Thursday, August 11, 2011

Music for the moment

Ray's "faculty contract alert"

Brought to you by the people who brought us Tom Fuentes
FACULTY CONTRACT ALERT!

From: Ray Chandos
To: unabauer
Date: Thu, Aug 11, 2011 10:40 pm


FACULTY CONTRACT ALERT
DID YOU KNOW THAT 75 OF YOUR COLLEAGUES WILL GET NO RAISE IN THE CURRENT CONTRACT?
IS THIS FAIR???
SHOULDN’T EVERYONE GET THE SAME RAISE???
WE JUST WANT FAIRNESS FOR ALL FACULTY.
DETAILS BELOW:

To: SOCCCD faculty members

From: Faculty members sold out by our union negotiators in the current contract tentative agreement (Ray Chandos, Michael Channing, Sharon MacMillan, Mike Merrifield, Sherry Miller-White, Ken Woodward)

The Faculty Association negotiating team has signed a tentative agreement with the administration which excludes over seventy-five faculty members from the salary increase given to all other faculty members in the form of step advancement. This blatant discriminatory exclusion is a shocking first in the history of our district. Faculty members at the top of the columns have spent an entire career on a salary schedule which encouraged the acceptance of lower wages early on in return for a promise of a better retirement. After these faculty members have finally reached the highest step, the union has now devised and implemented a plan which breaks that promise. The union has not even had the courtesy to negotiate a grandfather provision. The union has negotiated a one time, off-the-schedule approximately one thousand dollar check for these faculty members and is asking them to vote for a three-year contract with no other monetary incentive. The union leadership does not care that this contract will have a devastating effect on the retirement and lives of these faculty members. In a secretive and divisive move, the union leadership is forcing a quick vote asking the remaining faculty to vote themselves a raise by approving the contract which excludes and insults long time employees. It seems that the District and union collaborators have found the money for everything else they want except for this segment of the faculty. In fact money is not the issue at all. The union leadership says the district is worried about the public perception. Apparently the District is not worried about the public perception of administrators’ salaries and spending projects and all the other monetary provisions of the contract which are public information anyway. The District, as always, is just trying to spend less money in the classroom and apparently the union leadership has bought into their arguments and decided to sell out a big chunk of their membership. Certainly the District appreciates the union’s consent to give only part of the faculty raises. Earlier the union leaders ignored pleas not to support the retirement incentive the District asked them to request until the District agreed to leave the money saved in the classroom. The union leadership ignored pleas last spring to do their legally mandated duty of fair representation for all bargaining unit members. This is the most blatantly unfair, lopsided and discriminatory contract ever negotiated. Not only are there unfair salary proposals, but discriminatory lab compensation decisions were made arbitrarily by the union leadership. Many faculty are confused about what the contract means for them. We are requesting that the union leadership provide a list specifying the monetary incentive each faculty member will receive in this negotiations round. Hypothetical cases for example: Alden, Beverly $35,000 (from step advancement multiplied by years collected plus increased reassigned time for Faculty Association leadership) Hughes, Bob $130,000 (from retirement incentive, changes in part time compensation, increased union reassigned time) Norris, Mary $1,000 (from the bad luck of being a second class citizen under the current contract negotiations for salary and lab compensation) If the Faculty Association would provide such a list, every voting faculty member could not only review the monetary benefits he/she would receive but could also see how his/her vote on this contract will affect all colleagues. It is unfortunate that the union negotiating team decided to exclude a large segment of the faculty from representation instead of negotiating a grandfather provision elevating the compensation of this group in a way equivalent to other faculty members. It is a cavalier misuse of power for the union leadership to arbitrarily decide who gets salary and lab compensation. It is amazing that the team would sign away the rights of people they are legally bound to defend.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS The Faculty Association negotiating team has told us that is necessary to stiff (or discriminate against) experienced faculty members because the Trustees insist on it in order to protect their political images. Miraculously, the Trustees are unconcerned about the political appearance of increasing reassigned time for union leadership to 60 OSH (the Faculty Association worked for decades on 20 OSH). Recent investigations so far have found that ALL sources blamed by the union leadership for the current contract disaster (such as CTA advice, the District administration, and the Board of Trustees) contend that the SOCCCD union negotiating team itself promoted and wants this contract. Why would the union leadership intentionally sell out certain groups of faculty? Why did union leaders blatantly ignore the pleas of faculty members last spring? We can only speculate about individual union leaders’ motivations which could cause them to place self interest or personal, ideologically-based positions above benefits for the faculty as a whole. ALL faculty will some day reach the top of a column. This is a very dangerous precedent to set for all faculty.

WHAT CAN WE DO? It is possible to reverse this state of affairs. Although the fact that the union team has already signed the agreement to sell us out makes it much more difficult, it is possible to reverse the egregious decision. It is possible to make this contract work for all faculty. We must convince the union negotiating team to cancel the vote on this untenable contract and return to the table to negotiate (WITH SUPERVISION) for the interests of all their bargaining unit members.

Really? Adjuncts not invited?

Good grief.
     Not a good sign. Not at all. Sheesh.
     Part-timers, you should show up for this thing and ask why you weren't invited.
     You should just take the goddam thing over (and, no, I don't mean violence, tea-baggers).
     Again, during discussions of the CAFÉ (i.e., the "Center for the Advancement of Faculty Excellence") on the senate floor, we were assured that the center was for all faculty, not just full-timers!


The MRC, the CAFÉ, and the IVC Academic Senate

     Some readers seem obsessed with the factoid that the soon-to-open “Center for the Advancement of Faculty Excellence” (CAFÉ) will be located in the space once occupied by the MRC (the “Media Resources Center”). Some seem to find in this fact evidence of a plot (by faculty? Obama?) to replace the MRC with a “faculty lounge.” That is an incompetent inference.
     Like all Schools at IVC, the School of Humanities and Languages has two senators: I am one of them; the other is my colleague MH. The two of us take turns providing Senate meeting notes to all School members. What follows are all the notes I could find re the CAFÉ:

Jan 6 Academic Senate Meeting:
IVC Faculty Teaching/Excellence CenterLisa [Davis Allen] had an idea and has full support from [VPI] Craig [Justice]. The concept is a space, a home, for faculty to gather, to be trained, with cabinets, house text books, journals, a place for colleagues to talk, a place to explore and test new software and technology, a place to do grant writing, – all things that relate to excellence in in teaching – a place to house people, technology , and support all in one place. We would be able to go into a space/place and meet with peers, discuss teaching, problems, strategies. It would be wide open. A morale booster of sorts. [MH]
Jan 20 Academic Senate Meeting:
FACULTY EXCELLENCE CENTER. Item 16 concerned the “IVC Faculty Excellence Center,” a scheme evidently sunshined during the [Jan 6] general assembly meeting during inservice week (aka oblivion). I missed that. This “center” sounded harebrained to me: mentoring and training and gadgetry and brown baggery, etc. I asked LDA how we can justify opening a new center at a time of huge budget cuts. She declared that this thing wouldn’t cost much. Plus it would be a tangible way that administrators could express their respect for faculty.
     (Somebody whispered to me, “it’s a lounge.”)
     When we voted on it, I voted yes (reluctantly), but one person voted no (Mirriam C of Math). Evidently, this thing is going forward, like new Coke. Picture Michael Jackson, dancing and singing, on fire. [RB]
Feb 3 Academic Senate Meeting:
IVC FACULTY TEACHING/EXCELLENCE CENTER: CAFÉ (Center for the Advancement of Faculty Excellence) is moving forward with the support of the President and Vice President. [MH]
Feb 17 Academic Senate Meeting:
Strategic Planning and Budget Development – … CAFÉ (Center for Academic Faculty Excellence – the idea has be[en] sunshined at the AFTPC [the Academic, Facilities and Technology Planning Committee]– they seemed to like the idea and will consider it over the next few weeks before their next meeting to see what space can be used…. [MH]
March 3 Academic Senate Meeting:
Re Strategic Planning/Budget Development: LDA reported chirpy news about the “CAFÉ,” i.e., the faculty “excellence center” initiative. Administration, she says, still supports the idea (namely, a center or lounge for faculty). I have expressed skepticism, especially in view of new budget realities. I am hoping that, as this initiative develops, we can at least steer it towards benefiting part-timers in some way. [RB]
March 24 Academic Senate Meeting:
There was nothing new to report re Strategic Planning and Budget—e.g., no news regarding our push … for a faculty lounge called CAFÉ. [MH]
April 7 Academic Senate Meeting:
Strategic Planning and Budget Development … CAFÉ (Center for Academic Faculty Excellence) – The go-ahead has been given and there is a place holder for a spot during flex week for an open house. [MH]
April 21 Academic Senate Meeting:
COUCH AND FACULTY ENVIRONMENT (CAFÉ). … LDA … noted that plans for the CAFÉ … are being finalized and she fully expects the scheme to be accepted and whatnot. (Part-timers: my advice is this: when CAFÉ is built, take it over immediately. Lay claim to it. Never let it go.) (Actually, the CAFÉ is supposed to be some sort of faculty “excellence” center. I’m inclined to think it will have little to do with “excellence.” Excellent bullshit maybe.) [RB]
May 5 Academic Senate Meeting:
Strategic Planning and Budget Development … CAFÉ (Center for Academic Faculty Excellence) –The Café will be housed in the MRC (the computer center in the BSTIC building with the metal door and all the windows). This has been agreed to by all parties involved. It will be a multifunctional space that includes a conference area, which can be rented out. [MH]
     —Observe that the CAFÉ initiative was never linked to the MRC—not until May, i.e., three and a half months after the vote to proceed with the CAFÉ concept. As far as I know, the decision to place the CAFÉ in (part of) the MRC space reflected, not a plot or scheme to replace the MRC with a faculty center, but simply the fact that the MRC space became available and it was judged (by "all parties," evidently) to be suitable for the CAFÉ. (Frankly, many of us didn't know what the MRC was. We certainly weren't aware of any roiling issue concerning it.)

COMMENTS:

Anonymous said...
     Look, the CAFÉ is a great idea, I suppose. But what happened to the MRC? Is it being relocated? Will it share a common space with the CAFÉ? Is it no more? Is it being absorbed into other labs? Was there ever a discussion in the Senate about this? If not, why not?
     Given the history of the lack of transparency at IVC and the District—a major theme in this blog—, the fate of the MRC should at least raise a question. I don't assume there was a plot. I just want to know how that space became available and why. That is a valid question. And I don't expect you, BvT, to know the answer to that question. And, obviously, you don't. But, someone out there must know what happened. Is there anyone out there among the Dissent readership who knows what happened to the MRC? (Believers in UFOs, Bigfoot, or the Tea Party need not answer.)
—10:01 AM, August 11, 2011
Anonymous said...
     Interesting...It appears that part-time faculty are excluded from the CAFÉ, at least they are not mentioned on the invitation. This CAFÉ business more and more reeks of pretentious, elitist snobbery!
—11:24 AM, August 11, 2011
NOTE: I seem to recall that, during senate discussions of the CAFÉ, Lisa Davis Allen was very clear that the center is for all faculty, adjuncts included. —BvT

NOTE: On the other hand, when I looked more carefully at the flier for the CAFÉ opening, it does indeed specify "full-time" faculty. That is a bad mistake. I hope it is a mere error, that it is not indicative of what is to become of the CAFÉ. —BvT

Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"

  This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...