Jim Mahler just sunshined an amazing new contract bargaining agreement (CBA) for the San Diego Community College District (SDCCD), which will effect the working conditions of approximately 2,000 adjuncts from Mesa, City, Miramar, and the Continuing Education. Mahler likes to split up negotiations between economic and non-economic bargaining issues, and although this round is “non-economic” it could result in you making a lot more money and getting some nice perks, so it is worth your while to read it carefully, and ask questions if you are not completely clear about how to interpret the contract language, BEFORE you vote on it. It is much easier to get it right the first time than try to change things after the contract becomes established.
The reaction of Full-Time faculty has been mixed. Adjunct allies see this is a first step towards achieving equity and resolving a major contradiction in our educational community. Some Chairs see their privileges challenged and are organizing to defend them, as seen in the letter below by a handful of Full-Time Faculty from Mesa College.
Please take the time to read the entire contract, not just the summary, and include your comments or questions directly onto our google doc version, or as a comment to this post, or if you prefer to remain anonymous, just email us. We will attempt to synthesize them during an open forum on Friday, April 27, 12-3pm, at Mesa College in room G-108 at Mesa College. We will then present them at the next AFT general meeting on May 3rd.
Judging from past experience, Mahler will attempt to stifle any discussion about the contract, and ask you to rubber stamp it. It is essential that we adjuncts stay mobilized to insure that the good parts of this DRAFT are realized, and to keep pushing for an even better contract in the future.
“All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume.” – Noam Chomsky
Here is Mahler’s summary with provisions especially relevant to adjuncts in italics:
AFT Guild, Local 1931
Summary of Proposed Changes to SDCCD Faculty Contract
for the term July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2021
ARTICLE II – RECOGNITION
1. Clarifies that faculty in an acting or interim managerial role are out of the faculty bargaining unit for the duration of that assignment.
ARTICLE III – SAFETY
1. Requires inside locking doors or alternative safety locking mechanism that would keep students and faculty safe in the event of a physical threat of violence no later than July 1, 2019.
2. Establishes a minimum of one Community Service Officer at each Continuing Education Campus, ten at each City College and Mesa College, and six at Miramar College during all hours the particular site is open to the public.
ARTICLE IV – GRIEVANCE
1. Updates binding arbitration language to comply with Code of Civil Procedure §1286.2.
2. Applies binding arbitration to all grievances.
ARTICLE V – ADJUNCT FACULTY
1. Requires 15 day notice of all assignments prior to start date.
2. Clarifies that load maximum is 67% during any one academic year.
3. Assignments to be scheduled in such a way to minimize the amount of driving necessary to fulfill work obligations.
4. Sets Priority of Assignment (POA) seniority date as initial date of hire in discipline.
5. Makes POA status automatic after successful completion of six semesters.
6. Notification of assignment cancellation must be within two working days of the cancellation.
7. One week of pay for the cancellation of any assignment once an assignment offer has been made.
8. Two weeks of pay for the cancellation of any assignment if the cancellation happens less than one week prior to the start of the semester.
9. Clarifies retirement/POA options.
10. Maintenance of POA rights if class cancellation takes place subsequent to issuance of TAO.
11. No class closure allowed while adjunct faculty member out on sick leave.
12. More closely aligns all POA provisions between college and CE.
13. District annual notification to AFT of adjunct work areas on each campus.
14. Allows college/CE and classroom/non-classroom combination assignments.
15. Mandates a minimum of six adjunct faculty to be interviewed for each tenure-track position opening.
ARTICLE VI – WORKING CONDITIONS
1. Computing equipment must be less than three years old.
2. Access codes to be provided for printing confidential information on shared printers.
3. Lactation rooms with adequate accoutrements to make for a safe and hygienic space.
4. Maintenance of SDCCD email address and parking permit upon retirement.
5. No reserved parking spaces allowed in faculty/staff lots.
6. Adequate personnel (Parcaderos) provided to monitor for proper permits in faculty/staff lots during first two weeks of the semester.
ARTICLE VII – WORK LOAD
1. Alignment of all CE/College non-classroom faculty assigned hours.
2. Class cap of 25 for any course for which the official course outline requires at least 6,000 words of graded, written work.
3. Multiple unique course preparations assigned concurrently to be compensated as if the member taught each unique preparation separately (e.g., assigned to teach Italian III & IV at same time in same room, need to be paid for each Italian III and IV as if they were taught as separate classes).
4. Limits on summer and intersession assignments in college programs to ensure fair distribution of assignments among contract and adjunct faculty.
5. Online class sections not to exceed on-campus enrollment cap maximums.
6. Compensation must be provided for any online related mandatory trainings.
7. Faculty teaching online for the first time shall receive an additional stipend of four ESUs.
ARTICLE VIII –SALARY
1. Updates Tenure and Promotional Review Committee and CAP language to reflect current practices.
2. Increases ESUs for head coaches.
3. Increases number of paid Assistant Coaches for Swimming and Track & Field.
4. Mandates compensation for adjunct faculty performing shared governance committee work.
ARTICLE IX – ACADEMIC DEPARTMENTS
1. Ensures all chairs of non-classroom departments to be assigned on an 11-month basis.
2. Updates reassigned time for CE Program Chairs and Assistant Program Chairs.
3. Allows college adjunct faculty with more than six semesters of service to vote in Department Chair elections.
4. Allows adjunct faculty with POA to run for Program Chair or Assistant Program Chair in CE.
5. Adds election procedures for Council of Chairs and Coordinators at each campus.
6. AFT to adjudicate disputes in the elections processes for Chairs.
ARTICLE X – BENEFITS
1. Aligns qualifications rules between CE and college adjunct faculty.
2. Allows adjunct faculty with less than a 50% FTEF load partial paid access to healthcare benefits.
3. Includes CE tenured faculty in AFT post-retirement benefits pool.
4. Allows all retirees currently receiving benefits to optionally purchase District dental and vision benefits after age 65.
5. Increases dual-coverage stipend waiver to $1,500, and indexes it for inflation.
6. Allows adjunct faculty to participate in all pre-tax Flex plans, equal to contract faculty.
ARTICLE XI – LEAVES
1. Provides for fully paid maternity leave.
2. Updates legislative leave provisions to comply with current Ed Code.
3. Updates parental leave provisions to comply with current Ed Code.
4. Expands catastrophic leave donations to 64 hours per fiscal year.
ARTICLE XII – RIGHTS OF PARTIES
1. Increases Academic Senate reassigned time to 3.0 FTEF per senate.
ARTICLE XV – EVALUATION
1. Updates Tenure and Promotional Review Committee and CAP language to reflect current practices.
2. Variety of technical changes to comply with current practices.
3. Places CE counselors within the evaluation purview of CE.
4. Prompt notification to evaluee of committee actions and reviews.
5. Clarifies required submission items for adjunct evaluees.
ARTICLE XVIII – PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
1. Makes adjunct faculty eligible for sabbaticals.
2. Places CE counselors within the professional development purview of CE.
ARTICLE XIX – AFT MEMBERSHIP DUES
1. Updates legal language in light of upcoming US Supreme Court ruling.
2. Provides for maintenance of membership language.
ARTICLE XXVII – DURATION AND CONDITIONS
1. Three year agreement: July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2021.
APPENDICES
1. Updated evaluation forms for librarians and mental health counselors.
Please read the full version here and include your comments and suggestions:
It is critical that we adjuncts actively participate in this process otherwise, our Union will let the good parts of the contract proposal die on the negotiating table. Full-time faculty are actively organizing to defend their privilege, and hoping that adjuncts stay in the shadows. Below is a letter circulated by a group of Full-time Faculty at Mesa College:
To: Jim Mahler and AFT Guild Executive Council
Re: SDCCD Faculty – Initial Contract Proposal for Period 7/1/18 – 6/30/21
We wish to express our opposition to the proposed changes below:
5.2.3.1 Adjunct faculty who have completed eight (8)six (6)semesters (fall/spring semesters only)of service within an eight (8)a six (6)year period within a specific discipline at a particular college or within a specific discipline in continuing education will become eligible tobegin their participation in the priority of assignment process in that discipline. Priority of Assignment rights shall automatically begin at the start of the seventh (7th) assigned semester.
We recognize that good adjunct instructors should have the right to job security. However, we feel that the current process already provides that and the proposed changes will adversely impact students and adjunct faculty.
The obvious argument in favor of this proposed change is that if an adjunct is good enough to be kept on that long, they deserve protection. The reality, however, is more complex.
Adjuncts are recommended to deans – chairs don’t hire – and the requirement for evaluation is minimal. Not all chairs will insist on additional evaluations for a variety of reasons. Our faculty are already overloaded doing even the minimal evaluations as our departments are not even close to being sufficiently staffed by contract faculty. Sometimes, adjuncts who are weak slip through the cracks, but a requirement that they apply for POA can alert a chair and prevent a bad situation from becoming permanent.Unless one has been a very overworked department chair, one cannot appreciate how many metaphorical balls are being juggled and how easy it would be for a mediocre (or worse) instructor to end up with POA. It has happened before under the current system. It would happen so much more easily under the proposed system
Then there are the competent, but not good instructors. Why do we keep them on? Because we have too many vacancies to fill and they are competent. However, during times of contraction, these adequate adjuncts can end up having priority over really good instructors, simply because they were here first. Thus, seniority can override excellence. This leads to poorer quality instruction and worse working conditions for certain adjuncts.
The current process serves to protect students and to allow the best adjuncts to be rewarded on their merit. It provides a modicum of a safety net. The automatic assignment of POA goes against the interests of students and the best adjunct instructors. Contract faculty are hired through a very rigorous process and under no circumstances are they automatically given tenure, yet this proposed change leads to essentially automatic tenure of adjunct faculty hired through a much less rigorous process.
Additionally, even after contract faculty receive tenure, they are still required to complete two classes of student evaluations each year, ideally one class per semester. Currently, adjunct faculty must be peer evaluated within the first year of employment, and are only required to complete a student evaluation once every six semesterswith subsequent evaluations. Why aren’t adjuncts held at least to the same student evaluation standard as contract faculty? Even this small change may help alert the department to a potential problem sooner. Under the proposed changes, an adjunct faculty member will have had only one required additional peer evaluation and one required student evaluation (within two semesters of qualifyingfor POA) before they will be automatically granted the equivalent of tenure.
Other Serious Concerns:
5.3 Assignments to be scheduled in such a way to minimize the amount of driving necessary to fulfill work obligations.
On its face this seems fair but in reality may prove problematic. Do we bump long-standing adjuncts in favor of a new one with a shorter distance to travel? Do we offer a new adjunct a smaller load to avoid them having to drive more?
5.11 No class closure allowed while an adjunct faculty member out on sick leave.
So, for example, if a zoology adjunct is out on extended sick leave, and we have no qualified instructor, we must continue to offer the class with any warm body with an FSA in biology?
5.15 Mandates a minimum of six adjunct faculty to be interviewed for each tenure-track position offered.
Unnecessary – they can apply based on their qualifications, not their longevity. This is totally unfair to students and contract faculty because current hiring does not allow us to include written application in our final consideration, so an experienced, highly trained applicant may be “bumped” by somebody who is calmer during interviews, but would not make the cut to get an interview. This is also unfair to adjuncts by getting their hopes up simply because we need to invite a certain number. For example, there is currently one (1) adjunct qualified to teach botany. How does anybodybenefit from interviewing 5 unqualified adjuncts? The hiring process is broken, but this is not the cure.
7.4. Limits on summer and intersession assignments in college programs to ensure fair distribution of assignments among contract and adjunct faculty.
We realize that some departments may have a problem with weaker contract faculty taking on all the summer teaching. However, other departments wish to select the best suited faculty and this may often mean the contract faculty. We oppose any one-size-fits-all solutions which may inhibit student success.
9.3. Allows college adjunct faculty with more than six semesters of service to vote in Department Chair elections.
Adjunct faculty are mainly on campus to teach. In large departments, they may not know any contract faculty beyond the chair who hired them; certainly not all contract faculty. They have difficulty even coming up with people they feel comfortable asking to be their evaluators. They are usually not involved in nonteaching support activities that are critical to the departments and the school and generally have limited knowledge of issues that are relevant. We realize that this may make sense for very small departments with a few contract faculty and a body of long-time adjuncts, but for larger departments this makes no real sense.
18.1. Makes adjunct faculty eligible for sabbaticals.
Sabbaticals are competitive already. Contract faculty are hired under very strict criteria and evaluated often and stringently. If adjuncts are to receive all the benefits earned by contract faculty, then they should be required to meet the same hiring criteria. As they are not, and the same work obligations are not demanded of them, they should not receive all the benefits earned by contract faculty, most especially when doing so comes at a cost to students, contract faculty, and even other adjuncts.
We strongly oppose the proposed changes to the contract language, and will be voting “no” on ratification if the contract language goes through as proposed.
Respectfully,
Current and past department chairs:
San Diego Mesa Biology Department:
Anar Brahmbhatt Kevin Krown
Bill Brothers Leslie Seiger
Jan Clymer Paul Sykes
Anne Geller
San Diego Mesa Chemistry Department:
Donna Budzynski
San Diego Mesa Mathematics Department:
Phyllis Meckstroth
Here is what was distributed to the AFT Guild General Meeting:
SDAFA Preliminary Response to Contract Proposal
5/3/18
Adjunct faculty who are members of the San Diego Adjunct Faculty Association and the American Federation of Teachers Local 1931 present the following response to the March contract proposal sunshined by Jim Mahler. We arrived at this response through an ongoing process of eliciting discussion on a shared Google document, a website article accessible via (https://www.sdafa.org/sdccd2018cba/), through an open forum (4/27/18), and an online survey. The following summary highlights a few important points from this process, but is in no way meant to represent a definitive Adjunct position as this conversation is continuing.
Eliminate two tier contract language.
This includes two barriers to unity: Adjunct versus Full-Timer, and College Adjunct versus Continuing Education Adjunct. Language should be corrected to give equal privileges to all faculty. Take out the hedges and loopholes that weaken the Adjunct provisions of the contract. Ensure due process and grievability. Make the contract protect those who are most vulnerable.
Set the Priority of Assignment (PoA) seniority date as initial date of hire in the discipline.
This was our most contested issue, however, our survey overwhelmingly supported first-date-of-hire as the preferred way to establish seniority.
Make PoA status automatic after successful completion of six semesters.
Adjuncts overwhelming supported returning to the six semester criteria, and agreed with making PoA automatic. We hope that further contract language improvements in the evaluation section will avoid the expected churning of Adjuncts after 5 semesters.
Mandate a minimum of six adjunct faculty to be interviewed for each tenure-track position opening.
Adjuncts supported this change and hope it is the first step in moving towards better contract provisions similar to CCSF/AFT 2121 and the Vancouver Model.
Mandate compensation for adjunct faculty performing shared governance committee work at the non-classroom hourly rate.
Adjuncts support this change, but hope you will clarify the language and fund it.
Compensation must be provided for any online related mandatory trainings.
Adjuncts overwhelmingly support being paid for the work they do.
Allow adjuncts to select additional assignments from the pool of available assignments.
Returning to this contract language will provide Adjuncts with protection from unscrupulous Chairs and Deans who use class scheduling to punish Adjuncts.
Adjunct Faculty with PoA should be offered their statutory maximum FTEF before Contract Faculty overload classes are assigned.
The survey showed that Adjuncts strongly resent the privilege of overload eroding their attempts to make a living wage. Adjuncts want to teach more classes at fewer campuses.
Any person working for SDCCD, attending SDCCD classes or programs (on or off campus), and/or is employed by AFT and has requested, received, or been placed under a restraining order or order of protection from a court must inform Campus Police and their Supervisor or their Instructor(s) (as applicable) within 24 hours of the court’s actions.
Several adjuncts were strongly affected by the lack of protection provided by the contract.
For further recommendations and clarifications, please review and contribute to the ongoing discussions at: https://www.sdafa.org/sdccd2018cba/
Just after “Appendices” there is a blue link that says “Click Here.” It is important to do that and go through all pages of the contract to see the many changes and additions that SDAFA members have proposed. You can tell them because they are in a color of ink other than black.
I am concerned with the POA for one of the reasons highlighted in the letter. There are faculty in my department that have been teaching longer, and we have a very POA friendly department, but these adjuncts have selected not to proceed with it. The reason I would imagine, is because we were told (YEARS AGO) that if we did not get it, we would not be able to teach at any college in the SDCCD District. I applied and leapfrogged several colleagues who opted not to apply. I earned it.
Now, I agree we should offer the POA for hires after 6 semesters, but it should not begin at hire date, which then completely restructures the POA in my department, letting the older instructors who opted not to risk it leapfrog me. Instead why not make it by contract date, or phase it in over the next three semesters where new evaluations can be done. I had to go through an additional evaluation, so did every other current POA Adjunct. It is ok that we give Full time faculty time to reevaluate the new POA adjuncts, and they can prioritize new POA evaluations by hire date so that schedules still have a priority list. But all the new POA adjuncts should not be able to leapfrog over the rest of us who have done our due diligence. I understand all departments may not work like mine, may not be as supportive, however, those of us who did risk it that should still be worth something.
Personally… I would like to see us be able to transfer POA to another campus (With new chairs approval.) At this rate I have a 60% contract and would like to teach at another college because I have been passed over too many times for full time. However I can not risk my 60% contract with POA and health insurance to become involved on another SDCCD campus. I can not risk being the “newbie” again.
Appraisal Form Behaviors:
Example Behaviors are provided for each Criteria in the Adjunct Faculty Appraisal Form. Be sure the contract clearly requires that the Performance Review written by the evaluator for a Criteria relates both adverse and positive comments to the Behaviors that are listed (or similar to those listed) for that Criteria. I have been told that it does, but others have indicated that this requirement could not be found.
One suggestion I would like to see included is more mentorship between adjuncts and full time faculty. I suggested more collaboration within my department including more mid-semester meetings during my last evaluation. My suggestion has been implemented with no credit given to me because the full timer who evaluated me wanted the limelight. Frustrating. I would like the opportunity to randomly attend the lecture of a fellow full time instructor to see what makes him/her a star over a lowly part-timer such as myself. I also think that all department expectations regarding paper lengths, tests, etc should be clearly stated. SLOs are not enough information. Gaslighting adjuncts only worsens the problem when one teaches on multiple campuses.
I agree that mentoring should be included the contract. It was also discussed in the SDAFA meeting on Friday, April 27th. Mentoring would encourage exchange of ideas between faculty and their peers (and Chairs). My recommendation is to use the Adjunct Faculty Appraisal Form, with the understanding that negative ratings would not adversely impact assignments and POAs. Require mentoring at least for the two semesters before the formal evaluation takes place.
If management feels mentoring would be too burdensome, then modify this proposal to stop the mentoring (and evaluation) process if the instructor being mentored receives a good rating.
I have been an adjunct faculty member for 21 years and have applied for full time position 6 times. Now that I am nearing retirement age, I have decided that a full time position is not as important to me as being able to continue to teach part time. I enjoy a lot of job security because of the subject I teach and although priority of assignment would probably have some benefit to me, I don’t rely on it as the working of this “benefit” is quite loose and doesn’t really meet the objective of preserving my “spot” in the teaching line up. I kind of agree with the faculty who wrote this letter and the problems with the proposed contract. My opinion is that we should be pushing for more full time positions where there is an obvious need (as in there are 6 sections of physiology but only one full time instructor). Unless the college needs to be able to add and subtract up to 4 sections per semester there is a need for another full time physio instructor. This is where we should be focussing our attention. This would end up solving a lot of the existing problems with the adjunct contract.
Thanks Mary! I’m sorry you’ve given-up on getting the full-time position, but I understand your frustration. It’s great that you’ve had a good relationship with your Chairs and Deans and don’t need a contract to enforce that. That’s the ideal! Unfortunately; we hear horror stories about vindictive Chairs and Deans going out of their way to make the lives of Adjuncts miserable, and that’s what we need a contract for, to protect the most vulnerable. If we had a Vancouver Model here, or the Upgrading provision of AFT 2121, you would probably have a full-time postion by now. When we hire full-timers from within the adjunct pool, it minimizes the effect on the remaining adjuncts. I agree that moving adjuncts to full-time faculty is part of the solution, and that every time you see 5 of the same section taught by Adjuncts, that should be a full-timer. The ratio of adjuncts to full-timers is supposed to be 25:75, but it’s the reverse. They do it because we’re cheap. As soon as Adjuncts become more expensive than Full-timers, we will all get the jobs we want. The problem with putting all our attention on hiring more Full-time faculty, is that we’re still going to need to address the exploitation of the remaining adjuncts.
I have a lot of problems with the proposed contract, but I find it hard to believe that after 21 years of experience that you are less qualified to vote on who should be Chair of your department, than a Full-Timer who was hired last year? Have you internalized our two-tier system to the point that you feel you don’t deserve a sabbatical?