Bargaining Update: September 11, 2008 session

Bargaining Update: September 11, 2008

PJCFA members made a strong show of support at the September 11 meeting, with eight faculty members observing the negotiations between Keith Samuels, Board Chief Negotiator, and the PJCFA Bargaining Team. PJCFA was also happy to welcome Tom Wazlavek, UFF Unit Service Director for the Northwest Florida Region, at the table.

As bargaining has been ongoing since February with little agreement, PJCFA’s goal for this session was to achieve consensus with the Board on key proposals, including OPA and intellectual property rights. In addition, the union’s proposal on Article 15 (Salaries), which would have provided for an average 8% raise, as well as laid out a plan for moving average salaries into the top 20% in the state within the next six years, had been on the table for two months with no response whatsoever from the Board.

In an effort to move negotiations along, the PJCFA Bargaining Team re-presented Articles 6 (Faculty Rights), 9 (Working Conditions, Workload, and OPA), 14 (Leaves), and 15 (Salaries). The team also proposed changes to Article 12 (Retrenchment), arguing that the current reeducation allowance of up to one year is insufficient for any faculty members currently holding an AA, AS, or AAS degree.

PJCFA Proposals:

Article 6: Intellectual Property Rights. PJCFA’s proposal asserts that all materials developed in the normal course of teaching a course are the property of the faculty member, not the College. The College would only own an interest in such intellectual property IF it had provided extra compensation, in the form of either release time or a special contract, for the production of such materials. PJCFA’s position is consistent with currently accepted legal precedent. Keith Samuels, the Board’s Chief Negotiator, had no response to PJCFA’s proposal on adding language delineating the faculty’s intellectual property rights.

Article 9: OPA. Dr. Samuels again asserted that the Board is uninterested in PJCFA’s proposal to eliminate the requirement to schedule OPA because the PJCFA has declined to further specify what activities are included in OPA. PJCFA holds that the current language in Article 9 already delineates faculty responsibilities as professionals; thus there is no necessity for adding or expanding upon that language. The Board’s response clearly indicated that it was unfamiliar with the current language and had not known that OPA duties already are outlined in the CBA. Once this was brought to the attention of the Board’s negotiator, he agreed to reevaluate PJCFA’s position.

Article 12: Retrenchment. To aid faculty whose programs may be eliminated, PJCFA proposed that the current one-year educational retrenchment allowance be expanded to two years. This extra year would allow faculty who hold an AA, AS, or AAS the time to successfully complete a BA or BS and acquire SACS credential necessary to teach in a new area. The proposal also includes a prorated repayment requirement if a faculty member fails to stay at the College for an agreed upon two years after College-funded reeducation. The Board is considering this proposal.

Article 14: Sabbatical Leave. The Board and PJCFA have agreed that, should the full-year sabbaticals remain unawarded, one of the two full-year sabbaticals can be converted into a half-year sabbatical.

Article 15: Salaries. The Board has flatly refused to provide any form of pay raise for this year or to discuss a multi-year plan to raise salaries into the top 20% of Florida community college faculty salaries. The PJCFA proposal included both an increase in base pay and provided for pay raises based on years of service to PJC. In addition, the Board refused to consider any increases to overload pay, educational incentive rewards, or promotion compensation. Given the Board’s refusal to discuss any salary proposals, PJCFA has declared that we are currently at impasse on this issue. However, we are ready to continue discussion should the Board bring an offer to the table.

In the last bargaining session, PJCFA and the Board had tentatively agreed to an alternative payroll schedule, in which faculty base salary would be paid over the course of the fiscal year, not just the standard two semester academic year. Dr. Samuels indicated that the Board might not be able to make this change after all.

Board of Trustees Proposals:

Requirement to Assign Midterm Grades: After Dr. Meadows’ announcement at Convocation that the faculty would now be required to assign midterm grades, PJCFA informed him that such a change must be negotiated at the bargaining table. Both faculty workload and the assignment of grades are issues covered in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Dr. Meadows’ announcement of this change to the faculty at large constituted direct dealing with bargaining unit members while bargaining is taking place. Such contact is prohibited by law. Therefore, PJCFA requested that he cease and desist from making such a requirement and that the Board bring language to the table proposing this workload change.

While philosophically PJCFA is not opposed to feedback to students on a regular basis, the requirement to assign midterm grades does increase faculty workload. In addition, in some types of classes (i.e. independent studies, internships, portfolio-based courses), only a small proportion of the student’s work has been completed at midterm; therefore, it would be nearly impossible to give an accurate assessment of a student’s progress at midterm.

On September 11, no such language came to the table. The Board refuses to bring any language to the table. As a result, PJCFA will be filing an Unfair Labor Practice suit against the Board.

Article 11: Administrative Evaluation of Faculty. The Board has proposed that all faculty members be required to develop and maintain a portfolio, which will replace the annual evaluation process. PJCFA opposes such a requirement as it is onerous and unnecessary. Faculty are required to produce a portfolio for promotional purposes, not to evaluate ourselves for the administration.

Article 17.01: Internal Applicants. While the Board has agreed, in theory, to PJCFA’s position that internal applicants should be interviewed as part of the final applicant pool, not in a separate, earlier interview, there is disagreement on the wording. The Board wishes to strike language which requires that failed internal applicants be informed at the same time as the selected candidate. PJCFA argues that collegiality and respect require that internal candidates be informed of the results of the selection process in advance of the grapevine.

Article 17.08: Failed Promotion Candidates. PJCFA’s position is that anyone denied promotion should receive a summary of the promotion committee’s scoring and comments on his or her application. Just as our students need feedback on their projects so that they can improve their performance, so, too, do our faculty require feedback so that they also can improve their performance and applications. The Board is considering this position, concerned mainly with maintaining the anonymity of the Promotion Committee’s members.

PJCFA encourages all interested faculty members to attend the bargaining sessions. The next bargaining meeting is scheduled for 1:30, Thursday, September 25, in Room 416.

Paige Anderson, Chief Negotiator

PJC BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETS TOMORROW

The PJC Board of Trustees will hold its monthly meeting tomorrow at 5:30 in Room 736.

New PJC faculty will be introduced to the Board at this meeting. A complete agenda for the meeting is available at all campus LRCs.

All Board meetings are open to the general public.

IS IT TIME FOR AN EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION SYSTEM?

How many weekends now have we had to follow weather reports to track that particular week's hurricane? How many emails has Dr. Martin sent out to provide us with the latest information? I thank him for keeping us informed, but I couldn't help but wonder on a Monday morning (while listening to the radio trying to learn whether PJC would be open), is there not a better way? Why couldn't a message be sent to my cell phone saying that the decision to hold classes had been made?

Last spring, at a safety meeting asked for by Bldg. 1 faculty, Chief Newland described a cell phone notification system that the college could implement at little or no cost. While I'm not well-versed on the particulars, I do recall that a person would have to "opt-in" and would then receive advertisements on occasion. (Remember that there is no such thing as a free lunch!)

After reading about a gun scare on the UF campus this past weekend, I wondered how would I know if there were a gun scare on my campus? Luckily, the gun at UF turned out to be a water pistol.

Chief Newland and Dr. Martin have developed a system in which every building has someone who is supposed to get word to the people in that building should such a situation occur. That's great, but if I'm teaching in Room 46 and the shooter is in the parking lot in front of Bldg. 5, I'd rather have my cell phone ring than have a colleague dashing around the wings of Bldg. 1.

Hurricanes and other inclement weather, students with behavior disorders, a campus wide open to the public - with a gym that Ted Bundy took a shower in - are all reason for faculty to be concerned about safety issues.

I agree with what Chief Newland said during that Spring meeting with Bldg. 1 faculty - we all need to take ownership for our own safety. Think about what might happen, make a plan, practice that plan and prepare yourself. But shouldn't we also make use of available technology? Are a few minutes of advertising too high a price for such a notification system? I don't think so.