Bargaining Highlights: May 29, 2012

What was billed as the final bargaining session of the year turned out to be anything but that.  Here is a summary of what took place.

Article 5:  Our proposal:

5.08           Timely Notification of Board of Trustees’ Agenda

The PSCFA shall have access to the monthly Board of Trustees’ agendas no later than 12 business days prior to each scheduled meeting. Should the agenda not be provided within this time frame, the College shall waive the required 10-day notification for addressing the Board.

Their response-No!  We should be able to guess what will be on the agenda and make a request to speak to the BOT without having actually seen the agenda.

Article 9: Our proposal (posted on the PSCFA website)-Declined!

Their proposal:  Add language specifying that a non-instructional duty day consists of 7 hours of OPA (All College Day language?). They would also like to strike the language requiring that they consult faculty when they increase the class size by  more than 10%.  They did remove language requiring OPA hours to be worked on campus.

Article 11: Biggest hang up- they are proposing language which would allow anonymous student evaluations to  be used to support disciplinary action

Article 17: They, after rejecting all of our proposals, proposed major changes in the timeline to be awarded  tenure, extended the minimum time frame for reaching full professor from 9 years to 12 years, and struck protective language in the discipline process.

Article 15: Our proposal (posted on the PSCFA website) contained an entire plan to help us secure a more equitable compensation plan and included safeguards to help alleviate current and prevent future salary inversion and compression problems. We concluded bargaining for the 2011 year with a promise from administration to address inversion and compression problems.  Once again, they have not kept their promise.  All of our requests were rejected, and they, in turn, proposed a flat 2% raise in a year that has recorded a 3.6% cost of living increase. A modest increase to promotion pay was offered as well.

Please make plans to attend our next bargaining session. It will be held on Friday, June 8, at 9:30 in the Atwell Room (Room 2052 in the Library).  We need your support!  Much is on the line--promotions, continuing contract, salary.  Lend your voice and your support by attending! 

              

CALL TO ACTION: Proposed Rule Change Continuing Contracts for College Faculty

To College Faculty,

The State Board of Education is conducting a rulemaking hearing on June 5 in Jacksonville on Rule 6A-14.0411: Issuance of Continuing Contracts for college faculty Tom Auxter, UFF President, and Mark Richard, UFMDC President, will offer testimony as the union presidents. We need as many faculty to testify from their perspective. They should be diverse in terms of colleges, disciplines and years of teaching experience. We are asking for commitments to attend now and also submit your comments online.

Submit your comment online

All faculty should go online and register their opposition to the proposed rule change. To submit a comment on this rule, go to: https://app1.fldoe.org/rules/default.aspx and click on 6A-14.0411.

Do not use your school email address to post comments to the website.

State that you are “writing in opposition to the proposed rule change.”

State your name, college and discipline.

Talking points on continuing contracts:

Faculty are awarded a continuing contract after completing a rigorous process that includes:

• Completing three (3) full successive years of services.

• Be reappointed

• Be recommended to the college President.

• Completed faculty development hours.

• Be recommended for a continuing contract by the College President.

• Complete performance evaluations for each year.

• Be approved by the College Board of Trustees.

• Faculty on a continuing contract may be terminated for just cause.

Ed MitchellExecutive Director

United Faculty of Florida
FEA, NEA, AFT, AFL-CIO

850-224-8220 Fax: 850-222-1767
(813) 240-9301 - CellEd.Mitchell@floridaea.org
www.UnitedFacultyofFlorida.org

Notice of Development of Rulemaking

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

State Board of Education

RULE NO.: RULE TITLE: 6A-14.0411: Issuance of Continuing Contracts

PURPOSE AND EFFECT: The purpose of this rule development is to review the current process of issuing continuing contracts to determine necessary changes. The effect will be a rule aligned with Florida Statutes.

SUBJECT AREA TO BE ADDRESSED: Issuance of Continuing Contracts.

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY: 1001.02(1), (9), 1012.83, 1012.855 FS.

LAW IMPLEMENTED: 1012.83 FS.

A RULE DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP WILL BE HELD AT THE DATE, TIME AND PLACE SHOWN BELOW:

DATE AND TIME: June 5, 2012, 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

PLACE: Florida State College at Jacksonville, South Campus, 11901 Beach Boulevard, Wilson Center, Lakeside Room, M-1140, Jacksonville, FL 32246

Proposed changes

6A-14.0411 Issuance of Continuing Employment Contracts for Instructional Personnel Employees

District Boards of Trustees shall develop and maintain a policy governing the issuance of continuing contracts and other employment contracts for full-time instructional personnel employees. The term ‘instructional personnel employees’ includes full time faculty, instructors, counselors and librarians and other positions as defined by the College. Continuing contracts and multiple year contracts may are to be awarded for service in full-time to selected faculty members instructional employees capacity as determined by the college consistent with the needs and policies of the college and the following rules:

1. In order to be eligible for a continuing contract or multiple year contracts selected instructional employees must meet the following minimum requirements:

a. Completion completing of at least three (3) five (5) years of satisfactory service in the same college during a period not in excess of five (5) years with such service being continuous except for leave duly authorized and granted. Each District Board of Trustees shall establish criteria and conditions which must be met before a continuing contract or multi-year contract may be awarded.

b. Recommendation by the president and approval by the board for a continuing contract or multiple year contracts based on successful performance of duties, and demonstration of professional competence pursuant to criteria established by the District Board of Trustees and college need.

c. Each District Board of Trustees may establish full-time instructional positions that are not eligible for continuing contract.

d. Each District Board of Trustees may establish oOther criteria for the award of a continuing contracts or multiple year contracts. Ccolleges may consider including, without limitations, educational qualifications, efficiency, compatibility, character and capacity to meet the educational needs of the community, and the length of time the duties and responsibilities of this position are expected to be needed.

2. Each District Board of Trustees may establish eligibility criteria for the award and maintenance of multiple year contracts for instructional employees.

3. Each District Board of Trustees may establish oOther criteria for the award of a continuing contracts or multiple year contracts. Ccolleges may consider including, without limitations, educational qualifications, efficiency, compatibility, character and capacity to meet the educational needs of the community, and the length of time the duties and responsibilities of this position are expected to be needed.

4. Colleges shall provide in writing to faculty instructional employees a copy of the criteria for a continuing contract or multiple year contracts.

5. The continuing contract shall be effective at the beginning of the annual college contractual periods.

(5) Each employee issued a continuing contract or multiple year contract shall be entitled to continue an instructional faculty position at the college without the necessity for annual nomination or reappointment until the employee individual resigns from the continuing contract, or the multiple year contract expires, except as otherwise provided in this rule.

(6) Each District Board of Trustees shall establish performance criteria for the regular, ongoing evaluation of all instructional personnel employees without regard to contract status. These criteria may be measured over a period not to exceed three (3) years and must be satisfied to retain or renew contract status. *

a. The college may dismiss an employee instructional employee under continuing contract, or return the employee to another annual contract status, for failure to meet post award performance criteria pursuant to Section 6, for cause in accordance with College policies and procedures upon recommendation by the president and approval by the board pursuant to college policy. The president shall notify the instructional employee in writing of the recommendation and upon approval by the board shall afford the instructional employee with the right to formally challenge oppose the president’s recommendation to the board prior to board action a hearing in accordance with the policies and procedures of the college. The decision of the board shall be final. As an alternative to the hearing rights provided by college policies and procedures, the employee may elect to request an administrative hearing in accordance with the guidelines of Chapter 120, Florida Statues, by filing a petition with the board within twenty one (21) days of receipt of the recommendation of the president.

b. The college may remove an employee from continuing contract or multiple year contract status by termination or return to another contract status for failure to meet the post-award performance criteria established pursuant to section (6) of this Rule. In each event, the instructional employee shall not be entitled to challenge the action only except through the college’s instructional employee grievance process or the applicable college dispute resolution process.

c. The college may dismiss an instructional employee under continuing contract or multiple year contract Uupon consolidation, reduction, or elimination of a community college program, insufficient teaching load or restriction of the required duties of a position by the board. The board may determine on the basis of the criteria set forth in subsections (1) and (2), which instructional employees should be retained on the continuing or annual or multiple year contract and which shall be dismissed or returned to an annual contract. The decision of the board shall not be controlled by any previous contractual relationship. In the evaluation of these factors, the decision of the board shall be final.

(7)Any instructional employee holding a continuing contract or multiple year contract who accepts an offer of annual employment in a capacity other than that in which the continuing contract or multiple year contracts was awarded may be granted an administrative leave of absence pursuant to the college’s administrative rules.

Stalled Bargaining

Although PSCFA closed out negotiations for the 2011-2012 session early based on promises from the administration to quickly address specific areas of concern, those promises have, yet again, been broken. Not only has the administration failed to discuss salary compression issues, stating that the issue is “complicated” and it “needs more time to research the problem,” it has also failed to respond to PSCFA proposals for Article 9 dealing with OPA as well as Article 15 concerning compensation.


The latest reason for delay? Apparently the administration’s team can’t put any salary offers on the table without approval from the Board of Trustees, which doesn’t meet until May 22. And why hasn’t the administration made any suggestions to the BoT so far? Because the Powers That Be were waiting on a final budget from the state.

Of course, a final budget wasn’t necessary to increase Keegan compensation by 2% across the board. Nor did the administration need a final budget to selectively increase compensation for 20 professional/career service employees based on a survey begun in December 2010.

Gee, how long has the faculty team been asking for a compensation study, comparing our salaries to those of faculty in neighboring institutions? But, as we all know, equity in faculty salaries is at the bottom of the administration’s list of concerns.

Using the same institutions surveyed by the outside consulting firm to determine that the 20 professional employees were being underpaid, PSCFA quickly found that PSC faculty are also underpaid. What a surprise! So, when should we expect our adjustment? Adjustment? Ferris?

Bargaining Minutes: April 19, 2012

The bargaining session on April 19, 2012, proved to be uneventful for the most part.  Below is a copy of PSCFA’s minutes. 

Present for PSCFA:  Jennifer Brahier, Paige Anderson, Tom Wazlavek, Keith Prendergast, Carla Williams, Blaine Wall

Present for PSC:  Rob Larkin, Keith Samuels, Margaret Libby, Ed Stout

Visitors:  Jo Spencer

1.       Jo Spencer has been working behind the scenes to address forms at the back of the CBA.  She shared Appendix Q. A heading or a set of instructions has been merged into the appendix. 

2.       Rob Larkin provided a state of bargaining: 

a.       Tentative Agreements (TA’s) have been reached for Articles 1-4 and 13.

b.      Articles 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 are still out

c.       Article 15 in state of flux with budget.  Jennifer asked why salaries are not a priority when budgeting.  No satisfactory answer was given.

3.       Article 5:  Administration is not interested in waiving the time period required to request a place on the agenda.  PSCFA has asked that the time period be waived if the BOT agenda is published later than 10 business days before a BOT meeting—the required time to request a place on the agendaKeith Samuels:  Why fix it if there have only been two problems?

4.       Article 6: PSCFA argued that seniority should be based on rank and years in rank

5.       Article 7:  PSCFA maintains that Board rights should not include the word college

6.       Article 9 response being developed.  The administration’s response to Article 9 and OPA will be presented with any financial offer that is made for Article 15. 

7.       Article 10:   TA’ed:   Extended time to file with arbitrator to 30 days.  Agreed that both sides may mutually agree to an arbitrator that is not listed. 

8.       Article 11 issues:  PSCFA argued that the proposed feedback timeline for evaluation is too long.  We disagreed with new language denying a faculty member’s input on a second evaluator.  We fought against disciplinary action being taken against a faculty member based on anonymous student evaluations

9.       Jennifer presented copies of Article 17.  Tom Wazlavek addressed disciplinary action in 17.

10.   TA’ed Article 13.

The next bargaining session will be held Tuesday, May 8 at 9:00 in the Atwell Room.  If you have any questions about this bargaining session, please contact Jennifer Brahier.

Time for a Midnight Snark

Three facts

1.      Dr. Meadows, at a department meeting recently, said several times that perception is reality.

2.      Dr. Meadows, at the same department meeting, admitted that the college has a morale problem (which he tried to water down by adding that any organization this size has a morale problem, and a problem which he seems to think is the sole function of salaries).

3.      At the last bargaining session, April 5^th, one of the administration representatives began the session by putting on a stern face and leveling several “charges,” for lack of a better term, at PSCFA. One of those charges was that the union was responsible for lowering the morale of the college.

Well.

 Most of the other charges leveled at us were, upon closer examination, simply the result of misunderstanding by one side or the other. Fine. That happens.

But to say that WE are responsible for low morale at the college? To say that WE are the reason that sometimes the bargaining sessions seem contentious? To indicate that various vice presidents, department heads, secretaries, and faculty of the college are walking around mopey-faced because of the union?   

As evidence, we were offered the following: 1. “Someone” (unnamed) from the union leadership had made snarky comments to someone else (also unnamed) about the recent selective raises given to selected admin/professional types (not faculty) and to Keegan employees; and 2. We had had the effrontery to actually print the raise graph for those admin/professional types and Keegan employees in the last issue of this publication. These anonymous comments were defined as “malicious.”

When pressed, the admin person refused to be specific about who the “someone” was, what comments were made, to whom they were made, or anything else—just that an anonymous complainant made an anonymous complaint about the fact that an anonymous member of the Association “leadership” said something “malicious” about the fact that the administration chose to raise, without any explanation, the pay of twenty people and Keegan employees.

The same administration that has not given us any decent raise in …. how long?

The same administration that has enough money (according to Dr. Meadows) to hire three (THREE) companies (and then fire two of them) to come up with a new logo for the college.

The same administration that, apparently, perceived a morale problem with SOME administrators and commenced to study wages for administrators so that our administrators, SOME of them, would not be all teary eyed when they got paid?

But didn’t bother to study faculty salaries or career service salaries?

 No wonder the maintenance people are walking around with long faces and snarling at the union leadership. No wonder we are booed when we walk past a secretary’s desk. No wonder we are pelted with rotten fruit at All College Day functions (doubly sad because that day is a real morale raiser, as we all know).

Yup, Ed, perception is reality.

We imagine that if you were to take a survey and ask “Who DO YOU PERCEIVE is responsible for the low morale at the college—1. snarky faculty union leadership members or 2. top administration or 3. (write in candidate)…. Come to think of it, instead of US imagining, why don’t YOU imagine what the answer would be, what the perception is. And therefore what the reality is.

 As to contentious bargaining, all of the people for the Association were surprised, nay, shocked. Yes, each side can be somewhat heated while explaining its position. Both sides take shots at the other in, what we thought was, good natured ways. Yes, Jennifer Brahier is a math wonk. Yes, Keith Prendergast can be a smart-ass. Yes, Keith Samuels is getting retirement pay AND Keegan pay ($30 an hour). Yes, a Tallahassee lawyer paid more than any faculty member is on the administration side of the table. Jibes were traded about those things and others. We felt that those jibes were good-natured. Apparently not.

Apparently, because one of the members of the Association leadership is snarkily going around lowering morale by making anonymous comments to anonymous complainers, the administration side of the table is hurt and dismayed. Feels threatened. Probably kick the dog when they get home.

Wow, that last paragraph was snarky. Please, all employees at PSC, buck up. Smiley faces, everyone. Everything is fine, in fact wonderful, except for that snarky union thing.

Drink with an umbrella in it, anyone?

Admin did not respond to our proposals for Article 15 (salaries), but the state budget has not been approved, so the delay on that is understandable, despite the $50,000+ that the BOT approved for twenty selected admin/professional types, not to mention the additional outlay for the 2% increase for Keegan employees BEFORE the state budget was approved.

At the last meeting, the only major change (really, lack of change) in admin’s proposals is no change for sick leave buyout. Obviously, studying sick leave buyout at other colleges and finding that most pay up to 100% did not occur to the administration—just studying salaries for admin/professional people so that upward adjustments could be made for SOME.

Sorry, more snark snuck in that last paragraph.

And you didn’t hear it here, but the admin has hired three of the four horsemen of the apocalypse as admin types, and is negotiating to hire the fourth.

Sorry, that’s probably malicious.

We won’t lower your morale any more because we have been put in our place—our happy place.

End of Session Legislative Report

from Tom Auxter
UFF President

Before the 2012 legislative session, leaders of the House and Senate, as well as the Governor, warned that higher education faced severe budget cuts this year. They also called for a transformation of the structure and curriculum of public universities and colleges to reduce expenses even more in the future. At the end of the session, legislators approved the budget cuts but postponed the structural transformation process until 2013. Faculty can now survey the economic damage inflicted by the leadership of the House and Senate. In the attached report prepared by Pat Dix, the Florida Education Association (FEA) government relations specialist for higher education, we have the details of what legislators actually did in each category of funding. (Appendix B-1 is the Florida College System. Appendix B-2 is the State University System.) The damage could be even worse if the Governor vetoes tuition increases in the General Appropriations Act (HB 5001), or if the Governor fails to veto the proposed new 12th university (SB 1994), which was the quid pro quo of the Senate Budget Chair for passing a budget this year. (Members of FEA received an email blast message asking them to email the Governor to veto the 12th university bill.) You can also ask the Governor to veto HB 5005, which shifts retirement costs from the employer to employees for participants in ORP. After the Governor decides (by April 21), I will send a report on how higher education fared in the session and on the threats faculty face in the 2013 session.

To contact the Governor on vetoes affecting higher education, faculty can email him at: http://www.flgov.com/contact-governor-mockup/ Click on Email the Governor. Remember to send messages from a private computer. One or two polite sentences stating what you support or oppose is most effective.

Note from Pat Dix:
How to find the Final Version of a bill
The simplest way to see the final version of a bill is to go to www.myfloridahouse.gov and click on the top tab “Bills.” Senate bills are always even numbers (SB 00) and House bills and always odd numbers (HB 11). You may choose either chamber or “both.” Enter the bill number and the history of the bill will come up. Go to the section on “Bill Text” and choose the top entry, which is the most recent version of the bill. An enrolled bill is one being sent to the Governor. The End of Session Legislative Report can be found here: http://www.unitedfacultyofflorida.org/legislativenews/2012_0330_EOS-Appendix-B.pdf

Final Budget Conference Agreement for Florida College System

FROM TOM AUXTER, President, UFF

See the FL College System (FCS) summary of the final budget conference agreement regarding state college and community college issues (summarized below, plus attachments).

Colleagues:

Earlier this evening the Conference process reached its conclusion on the budget, proviso language, and some of the Conforming Bill items (primarily related to the Florida Polytechnic University Issue). As all of our existing Conforming Bill issues have already been agreed to, we are not expecting any changes, but you should leave open the possibility that some could occur that could impact our college system.

We expect the General Appropriations Act to be prepared and distributed sometime before midnight tomorrow, in order to allow the required 72 hour cooling off period before the Act can be voted on. We will be able to complete and distribute an updated college-by-college run at that time. Until then, I have attached the final Conference Budget Side-by-Side for the year, for your review. In addition, I offer the following summary reports prepared by College Budget Office staff:


FINAL CONFERENCE AGREEMENT 3-5-12

Attached is a side-by-side comparison with the current year budget, the initial House and Senate budget proposals, and the final conference agreement. The corresponding line numbers from the side-by-side are included for reference.

1. Total appropriations of $1.066 billion. [Line 50]

2. Increase of $28.3 million (2.8%) for the Community College Program Fund [Line 53], including:
a. Fund shift of $50,448,902 from General Revenue to Lottery (Educational Enhancement Trust Fund) Lines [Lines 4 & 8]

b. Full funding of $7.3 million for Operating Cost of New Facilities. [Lines 9 and 10]

c. Net increase of $761,007 for FRS adjustments (though legislative intent as that these changes and corresponding changes to the colleges’ employer contribution rates should net out to zero). [Lines 11 through 13]

- Increase of $7.2 million to cover FRS Normal Costs

- Reduction of $3.9 million to reduce Investment Plan allocation rates

- Reduction of $2.6 million to rebalance contribution rates for Optional Retirement Plans

- These are adjustments made to offset employer contribution rate changes for next year, enacted elsewhere in legislation.

d. 5% increase in tuition and fees (generates approximately $45.5 million if all colleges raise their current tuition by the 5%). [Line 52]

e. Additional $36 million allocated to specific colleges. [Lines 17 through 31] – No General Revenue reduction took place [Line 15] to support these projects. This was new funding to the System.

f. A contingent authorization for $430,074 to be transferred from the Putnam County School District to St. Johns River State College to support the transfer and operation of the county’s Adult Education program. [Line 27]

g. CCLA funding transferred to Florida Virtual Campus (FVC). Funding reduced 5% and portion transferred to University budget so FVC is funded equally in both budgets. [Lines 16 and 48]

h. Including tuition, there is an increase of 3.8% to the CCPF (provided every college increases tuition by 5%). [Line 54]

3. $3 million nonrecurring restored for 2+2 Partnerships. [Line 33]

4. Distance Learning Consortium transferred to FVC, including reduction of 5%. [Lines 36 and 48]

5. 15% reduction to Commission on Community Service. [Line 38]

6. No funds provided for Philip Benjamin Matching Grants. [Line 39]