vigorously. He and Brenda B collected data regarding the practices of other districts and colleges. In the meantime, Bob, IVC's Wendy G, and others directly addressed the board concerning the RT issue.
I recall Wendy's recent remarks before the board about the difficulty of a single mother teaching her classes while attending the meetings and doing the other work of a senate president. The situation is simply unworkable.
These appeals seemed to have some effect.
To make a long story short, as previously reported, on Monday night, Bob finally and fully presented the comparative data, and it was impressive.
Further, Bob drew a line in the sand: Unless adequate levels of RT were restored for senate officers (by Wednesday), Bob (and Margot L, SC senate secretary) would walk.
No doubt in part owing to that "threat"—and perhaps for other reasons—the Chancellor relented to a degree. The Academic Senates have had restored to them a level of reassigned time not seen since 1994. There's still a ways to go, of course.
P.S.: Today, Bob sent out an email to district faculty that reads in part:
At the August 16th [SC] Academic Senate meeting, the Senate approved the following motion unanimously:
“While the Saddleback College Academic Senate is committed to receiving 45 LHE per year reassigned time for work performed by its officers, the Senate accepts 36 LHE for the 2006-2007 with the stipulation that the officers of the Academic Senate perform only such work as can be completed with the current 18 LHE per semester. Furthermore, the Academic Senate will continue to work toward the goal of bringing the amount of reassigned time awarded its officers up to the level currently received by Academic Senates in comparable Orange County colleges in order to be in line with ‘best practices.’”
16 comments:
It's about time.
Onward.
That's great. Really it is.
But what about department chairs? Some of those people are near the breaking point.
I do hope that Bob, Wendy, and Co. are working on that too.
Good work!
I have a question -- why do you sometimes call a person by their first name and last initial? Just curious.
Gila:
My sense of things is that people are often taken aback by remarks about them in the paper or in some other highly public forum. I'm guessing that the shock is lessened by this practice of not actually stating a person's full name. In some cases, of course, there is no good reason to do this--as in the case of a highly public figure or seriously evil person who really should be called out.
One of the persistent ironies (from my POV) of putting out DISSENT is that I'm really a pretty sensitive guy, and yet I seem to have this reputation for outrageousness and vulgarity.
Perhaps this response stems in part from my sense of objectivity, according to which there is no fallacy in labelling evil "evil." One is not committing an "ad hominem" if, for instance, one says that George W is ignorant or callous. He is demonstrably so. Saying that he's a "boob" or a "lout" is simply a colorful way of making that demonstrably correct point. So I'm taken aback when people react to me calling W a "boob" as though I've called him, say, an "ignorant Texan." (I would not do the latter, which does strike me as an illogical ad hominem. There's nothing wrong with being from Texas!)
I have often described Raghu Mathur as duplicitous and Tom Fuentes as ruthless. Now, some take offense to this, but that Mathur lies and Fuentes plays hardball are demonstrable facts. They are highly relevant demonstrable facts.
Or maybe I'm just outrageous and vulgar. Could be. I was raised by wolves in the mountains of British Columbia.
Is it true that dept. chairs districtwide receive only stipends and thus cannot fulfill the duties assigned to them?
While chairs are responsible for, among other tasks, addressing the rgeivances of students and evaluating part-time instructors - they cannot possibly do this, right? I mean they can't do this and teach a full load without selling someone short somewhere along the way.
Doesn't this undermine the integrity of our instruction and endanger the articulation of our courses?
Does the accreditation team know about this?
Does the board?
Do they care?
Chunk W. -
I think your title with its optimistic verb chocie "prevails" - is, well, a tad too optimistic.
Just wait.
Grouse:
As far as I know, chairs get stipends and must teach their full load. (I.e., no RT.) And, yes, it is an impossible situation, especially in the case of large departments.
On the other hand, I'm having a bad day, accuracy-wise. Maybe somebody out there who's in the thick of this can weigh in.
I'm gonna have a beer.
Dear 5:29:
I'm surprised you didn't notice that my "prevails" commits a noun/verb number agreement error. I should have said "deceny and common sense prevail."
Sheesh. I'm having a bad day. Another beer!
Thanks, Chunk. I do understand. Your practice is also good for keeping out of google searches! Sort of "hiding in plain sight."
I have another comment about the subject/verb agreement errors. Having an additional beer is generally NOT the recommended cure for these problems. Quite the contrary, in fact...
Gila:
You're right. Those beers didn't help at all. At the time though, they seemed to be working wonderfully!
You're cute when you drink beer.
No he's not.
Yes he is.
I agree - he's cute when he drinks beer.
On another note, is it true that Rebel Girl knows the editor of WEST magazine?
When is she going to grace your blog pages again, Chunk?
Yes, Rebel Girl has many connections. It's amazing who she knows.
She--and Red Emma--promise to be back very soon. I happened to speak with both of them today.
And Limber Lou yesterday.
I'm gonna go off and get cute now.
hubba hubba
Post a Comment