I called Sierra, who reports that the Sunny Bear is "eating like a horse," which is good.Meanwhile, Tiger Ann and I are hangin' out together. She's a sweet kid. Kinda surly, though.
Early indications are that you-know-who is messing with the new round of faculty hiring.
Just remember: we fought hard for the full-time faculty hiring process that we now have. Study it. Learn it. Don't let these people violate it.
(To learn how that policy came about, read The Senate sues the district.)
(To access the policy, go to Board Policies. Go to 4011.1, a pdf file.)
OUR BATTLE OVER THE HIRING POLICY, THE SHORT VERSION:
2002. According to a statute, faculty hiring policies are to be “mutually” agreed upon by the district (i.e., the board) and the faculty (i.e., the academic senates). During the Summer of 2002, Chancellor Mathur established a committee, including no faculty, that developed a new hiring policy. The faculty were not even informed of this committee’s work. The product of the committee—a truly appalling and incompetent policy—was then adopted by the board. ("So sue us," said one trustee.)Here’s what happened next:
Judge Clay Smith ruled that the district had indeed failed to include the faculty in the development of the faculty hiring policy, contrary to law. He thus ordered the district and senates to get together to develop a faculty hiring policy.
But, in the end, the district’s representatives and the senates’ representatives did not see eye to eye on major issues, and so the district unilaterally pushed through the version of the policy that it liked, and it pronounced that policy the product of the committee. That policy was almost as appalling as the one that was neutralized by Smith.
Surprisingly, despite the vociferous objections of the Academic Senates to the new policy, Judge Smith ruled that the policy was indeed the product of “mutual agreement.”
It was an absurd judgment.
2005. The Academic Senates appealed. By summer 2005, the appellate justices unanimously acted to overturn and vacate Smith’s absurd judgment. The board tried one or two last ditch efforts to have the court reconsider, but to no avail. The academic senates had won, and that was that.
The senates had prevailed, period. That meant that the only valid policy was the one developed at the end of 1993 (that one was mutually agreed to). It was a good one from the faculty’s perspective.
The appellate justices urged the parties to work out their differences, and so, in the Fall of 2005, district representatives (namely, Mathur, the instigator of the original unilaterally imposed policy, and Lang, now the board president) and Academic Senate reps (namely, the two senate Presidents and the union president) mutually developed a policy that both sides could agree on. That work was completed by late October, 2005. This mutually ageed to policy is a vast improvement. The policy was adopted by the board in December of 2005.
