While this announcement appeared in today's Green & White, I thought it should be repeated here:
Sabbatical leave is awarded to faculty members for the purpose of professional development or advancement and ultimately benefits the faculty member, students and the college.
Each year, the Board of Trustees awards a number of sabbatical leaves for the following academic year, and now is the time for faculty members to begin preparation of their sabbatical leave proposal.
Faculty members who have completed seven full academic years of full–time service as a faculty member at PJC are eligible to apply for sabbatical leave. Eligibility criteria and application procedures are outlined in Article 14, Section 14.07 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
The deadline to submit a sabbatical leave application to the Vice President for Instructional Affairs is on or before Jan. 10. Because Jan. 10 is a Saturday, applications are due Friday, Jan. 9.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Bargaining Update: October 9 and October 25 sessions
In the last two sessions, there has been some movement by the Administration on a few issues, but the Board of Trustees is standing firm on most of its previous positions.
Other Professional Activities: PJCFA also proposed that the allowed OPA for counseling and library faculty be increased from 1 hour per week to 20% of affected faculty member’s workweek, still substantially less than the OPA time allowed for teaching faculty.
Since the administration’s position on scheduling OPA is that it is time for faculty to be collegial and participate on committees and other voluntary activities, it is only logical that ALL faculty should be allocated sufficient time to be collegial. However, the Board of Trustees has rejected any language increasing the OPA time for library or counseling faculty.
In addition, the BOT’s only offer on OPA has been to allow faculty teaching online courses to schedule half their OPA time off campus. Since the CBA does not contain any language requiring faculty to designate where OPA is served currently, this offer is meaningless.
The BOT has refused to consider removing the requirement to schedule OPA time on the weekly door schedule. WE ARE CURRENTLY AT IMPASSE ON THIS ISSUE (Article 9).
Retrenchment: PJCFA had proposed adding a second paid year for training of faculty whose programs are being eliminated. The Board countered with an offer of a second unpaid year designated for training. At the October 25 session, the PJCFA accepted the Board’s offer of the second unpaid year with paid health insurance benefits.
Portfolios: At the October 9 session, the BOT presented language removing the use of teaching portfolios for both annual evaluations (Article 11) and promotion (Article 17).
PJCFA accepted the removal of teaching portfolios for annual evaluations (Article 11) and countered with a Letter of Agreement concerning the use of portfolios for promotions (Article 17).
The Board has agreed that portfolios will cease to be accepted promotion applications except in the following two cases: (1) any faculty member applying for promotion in 2009 will be allowed to submit either a portfolio or a packet; (2) all faculty members hired between July 1, 2006, and December 31, 2008, will be allowed to use the portfolio to apply for initial credentialing. If initial credentialing is awarded based on the portfolio, faculty members hired as instructors will be automatically promoted to assistant professor. Thereafter, the portfolio will no longer be used at PJC for promotions.
Failed Promotions: PJCFA proposed that any faculty member who is denied promotion despite available promotion spots be given a summary of the Joint Promotion Committee’s notes concerning the candidate’s promotion packet. The BOT has agreed to insert language guaranteeing that the Academic Vice-President will summarize the Committee’s findings in a letter to be delivered to the failed applicant concurrent with the notification of successful candidates.
Alternate Pay Schedule: PJCFA had proposed a year-round pay schedule for faculty, in which the base salary would be divided by 26, to be paid out bi-weekly from the first paydate in August through June 30. On June 30, the remaining pay would be remitted to the faculty member in one lump sum. The BOT has agreed to this alternative pay schedule. Implementation will begin in August 2009, with enrollment into the program beginning in March 2009.
Summer Hours: PJCFA requested that the Board respond specifically to the FA’s proposal to increase summer office hours for teaching faculty by 12 hours per semester and for library and counseling faculty by 6 hours per semester. PJCFA’s position is that 2 office hours/week is inadequate to handle the student and grading workload. The BOT rejected this proposal.
Midterm Grades: After opening convocation, PJCFA President Sweeney wrote a letter to Dr. Meadows stating that we find this new task a violation of the CBA and demanding that the administration bring language on midterm grades to the bargaining table. The BOT and Dr. Meadows have refused to bargain this issue, so PJCFA will be filing a grievance and an Unfair Labor Practices suit against the College over it.
Health Insurance: PJCFA announced that it will be bargaining health insurance during next year’s bargaining cycle. Any concerns or suggestions PJCFA members have about this issue are welcome!
Intellectual Property Rights: PJCFA and the BOT have signed a Letter of Agreement concerning a process by which faculty and administration will form a white-paper committee to hammer out language acceptable to both parties. Under terms of the LOA, the committee will begin meeting in December and finish in April, with conclusions to be presented during the next bargaining cycle.
Salary Plan: At the October 9 meeting, PJCFA iterated its understanding of the tight budget for this year. However, PJCFA reiterated that the College has an almost 20 year history of refusing to honor its pledge to move faculty salaries into the top 20% in the state, yet has managed to squirrel away a 9.8% fund balance and fund a golden parachute retirement plan for senior administrators. PJCFA emphasized that the FA’s goal is to get a 3 to 6-year plan in place to move faculty salaries in line with the 20% goal.
The BOT said it would further examine the Association’s concerns. At the October 25 meeting, the Board representative stated that he had hoped to have a proposal regarding Article 15.01C (Base Salaries) for the meeting but had not received all the information. He promised to present this information during the next meeting, November 6.
The next (I’m afraid to say final because that appears to jinx the process) bargaining session is Thursday, November 6, at 1:30 in Room 416. It should be interesting as Dr. Samuels has indicated that the Board will present something on salaries.
We would love to pack the house. Please drop by if you can!
Paige Anderson, Chief Negotiator
Other Professional Activities: PJCFA also proposed that the allowed OPA for counseling and library faculty be increased from 1 hour per week to 20% of affected faculty member’s workweek, still substantially less than the OPA time allowed for teaching faculty.
Since the administration’s position on scheduling OPA is that it is time for faculty to be collegial and participate on committees and other voluntary activities, it is only logical that ALL faculty should be allocated sufficient time to be collegial. However, the Board of Trustees has rejected any language increasing the OPA time for library or counseling faculty.
In addition, the BOT’s only offer on OPA has been to allow faculty teaching online courses to schedule half their OPA time off campus. Since the CBA does not contain any language requiring faculty to designate where OPA is served currently, this offer is meaningless.
The BOT has refused to consider removing the requirement to schedule OPA time on the weekly door schedule. WE ARE CURRENTLY AT IMPASSE ON THIS ISSUE (Article 9).
Retrenchment: PJCFA had proposed adding a second paid year for training of faculty whose programs are being eliminated. The Board countered with an offer of a second unpaid year designated for training. At the October 25 session, the PJCFA accepted the Board’s offer of the second unpaid year with paid health insurance benefits.
Portfolios: At the October 9 session, the BOT presented language removing the use of teaching portfolios for both annual evaluations (Article 11) and promotion (Article 17).
PJCFA accepted the removal of teaching portfolios for annual evaluations (Article 11) and countered with a Letter of Agreement concerning the use of portfolios for promotions (Article 17).
The Board has agreed that portfolios will cease to be accepted promotion applications except in the following two cases: (1) any faculty member applying for promotion in 2009 will be allowed to submit either a portfolio or a packet; (2) all faculty members hired between July 1, 2006, and December 31, 2008, will be allowed to use the portfolio to apply for initial credentialing. If initial credentialing is awarded based on the portfolio, faculty members hired as instructors will be automatically promoted to assistant professor. Thereafter, the portfolio will no longer be used at PJC for promotions.
Failed Promotions: PJCFA proposed that any faculty member who is denied promotion despite available promotion spots be given a summary of the Joint Promotion Committee’s notes concerning the candidate’s promotion packet. The BOT has agreed to insert language guaranteeing that the Academic Vice-President will summarize the Committee’s findings in a letter to be delivered to the failed applicant concurrent with the notification of successful candidates.
Alternate Pay Schedule: PJCFA had proposed a year-round pay schedule for faculty, in which the base salary would be divided by 26, to be paid out bi-weekly from the first paydate in August through June 30. On June 30, the remaining pay would be remitted to the faculty member in one lump sum. The BOT has agreed to this alternative pay schedule. Implementation will begin in August 2009, with enrollment into the program beginning in March 2009.
Summer Hours: PJCFA requested that the Board respond specifically to the FA’s proposal to increase summer office hours for teaching faculty by 12 hours per semester and for library and counseling faculty by 6 hours per semester. PJCFA’s position is that 2 office hours/week is inadequate to handle the student and grading workload. The BOT rejected this proposal.
Midterm Grades: After opening convocation, PJCFA President Sweeney wrote a letter to Dr. Meadows stating that we find this new task a violation of the CBA and demanding that the administration bring language on midterm grades to the bargaining table. The BOT and Dr. Meadows have refused to bargain this issue, so PJCFA will be filing a grievance and an Unfair Labor Practices suit against the College over it.
Health Insurance: PJCFA announced that it will be bargaining health insurance during next year’s bargaining cycle. Any concerns or suggestions PJCFA members have about this issue are welcome!
Intellectual Property Rights: PJCFA and the BOT have signed a Letter of Agreement concerning a process by which faculty and administration will form a white-paper committee to hammer out language acceptable to both parties. Under terms of the LOA, the committee will begin meeting in December and finish in April, with conclusions to be presented during the next bargaining cycle.
Salary Plan: At the October 9 meeting, PJCFA iterated its understanding of the tight budget for this year. However, PJCFA reiterated that the College has an almost 20 year history of refusing to honor its pledge to move faculty salaries into the top 20% in the state, yet has managed to squirrel away a 9.8% fund balance and fund a golden parachute retirement plan for senior administrators. PJCFA emphasized that the FA’s goal is to get a 3 to 6-year plan in place to move faculty salaries in line with the 20% goal.
The BOT said it would further examine the Association’s concerns. At the October 25 meeting, the Board representative stated that he had hoped to have a proposal regarding Article 15.01C (Base Salaries) for the meeting but had not received all the information. He promised to present this information during the next meeting, November 6.
The next (I’m afraid to say final because that appears to jinx the process) bargaining session is Thursday, November 6, at 1:30 in Room 416. It should be interesting as Dr. Samuels has indicated that the Board will present something on salaries.
We would love to pack the house. Please drop by if you can!
Paige Anderson, Chief Negotiator
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Mid-term Grades
As October 20 - mid-term - draws closer, faculty have begun asking me, "What do I do about mid-term grades?" The short and simple answer is that we all will comply. Failure to comply could be viewed as gross insubordination and place the faculty within the parameters of Article 17.03(B)(3) - Disciplinary Action.
This does not mean that nothing will be done. The Administration has recently indicated its willingness to meet with PJCFA to discuss any impact identified and resulting from the mid-term grading process. PJCFA has already drafted grievance and ULP (unfair labor practice) documents to be filed should that step become necessary. Of course, PJCFA prefers that an acceptable resolution be reached through discussion at the bargaining table.
Which segues nicely to a plug for a reminder about bargaining on Thursday, October 9 at 1:30pm in Room 416. Paige Anderson spoke in the Bargaining Update about how much the team appreciates those who have taken the time to attend the bargaining sessions. It's the truth. Until you've sat in that bargaining chair, there's no way to understand how important that support is. Please come if you can and show your support. Thanks!
This does not mean that nothing will be done. The Administration has recently indicated its willingness to meet with PJCFA to discuss any impact identified and resulting from the mid-term grading process. PJCFA has already drafted grievance and ULP (unfair labor practice) documents to be filed should that step become necessary. Of course, PJCFA prefers that an acceptable resolution be reached through discussion at the bargaining table.
Which segues nicely to a plug for a reminder about bargaining on Thursday, October 9 at 1:30pm in Room 416. Paige Anderson spoke in the Bargaining Update about how much the team appreciates those who have taken the time to attend the bargaining sessions. It's the truth. Until you've sat in that bargaining chair, there's no way to understand how important that support is. Please come if you can and show your support. Thanks!
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Bargaining Update: September 25, 2008, session
Bargaining Update: September 25, 2008, session
The Bargaining Team wants to thank the members who have shown up at the last two negotiations for their support. Having other faculty members in the room to witness what the Board’s representative has to say really puts pressure on the Board to act responsibly and negotiate in good faith.
That being said, however, there was little movement on any substantive issues during the session.
Article 9: Other Professional Activities. After reviewing PJCFA’s proposal to cease scheduling OPA hours, Keith Samuels, the Board’s Chief Negotiator, rejected it in principle although he did offer one consolation prize: that those who teach primarily online classes would be able to serve some of their OPA time off campus. Since the CBA already allows ALL faculty members to serve some or all of their OPA off campus, this concession is meaningless.
Article 11: Administrative Evaluation of Faculty. PJCFA responded to the Board’s proposal which would mandate that all faculty members prepare and maintain a portfolio and that the portfolio be required for each faculty member’s annual evaluation. PJCFA will not support any language which mandates the production of such a portfolio for all faculty or which requires that a portfolio be the basis of the annual evaluation. In addition, PJCFA asserts that some department managers are out of compliance with the current requirement to perform annual classroom evaluations of faculty members, endangering affected faculty members’ chances of promotion as those evaluations are required portions of the portfolio.
Article 15: Salaries. The Board still declines to make any alternate salary proposal or to consider increases to overload, promotion, or educational incentive pay. However, it has asked that we continue negotiating over the extended payroll option. This method would allow faculty to divide their annual base salary over the 26 bi-weekly college payroll dates so as to ease our budgeting for summer. Both sides agreed to work on the language for this section of Article 15.
Article 6: Intellectual Property Rights. The Board proposed that a white-paper committee be delegated to compose language mutually agreeable to the Board and PJCFA on this issue. PJCFA has declined to participate in such a committee since the white-paper committee from the previous bargaining year (concerning distance learning) has yet to present any decisions. Dr. Samuels agreed to check on the progress of this previous committee and revisit this topic later.
Article 6: Student Rights. In an earlier session, the Board proposed language which safeguarded students’ rights to meet with faculty to discuss materials used for evaluation purposes. PJCFA asserts that student rights are not covered under the CBA, a contract between the Board and the faculty covering wages, benefits, and working conditions of faculty, not students. PJCFA suggested that such language would be appropriate in the Student Handbook. Dr. Samuels concurred.
The next bargaining meeting will be held October 9, 2008, at 1:30 in Room 416. We would love to see the room overflow, so feel free to show up and support your union!
If you have any questions, concerns, or suggestions, please contact Paige Anderson, Chief Negotiator (ext. 2167), or Charlotte Sweeney, PJCFA President (ext. 2007).
The Bargaining Team wants to thank the members who have shown up at the last two negotiations for their support. Having other faculty members in the room to witness what the Board’s representative has to say really puts pressure on the Board to act responsibly and negotiate in good faith.
That being said, however, there was little movement on any substantive issues during the session.
Article 9: Other Professional Activities. After reviewing PJCFA’s proposal to cease scheduling OPA hours, Keith Samuels, the Board’s Chief Negotiator, rejected it in principle although he did offer one consolation prize: that those who teach primarily online classes would be able to serve some of their OPA time off campus. Since the CBA already allows ALL faculty members to serve some or all of their OPA off campus, this concession is meaningless.
Article 11: Administrative Evaluation of Faculty. PJCFA responded to the Board’s proposal which would mandate that all faculty members prepare and maintain a portfolio and that the portfolio be required for each faculty member’s annual evaluation. PJCFA will not support any language which mandates the production of such a portfolio for all faculty or which requires that a portfolio be the basis of the annual evaluation. In addition, PJCFA asserts that some department managers are out of compliance with the current requirement to perform annual classroom evaluations of faculty members, endangering affected faculty members’ chances of promotion as those evaluations are required portions of the portfolio.
Article 15: Salaries. The Board still declines to make any alternate salary proposal or to consider increases to overload, promotion, or educational incentive pay. However, it has asked that we continue negotiating over the extended payroll option. This method would allow faculty to divide their annual base salary over the 26 bi-weekly college payroll dates so as to ease our budgeting for summer. Both sides agreed to work on the language for this section of Article 15.
Article 6: Intellectual Property Rights. The Board proposed that a white-paper committee be delegated to compose language mutually agreeable to the Board and PJCFA on this issue. PJCFA has declined to participate in such a committee since the white-paper committee from the previous bargaining year (concerning distance learning) has yet to present any decisions. Dr. Samuels agreed to check on the progress of this previous committee and revisit this topic later.
Article 6: Student Rights. In an earlier session, the Board proposed language which safeguarded students’ rights to meet with faculty to discuss materials used for evaluation purposes. PJCFA asserts that student rights are not covered under the CBA, a contract between the Board and the faculty covering wages, benefits, and working conditions of faculty, not students. PJCFA suggested that such language would be appropriate in the Student Handbook. Dr. Samuels concurred.
The next bargaining meeting will be held October 9, 2008, at 1:30 in Room 416. We would love to see the room overflow, so feel free to show up and support your union!
If you have any questions, concerns, or suggestions, please contact Paige Anderson, Chief Negotiator (ext. 2167), or Charlotte Sweeney, PJCFA President (ext. 2007).
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
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
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
Monday, September 15, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)