Last month, SDAFA Vice Chair David Milroy, who is also Director of Administration for the California Part-time Faculty Association (CPFA), sent out a survey to adjuncts in San Diego County regarding raising the statutory limit on teaching load. His email briefly detailed the history of how CPFA had worked on the 2007/8 bill that raised the cap from 60% to 67%. AFT Guild 1931 President Jim Mahler, who represents both the San Diego and Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College Districts, responded with a scathing email claiming that it was not CPFA but CFT, CTA, and FACCC that got the legislation passed. In response to this, CPFA Chair John Martin wrote a letter to set the record straight with details about the who, what, and when of the process that led to the current law being passed. The exchange is below.
On Jun 16, 2018, at 10:31 AM, David Milroy <dmilroy@sdccd.edu> wrote:
Dear Part-Time Faculty colleagues,
Part-time or adjunct faculty in the California Community College system were originally limited to teaching 60% of a full-time load of 15 units.
In 2007, CPFA succeeded in passing legislation with Assemblymember Mervyn Dymally which increased that load from 60% to 67%. The original goal had been 80%, which would have allowed a PTer to teach four 3-unit courses in one college instead of teaching two courses in one college and having to drive to another district to teach two more classes as a “freeway-flier”. Sadly, the 80% language was killed by one of the faculty unions and CPFA was obliged to settle for the 67% load limit, which was better but not ideal.
CPFA is currently working with other faculty associations and unions to increase the limit to 80% or possibly 100%, which is the load limit for lecturers in the California State University system.
What are your thoughts on the subject? Please follow the link to the CPFA 67% Survey and answer the three simple questions. Please add any comments you would like to make to clarify your responses. Many thanks for your time and interest in part-time faculty issues!
Most sincerely,
David Milroy
Director of Administration
CPFA.ORG TAKE SURVEY
From: Jim Mahler [aftjim@mac.com]
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 12:19 PM
To: David Milroy
Subject: Re: What do YOU think of the 67% part-time teaching load limit?
David,
It is totally misleading and disingenuous for you to claim that CPFA succeeded in passing this legislation. As you can readily see by clicking here and visiting the legislature’s website, the organizations listed in support were the California Federation of Teachers (CFT), the California Teachers Association (CTA), and the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges (FACCC). CPFA is not listed in support. Additionally, CPFA is not even an entity that is respected or acknowledged in the Capitol.
Also, as you are well aware since you were present for the vote, at the CFT Convention last spring we voted to seek legislation during the next legislative session to increase the percentage allowable from 67% to 80%. CFT is already taking the lead on this.
I personally do not appreciate you trying to take credit for the legislative victories of the CFT.
In Unity,
Jim
Jim Mahler, President
AFT Guild, Local 1931
July 25, 2018
From: John Martin, John Martin, CPFA Chair
Stacey Burks, President Butte College Part-Time Faculty Association (PFA-UPTE)
To: Jim Mahler
Cc: Adjunct Faculty of the San Diego CC District
Dear Mr. Mahler and SDCCD Adjunct Faculty,
Our friends and supporters with the California Part-time Faculty Association read your email in response to David Milroy’s efforts to engage your constituents on their thoughts on the current 67% law and how they might react to the possibility of raising the cap again. Upon reading your short history of how the 67% law became law, it is clear that you don’t know the inner-workings of what actually transpired. It is also clear that you were not there when the law was changed from 60% to 67%, and so it is important that I set the record straight about this section of the Ed Code not only on behalf of CPFA, but also for those who worked alongside us. To be clear, it was CPFA, and not the California Federation of Teachers, that initiated the necessary changes and then took the necessary steps to see it pass through the legislature.
During the winter and spring of 2007-2008, Peg McCormack (Butte) worked directly for Assemblymember Mervyn Dymally as a paid legislative staff member. She was also an active member of CPFA and worked very closely with our Executive Council and other activists within CPFA. It is crucial for everyone to know that Peg was there to facilitate raising of the cap and this was her only duty at the time. Furthermore, Robert Yoshioka (Allan Hancock), was CPFA’s Legislative Analyst at the time and was directly involved when in Sacramento. These two worked tirelessly during late fall and winter of 2007-08 on changing the unfair cap. You are aware that no other higher education system in either California or in this country has an arbitrary cap like the one imposed on California’s Community College part-time faculty. There is no such cap within the CSU and UC systems either.
When crafting language, Peg, Robert, and other activists like myself began by drafting language to raise the cap to 100% but then later offered 80% to other community college organizations like CFT. This proposed compromise of 80% felt right to us, so Peg organized a meeting with all the stakeholders in Dymally’s office in January. All of us who were there that day in January have a clear memory of what transpired: an unforgettable, angry storm of protest that erupted from the representatives from CFT.
It is that storm of protest that I wish to address. It was brutal, uncivil and fueled by lies and half-truths. A high powered CFT lobbyist, Judith Michaels, packed the room with CFT full-time faculty members from Los Rios, among them was Dean Murakami (American River). At this meeting, the CFT contingent tossed out absurd arguments, saying that raising the cap to 80% would destroy tenure (ignoring completely that legislative funding was the REAL reason why more full-time hires hadn’t been happening) and that it would hurt part-time faculty because they would be “exploited” (as if limiting the number of classes that one can teach in a single District causing most to commute to other Districts is not “exploitive.” And seriously, who anointed full-timers to be the adjuncts’ keepers?).
CFT attacked Assemblymember Dymally with various political threats that they carried out and that were instrumental in depriving Assemblymember Dymally of an endorsement from the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, which is the reason for Mr. Dymally’s unsuccessful effort to win a seat in the California Senate. The lies and threats worked. CFT knows how to play political hard ball. These tactics are nothing unusual in Sacramento, but the mean-spiritedness, mendacity, and viciousness were new to us in CPFA. The lies and threats worked. Instead of collaboration and trying to reach a consensus, what transpired in the Assembly member’s office that day was anything but cooperative and union spirited. CPFA’s activists who were there were stunned and shocked by such insulting and bullying behavior.
After CFT’s minions left, Assemblymember Dymally was disheartened by their immature behavior and asked us to see if we could come up with something else and then, severely distraught, he walked out. Thus, the “compromise” for 80% didn’t materialize due to this infamous meeting and CFT’s interference.
In addition to Peg McCormack and David Milroy of Mesa College, Stacey Burks, president of Butte College’s PFA, Pamela Hanford of Shasta, and Bob Pierce of Butte College were in the office at this time. All of the aforementioned were CPFA activists who were working collectively at Dymally’s request to rewrite the bill. It is worth noting that David Hawkins, former California Faculty Association advocate, now with CCCI and Andrea York (Faculty Association of California Community Colleges) were there as well. Once the new draft that dropped the proposed cap from 80% to 67% was completed, Peg took it to Legislative Council and the next day we had a new bill that Mr. Dymally agreed to carry.
That bill passed, and I will say, our CWA legislative advocate at the time worked for this bill every step of the way. It was only after it cleared the Assembly that CFT saw the handwriting on the wall and jumped on board along with other fair-weather friends of part-time faculty. [Note: CPFA was late writing a Support letter during the final stages of this bill, which is why there is no record of one from CPFA.]
Though Mr. Mahler was not privy to this information because he was not present, CPFA hopes this correction to CFT’s revisionist history describing the creation of the bill that changed the cap will enable those reading this letter to have a better understanding of the true history of how the 67% cap came into being.
In closing, if it weren’t for CPFA’s dedicated and direct involvement in Sacramento, the 67% law would never have seen the light of day. CPFA initiated the process. CPFA wrote the bill and worked to get it signed by the Governor. Most importantly, CPFA had its own people in Sacramento to get this changed. Period.
We look forward to working with CFT and other stakeholders in Sacramento again to raise the current 67% cap to the 80% level during the next legislative cycle.
See also the attached reports on AB 591 from the Assembly Committee on Higher Education hearing on April 17, 2007, wherein CPFA is listed as the co-sponsor of the bill on pg. 5 and the Senate Floor Analysis on June 18, 2008, showing the substantially watered-down bill that passed both houses and was signed into law.
