Thursday, November 22, 2012

FSCJ's Wallace isn't only state college president with lucrative contract


FSCJ's Wallace isn't only state college president with lucrative contract
One Florida college president will get free health care — premiums, deductibles and co-pays — for life.
Another might, at the board’s discretion, get the college-issued car he’s been driving when he leaves the college.
And the president of the largest state college has been promised a yearlong paid sabbatical and tenured teaching spot when he’s ready to step down.
All likely at taxpayers’ expense.
Some higher education observers say perks like that are egregious for public institutions, while others call them necessary measures to retain top talent. But one thing these and all 28 Division of Florida Colleges system presidents have in common: the Office of the Inspector General is reviewing their contracts and compensation at Gov. Rick Scott’s request.
Florida State College at Jacksonville President Steve Wallace announced his plan to step down last month, following concerns about $4.7 million in wrongly issued Pell Grants and reviews of his expenses. Wallace recently negotiated a $1.2 million exit agreement that prompted the governor to ask for the state investigation.
READ: Florida community college presidents' contracts
But that contract didn’t award him fringe benefits as high-dollar as a select few Florida community and state college presidents are entitled to, a Times-Union review shows.
Seminole State College of Florida’s board has guaranteed that all the health costs for its long-serving president, E. Ann McGee, are paid for life. Lake-Sumter Community College in Leesburg has included a provision to sell or give to President Charles Mojock the car he drives when he leaves, although the value would be deducted out of his severance package. And Miami Dade College President Eduardo Padron will get health premiums covered for life, be allowed to keep his car, and be guaranteed a tenured spot on the faculty with six-figure pay after a paid sabbatical.
But the items that pushed Wallace’s exit into seven figures were not benefits. They were lump sums: the unlimited accrual of vacation time gave him $336,000. A “benefit day” account ­— which awarded Wallace one day’s pay per month until 2010, when it was increased to 1.5 days per month — will give him more than $250,000 at payout.
Five of the other presidents have similar provisions.
Some other colleges could have benefit day programs that are not specified in their president’s contracts; several also allow annual payouts of extra vacation even when they don’t offer unlimited accrual.
Randy Hanna, chancellor of the Division of Florida Colleges, declined to speak about the contracts at FSCJ and other colleges, saying the power to hire, fire and decide compensation lies solely with local trustees. But if the inspector general recommends changes after its governor-ordered investigations, Hanna said he would be listening.
“To the extent the inspector general shows a need for legislative change,” Hanna said, “the division will be directly involved in proposing a change that is best for our students.”
Scott said on Friday that he wants to see the costs of the benefits calculated when the Inspector General’s review is complete. More than half of Floridians make less than $50,000 a year, Scott said, and he will rely on the trustees to understand that this is “somebody’s money.”
“Think about, ‘If that was my money, if that was my company, would I spend money like that?’ ” Scott said. “I think we have to look at how taxpayer money is being spent. … Everyone ought to know.”
‘THERE SHOULD BE TRANSPARENCY’
Contracts don’t give calculations of the value of payout benefits. But the Times-Union reviewed records and college policies that show four other colleges would allow a president to accrue unlimited vacation days for a terminal payout like the one Wallace has. Two others are guaranteed a job at their respective colleges after their departures. The Times-Union reviewed only FSCJ’s peer state and community colleges; it did not include Florida’s university system.
“Add-ons,” as college president compensation expert Jim Finkelstein calls the extra benefits, make it difficult to get a handle on how much these academic leaders actually make.
“Being a public executive, they hold the public trust and should view themselves in the same way as any elected or appointed official of a public institution,” said Finkelstein, a George Mason University professor. “There should be transparency in everything they do — whether it be their expenses or their compensation.”
In Florida’s college system, benefits such as annuities, deferred compensation or “additional pay” boost the total compensation by 28 percent on average. At South Florida State College, only 8 percent of the president’s total compensation comes from sources outside his base salary. On the flip side is Palm Beach State College, where 48 percent of President Dennis Gallon’s income is from deferred compensation and additional pay.
Two other presidents in Florida’s state college system negotiated decidedly lucrative perks.
Padron, the president of Miami Dade College, is guaranteed a year-long sabbatical at his $600,000-plus compensation level, plus a tenured position with just a 10 percent reduction in pay and the “additional pay” he’s given at 31 percent of his base.
Miami Dade College board chairwoman Helen Aguirre Ferre did not return a call seeking comment. College spokesman Juan Mendieta said Padron’s compensation should be compared to his national peers who head public and private institutions.
Six U.S. presidents have appointed Padron to education panels, Mendieta said, and he has elevated the reputation of the college, which has nearly 60,000 full-time equivalent students. That is taken into account when he is compensated, Mendieta said.
“At the end of the day we have a very transparent process here, like many of our peer institutions,” Mendieta said. “Whatever reviews come, if any improvements or innovations can result, we have no issues with that.”
Seminole County’s McGee, whose total compensation is more than $420,000, is the only president in the state system whose college has offered to pay her co-pays and deductibles until her death.
Her contract also says she can keep the home office equipment she’s borrowing and that the college car she drives will be transferred to her ownership when she leaves.
When asked about her perks, McGee said in an email that the college, where about 15,000 full-time equivalent students are enrolled, now grants four-year degrees and is a major economic driver.
“We are without question a major organization that provides affordable educational opportunities that contribute to the growing trained workforce in Central Florida, which is more important than ever,” McGee said. “I have always felt the Seminole State College Board of Trustees has treated me equitably among my peers.”
Seminole State College board chairman Scott Howat said he wasn’t involved in the contracts that gave McGee the benefits but he feels her compensation is fair and appropriate.
“She has a competitive contract that meets her needs and the needs of the college,” he said.
McGee, president since 1996, also gets 10 paid days off per year by the college to do outside consulting work. Howat said he again wasn’t on the board when that perk was negotiated but he supports it because McGee is a recognized expert in high demand for her skills. He said she rarely uses all the days anyway.
“Trustees felt it was good to further our reach and brag on our leader by taking our practices around,” Howat said.
Gallon, who has been president of Palm Beach State College since he left his job as a campus president at FSCJ in 1996, is guaranteed 20 years of health care coverage and premiums. Gallon’s total compensation is nearly $451,000, and the college enrolls about 21,000 full-time equivalent students annually.
Dave Talley, chairman of the Palm Beach State College board, said the provision has been in Gallon’s contract “for a long time” and he doesn’t see anything wrong with continuing his benefits.
“I don’t think this is totally uncommon with other businesses,” Talley said.
Raymond D. Cotton, a Washington-based attorney who specializes in presidential compensation and contracts, said agreements between boards and their presidents must be examined in context. Benefits included in contracts often evolve over years to keep presidents from looking for jobs that offer more.
“I’ve never met a board that’s interested in giving away the institution’s money,” Cotton said. “If they struck a deal like that, there was a reason for it.”
CONTRACTS NOT ALWAYS GUARANTEES
Wallace, who has been president at FSCJ since 1997, was guaranteed a payout worth up to $851,000 by the contract he had in place before October.
But contracts sometimes are cast aside when it comes to a president’s exit.
FSCJ staff came up with four scenarios showing potential payouts for Wallace’s departure. They ranged from $362,000, for accrued benefits if he were fired with cause, to $851,000, including severance, if he were fired without cause.
Ultimately the board agreed to award him a new agreement valued at $1.2 million, which grew $477,000 above the previous calculations because it gave him a consulting role through June 2014.
A similar package was also contracted for the former president of Edison State College in Fort Myers, which has about 12,000 full-time students. Kenneth Walker’s total compensation was more than $800,000 and the highest in the system in the year before he was fired by the board. His most recent contract gave him a yearlong paid sabbatical with access to an office and all equipment, and a teaching position after he left.
An Edison spokeswoman said the college did not end up honoring the provisions.
“All of Dr. Walker’s rights in reference to his contract were terminated with the settlement agreement,” spokeswoman Teresa Morgenstern said.
In a mediated agreement, Walker left with a settlement valued at $540,000 and agreed not to sue.
Last week, negotiations brought the payout down from the most expensive scenario in the president’s contract at the State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota.
Lars Hafner, president of the college since 2008, had almost four years left in his five-year contract when the board voted to offer a $363,000 exit package. The contract specified the college should pay him for his entire contract term.
Eric Robinson, who the governor appointed last month to the board at State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota, said he was asked during the interview process how he felt about the severance given to Wallace. He said that kind of big payout wouldn’t happen at his college and he’s largely happy with their settlement — but only because automatic renewal and salary provisions forced their hand and they needed to avoid litigation.
“You think this is bad, wait until you see what we could’ve been liable for … because of the contract,” Robinson said. When the board of trustees abdicates certain responsibilities and duties so they don’t have to make those tough decisions, so they have an acrimonious relationship, this is the result. You don’t want to … end up giving up the farm. …”
At FSCJ, the payout is still not final. Though the board agreed to Wallace’s payment request, as of Friday board chairwoman Gwen Yates still had not signed it. She said the board could discuss it again at its meeting on Tuesday.

ntributw � h � @� inuing growth and development.
(a) Periodic review shall occur at least every three (3) years.
(b) Periodic review shall include, but not be limited to, factors as evidence of:
1. quantifiable measurable effectiveness in the particular area of practice;
2. continuing professional development;
3. currency and scope of subject matter knowledge;
4. student and faculty feedback and feedback from employers of students; and
5. service to the department, college, and community.
(7)(5)(a) Each district board of trustees The college may terminate dismiss an full-time faculty employee under continuing contract, or return the employee to an annual contract, for failure to meet post-award performance criteria, or, for cause in accodance with college policies and procedures upon recommendation by the president and approval by the board. The president or designee shall notify the full-time faculty employee in writing of the recommendation, and upon approval by the board, shall afford the full-time faculty employee with the right to formally challenge the action a hearing in accordance with the policies and procedures of the college. As an alternative to the hearing rights provided by college polices and procedures, the employee may elect to request an administrative hearing in accordance with the guidelines of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, by filing a petition with the board within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the recommendation of the president.
(b) The board may dismiss a full-time faculty employee under continuing contract upon Upon 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) and (3), which full-time faculty employees to retain should be retained on a continuing or annual 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.
(8) In addition, each college, after receiving input from the faculty, shall develop appropriate criteria to measure student success, which may include but shall not be limited to the following factors, as appropriate: (i) demonstrated or documented learning gains, (ii) course completion rates, (iii) graduation and/or certification rates, (iv) continued success in subsequent and additional courses or educational pursuits and (v) job placements in the appropriate field. Such factors selected by the individual college shall be used, as appropriate, for the particular field of learning and the individual faculty member, as consideration in determining whether to grant a continuing contract pursuant to (3) above. Such factors shall also be used, as appropriate, in the review set forth in (6) above.
(9)(6) Any full-time faculty employee holding a continuing contract who accepts an offer of annual employment in a capacity other than that in which the continuing contract was awarded may be granted an administrative leave of absence pursuant to the college’s administrative rules.
(10) Each Board may award multiple year contracts, annual contracts or contracts less than one year to full-time faculty employees. No multiple year contract may exceed three (3) years. Each board that awards multiple year contracts, annual contracts or contracts less than one year shall establish rules and policies concerning such contracts.
(11)In order to provide for a transition period for full-time faculty in the process for being considered for continuing contracts, each board may provide an exemption from the time requirements set forth in paragraph (2)(a) of this rule for faculty personnel being considered for an award of a continuing contracts during the 2012-13, 2013-14 and the 2014-15 fiscal year. In addition, each board shall provide credit for satisfactory years of service incurred prior for purposes of determining eligibility for a continuing contract.
Specific Authority 1001.02(1), (9). 1012.83, 1012.855 FS. Law Implemented 1012.83 FS. History–Formerly 6A-8.33, Repromulgated 12-19-74, Amended 12-9-75, 2-14-77, 12-26-77, 7-16-79, Formerly 6A-14.411, Amended 7-20-04,


Monday, November 19, 2012

Notice of Development of Rulemaking


The Florida Department of Education is once again attempting to change college continuing contracts. Please take notice of the criteria for award of a continuing contract and the three year review and criteria.


Notice of Development of Rulemaking

RULE NO.: RULE TITLE:
6A-14.0411: Issuance of Continuing Contracts
PURPOSE AND EFFECT: The purpose of the rule development is to update the current process of issuing continuing contracts. The effect will be a rule aligned with Florida Statutes.
SUBJECT AREA TO BE ADDRESSED: Continuing Contracts.
RULEMAKING AUTHORITY: 1001.025(1), 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: November 29, 2012, 1:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.
PLACE: Seminole State College of Florida, Heathrow Campus, 1055 AAA Drive, Heathrow, FL 32746
THE PERSON TO BE CONTACTED REGARDING THE PROPOSED RULE DEVELOPMENT AND A COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY DRAFT, IF AVAILABLE, IS: Ms. Kasongo Butler, Assistant Chancellor, Division of Florida Colleges, Florida Department of Education, 325 W. Gaines Street, Suite 1544, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400; 850.245.9455; Kasongo.Butler@fldoe.org

THE PRELIMINARY TEXT OF THE PROPOSED RULE DEVELOPMENT IS:

6A-14.0411 Employment Contracts for Full Time Faculty Issuance of Continuing Contracts. Continuing contracts are to be awarded for service in a full-time faculty capacity as determined by the college consistent with the following rules.
(1) District Boards of Trustees shall develop, maintain and distribute a policy governing the issuance of contnuing contracts and other employment contracts for employees serving in a full time faculty capacity as determined by the college. Such policy shall be consistent with this rule.
(2)(1) In order to be eligible for a continuing contract, full-time faculty shall must meet the following minimum requirements:
(a) Completion Completing of a least five (5) three (3) years of satisfactory service in the same college except as provided below during a period not in excess of seven (7) five (5) years. In all cases, with such service shall be being continuous except for leave duly authorized and granted. The criteria established by the district board of trustees may also provide for including satisfactory service in other institutions of higher learning for purposes of this section.
(b) Receive the rRecommendation of by the president and approval by the board for a continuing contract based on successful performance of duties, and demonstration of professional competence pursuant to criteria establshed by the board and the needs of the college.
(c) Compliance with criteria established by the board pursuant to subsection (3) of this rule.
(3)(2) Each board shall establish criteria which must be met before a contiuing contract may be awarded. Other criteria for a continuing contract colleges may consider including, without limitation, 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. Colleges shall provide in writing to faculty a copy of the criteria for a continuing contract.
(a) Such criteria shall at a minimum include the following:
1. quantifiable measurable effectiveness in the particular area of practice.
2. continuing professional development;
3. currency and scope of subject matter knowledge,
4. student and faculty feedback and feedback from employers of students; and
5. service to department, college and community.
(b) Such criteria may include the following:
1. educational qualificiations, efficiency, compatability, learning outcomes, character;
2. capacity to meet the educational needs of the community;
3. the length of time the duties and responsibility of this position are expected to be needed; and
4. such other criteria as shall be included by the board.
(4) Each board may hire full-time faculty positions that are not eligible for continuing contract.
(3) The continuing contract shall be effective at the beginning of the annual college contractual periods.
(5)(4) Each employee issued a continuing contract shall be entitled to continue in their respective full-time a faculty position at the college without the necessity for annual nomination or reappointment until the individual employee resigns from the continuing contract or, except as otherwise provided subsection (7) of in this rule.
(6) Each board shall by policy establish post-award performance criteria for faculty under continuing contract. Periodic review of continuing contract faculty through post-award performance criteria is intended to contribute to their continuing growth and development.
(a) Periodic review shall occur at least every three (3) years.
(b) Periodic review shall include, but not be limited to, factors as evidence of:
1. quantifiable measurable effectiveness in the particular area of practice;
2. continuing professional development;
3. currency and scope of subject matter knowledge;
4. student and faculty feedback and feedback from employers of students; and
5. service to the department, college, and community.
(7)(5)(a) Each district board of trustees The college may terminate dismiss an full-time faculty employee under continuing contract, or return the employee to an annual contract, for failure to meet post-award performance criteria, or, for cause in accodance with college policies and procedures upon recommendation by the president and approval by the board. The president or designee shall notify the full-time faculty employee in writing of the recommendation, and upon approval by the board, shall afford the full-time faculty employee with the right to formally challenge the action a hearing in accordance with the policies and procedures of the college. As an alternative to the hearing rights provided by college polices and procedures, the employee may elect to request an administrative hearing in accordance with the guidelines of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, by filing a petition with the board within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the recommendation of the president.
(b) The board may dismiss a full-time faculty employee under continuing contract upon Upon 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) and (3), which full-time faculty employees to retain should be retained on a continuing or annual 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.
(8) In addition, each college, after receiving input from the faculty, shall develop appropriate criteria to measure student success, which may include but shall not be limited to the following factors, as appropriate: (i) demonstrated or documented learning gains, (ii) course completion rates, (iii) graduation and/or certification rates, (iv) continued success in subsequent and additional courses or educational pursuits and (v) job placements in the appropriate field. Such factors selected by the individual college shall be used, as appropriate, for the particular field of learning and the individual faculty member, as consideration in determining whether to grant a continuing contract pursuant to (3) above. Such factors shall also be used, as appropriate, in the review set forth in (6) above.
(9)(6) Any full-time faculty employee holding a continuing contract who accepts an offer of annual employment in a capacity other than that in which the continuing contract was awarded may be granted an administrative leave of absence pursuant to the college’s administrative rules.
(10) Each Board may award multiple year contracts, annual contracts or contracts less than one year to full-time faculty employees. No multiple year contract may exceed three (3) years. Each board that awards multiple year contracts, annual contracts or contracts less than one year shall establish rules and policies concerning such contracts.
(11)In order to provide for a transition period for full-time faculty in the process for being considered for continuing contracts, each board may provide an exemption from the time requirements set forth in paragraph (2)(a) of this rule for faculty personnel being considered for an award of a continuing contracts during the 2012-13, 2013-14 and the 2014-15 fiscal year. In addition, each board shall provide credit for satisfactory years of service incurred prior for purposes of determining eligibility for a continuing contract.
Specific Authority 1001.02(1), (9). 1012.83, 1012.855 FS. Law Implemented 1012.83 FS. History–Formerly 6A-8.33, Repromulgated 12-19-74, Amended 12-9-75, 2-14-77, 12-26-77, 7-16-79, Formerly 6A-14.411, Amended 7-20-04,


Monday, November 5, 2012

More STEM Majors Won’t Solve Higher Education’s Problems


To UFF Senators

 

More STEM Majors Won’t Solve Higher Education’s Problems

November 1, 2012, 1:44 pm
Charge art-history majors more for their degrees than biology students? Yes, according to the new draft proposal of Gov. Rick Scott’s Florida Blue Ribbon Task Force on State Higher Education Reform. The panel proposes to keep tuition flat for degrees in “strategic areas of emphasis,” which include science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields; health professions; “high demand” education fields; and (oddly) globalization; while raising it in all other areas.
This has a certain logic to it: Why waste taxpayer dollars subsidizing students who study “useless” subjects in college, like philosophy or history? Why not encourage them to go into practical fields, like science and engineering? But this proposal is misguided on multiple levels.
First, the folks pushing STEM degrees clearly haven’t talked to a lot of biology majors.Or chemists. Sure, everyone knows the petroleum engineers are raking it in. But even after Ph.D.’s, many STEM folks are stuck in postdoc hell, and midcareer, the median salary of a biology major is more than $13,000 a year less than her counterpart in political science. Heck, she even comes in almost $4,000 behind the much-maligned film major. Besides, if this is about encouraging students to go into—and I quote—“high-skill, high-demand, high-wage degrees (market determined),” why give the subsidy to STEM? Why not give it to finance majors ($23,500 above the poor biologists) or economists (almost $34,000 above)?
Second, there’s no reason to think this would help Florida economically. If the state wants to align higher education with the needs of business, it should take a look atsurveys of employers, who indicate, year after year, that what they most want from college grads is “the ability to effectively communicate” and “critical thinking and analytical reasoning skills”—classic hallmarks of a liberal arts education. And studies like Academically Adrift show that it’s the humanities and social sciences, as well as the natural sciences, that lead to measurable improvements in critical thinking.
The task force also attempts to make the state higher-education system align more closely with metrics of success identified by Complete College America, whose platform has been embraced by the National Governors Association. As the name suggests, these are heavily tilted toward increasing retention and graduation.
Of course, if you reward an outcome, you do get more of it. And if governments decide they’re rewarding completion, what they’re going to get is completion—colleges shoving students on through, whether they’ve learned anything or not. Having more college graduates with degrees that mean less is hardly going to help Florida or any other state.
If Florida wants to do something that will have returns in the long run, it should be taking a much different approach. It needs to be making college more rigorous, not demanding that more students graduate no matter what. As time-use studies have shown, full-time college students average only 27 hours a week on classes and studying, a 50-percent drop from 40 years before. And grade inflation means that 43 percent of those students will receive A’s, which means they have less incentive to work hard in their classes.
Florida should also ignore the old canard that what we desperately need is more scientists. Sure, a STEM program can provide an outstanding education, and it’s hard not to admire STEM’s reputation for rigor. But students also learn communication and critical thinking through a good old-fashioned liberal-arts education of the sort that has become a bugbear for politicians.
To make rigor possible, Florida needs to provide plenty of remedial support, via community colleges, for students who aren’t ready to handle a challenging curriculum after high school. States like Connecticut are simply declaring that students should enter college ready for college-level work, and ending remedial classes at community colleges. But wishing doesn’t make it so, and declaring that students should complete their associate’s degrees in two years whether or not they arrive at college literate or numerate is the real waste of taxpayer dollars.
Finally, Florida and other states need to support a professoriate with the autonomy and security to keep standards high. As any casual reader of the Chronicle forums knows, all too often administrators pressure faculty to pass students or excuse them from cheating in the name of retention. At least tenured and tenure-track faculty have the job security to resist such inappropriate demands. But in a higher-education system  where two-thirds of faculty are not tenure track and earn a median of $2,700 a class, and where faculty are rewarded based on student evaluations that are significantly correlated with grades, how many are in a position to push back?
But this is not the direction that Florida is going. Governor Scott has argued for greater reliance on student evaluations while cutting $300-million from Florida’s universities this year alone, and has announced that he’s looking to Texas as a model for the future. In an environment like this, giving a discount to STEM majors isn’t going to make one thin dime of difference.
Elizabeth Popp Berman is assistant professor of sociology at the State University of New York at Albany.

Ed Mitchell
Executive Director 
United Faculty of Florida
FEA, NEA, AFT, AFL-CIO 
850-224-8220 Fax: 850-222-1767
(813) 240-9301 - Cell

Thursday, May 31, 2012

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! 







              


Thursday, May 24, 2012

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 - Cell
Ed.Mitchell@floridaea.org
www.UnitedFacultyofFlorida.org



Notice of Development of Rulemaking



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.

Thursday, May 10, 2012

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?